Plus Ultra Case: The appraisal of the jewels seized in Zapatero's office raises their value to 1.3 million euros

Current procedural status of the Plus Ultra case and next steps in the National Court

As of today, June 11, 2026, the Plus Ultra case is in the investigation phase at the National Court, in the Central Investigative Court No. 4, under the direction of Judge José Luis Calama and with much of the procedure still under summary secrecy. Neither an order to open oral trial nor a final resolution to dismiss the case has been issued, so the process remains open and under investigation. Relevant proceedings are pending, including the declaration as an investigated party of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and other actions linked to a parallel file for alleged influence peddling. The foreseeable next steps involve completing these proceedings, deciding on maintaining or lifting the secrecy, and subsequently deciding whether to prosecute the investigated parties or decree dismissal.

Competent body and procedural phase

The National Court has assumed jurisdiction over the case investigating SEPI's public aid to the airline Plus Ultra. According to the reference information, the matter is in the hands of the Central Investigative Court No. 4, whose presiding judge is José Luis Calama. The case is processed in the investigation phase, with no public record of an order of prosecution or opening of oral trial.

Various media, such as El País, RTVE, and El Demócrata, agree that the procedure is under secrecy, although a partial lifting has been agreed that allows the parties involved to access part of the summary. Simultaneously, a parallel investigation for alleged influence peddling has been opened or extended, also under secrecy, as detailed by Cadena SER.

Investigated persons and status of accusations

Among the main investigated parties is former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, summoned as an investigated party for alleged money laundering and as the supposed head of a “stable and hierarchical structure of influence peddling,” according to information gathered by El Demócrata, Newtral, and other media. His statement was initially scheduled for June 2, 2026, but his defense requested a postponement at the end of May, pending a new date.

Also listed as investigated are Plus Ultra executives (including its president and CEO) and businessmen linked to the company’s environment, according to coverage by Confilegal and the profile on Presuntamente.org. Regarding popular accusations, Judge Calama has granted the People’s Party a central coordinating role among the popular accusations, a decision on which other parties, such as Vox, have shown disagreements, generating incidents and possible appeals, as reported by El Demócrata.

Pending proceedings and immediate schedule

Immediately, the key piece is the appearance of Zapatero as an investigated party, whose new date must be set by the court after the postponement request. Additionally, documentary and expert proceedings continue regarding the granting of the rescue of approximately 53 million euros, solvency reports, and related economic movements, including lines of investigation on alleged money laundering of public funds and gold from Venezuela, according to El Demócrata.

The parallel investigation for influence peddling remains entirely under secrecy, so specific proceedings are unknown, although information from Cadena SER points to analysis of communications, agendas, and possible dealings with the Administration. In the short term (June–July 2026), a decision is expected on the postponement of Zapatero’s statement and the possible extension of proceedings in this line.

Foreseeable next procedural steps

Once the key statements (including Zapatero’s) are made and the economic and influence peddling proceedings are completed, Judge Calama must assess whether the investigation is sufficiently complete. At that point, the main options are:

On one hand, to issue an order concluding the investigation leading to an order of prosecution and, if the accusations (Prosecutor and popular accusations) file an indictment, to the opening of oral trial before the Criminal Chamber of the National Court. In such case, the trial date would likely be several months away (El Demócrata mentions a possible 2027 scenario for the oral hearing, depending on the Chamber’s workload).

On the other hand, the judge could order provisional or absolute dismissal regarding part or all of the investigated parties if he concludes there is insufficient evidence of a crime. Both a possible order of prosecution and one of dismissal would be appealable in review and appeal before the National Court itself and, if applicable, could lead to constitutional appeals if any party alleges violation of fundamental rights.

In parallel, possible jurisdictional incidents remain arising from the prior inhibition of the Madrid court in favor of the National Court, as reported by Vozpópuli; if a formal jurisdictional conflict is raised, the Supreme Court would have to resolve it, which could affect deadlines.

In summary, the Plus Ultra case is active and in full investigation phase, with no oral trial date or final decision on the merits, and with an immediate horizon focused on pending statements, consolidation of the influence peddling line, and the judge’s decision on whether the case proceeds to trial or is dismissed totally or partially.

Competencies of José Luis Calama in the National Court and main cases he has investigated

José Luis Calama is currently the presiding judge of the Central Investigative Court No. 4 of the National Court, where he acts as investigating judge in criminal cases of high complexity and public relevance. His competencies cover the investigation of economic crimes, corruption, money laundering, cybercrime, terrorism, and large-scale cases with national and international dimensions. From this court, he directs the investigation phase: ordering proceedings, precautionary measures, imputations, and, if applicable, the opening of oral trial or dismissal. Additionally, he has taken on some of the most sensitive procedures of the moment, such as the Plus Ultra–Zapatero case, the Banco Popular case, or investigations of cyberattacks and digital espionage.

1. Institutional position and competencies as investigating judge

According to available institutional and biographical information, José Luis Calama is presiding judge of the Central Investigative Court No. 4 of the National Court since 2018, not on secondment nor temporarily (biographical profile, CGPJ). From this single-member court:

• He exercises the direction of the criminal investigation in cases of special importance assigned to the National Court, carrying out proceedings (statements, searches, expert reports, rogatory commissions, etc.).
• He decides on imputations and precautionary measures (bail, provisional imprisonment, seizures, etc.) in the investigation phase, including declaring secrecy of the proceedings when deemed necessary.
• Once the investigation is concluded, he can issue an order of prosecution and opening of oral trial or order dismissal and archiving of the case, all within the framework of the Criminal Procedure Law.
• His cases are subsequently tried, if applicable, by the Criminal Chamber of the National Court, which is the collegiate body that holds the trial and issues the sentence.

Various journalistic profiles describe him as an investigating judge specialized in economic crimes and cybercrime, with a working style described as “meticulous, efficient, and discreet” (El País, Cadena SER, laSexta).

2. High-impact economic and corruption cases

a) Banco Popular case

Upon joining the National Court, Calama inherited the criminal investigation into the 2016 capital increase of Banco Popular. The case focuses on alleged crimes of fraud against investors and accounting fraud. After several years of investigation, in November 2024 he ordered the opening of oral trial against former president Ángel Ron, other former executives, and the auditor PwC, with a global bail close to 2.277 billion euros (biographical summary).

b) Plus Ultra case and alleged Venezuela-linked scheme (imputation of Zapatero)

One of the most recent and politically sensitive cases he investigates is the public bailout of the airline Plus Ultra (53 million euros) and its possible connections with economic operations in Venezuela. In this file, Calama has summoned former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as an investigated party for alleged crimes such as influence peddling, criminal organization, and document falsification (El País, Onda Cero, Confilegal). The case is processed under summary secrecy and the judge has issued rogatory commissions and requests for international cooperation, including to the U.S. to access material from the HSI agency.

c) Villarejo schemes and police corruption

Various reports place Calama at the head of files related to former commissioner José Manuel Villarejo, investigating alleged crimes of criminal organization, embezzlement, and illegal espionage (Confilegal, laSexta). These cases analyze parallel intelligence operations and use of reserved funds for political or private purposes.

d) Large-scale scams and cryptocurrencies: Arbistar case

His court has also handled the large case of the cryptocurrency investment platform Arbistar, considered a suspected pyramid scheme involving around 200 million euros and about 32,000 affected people. Sources point to a very advanced investigation, although they do not unambiguously report the final procedural resolution (Onda Cero).

3. Cybercrime, digital espionage, and cyberattacks

a) Pegasus espionage on government members

Calama was in charge of investigating the alleged espionage using Pegasus software on the mobile phones of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and several ministers, for events around 2020-2021. The investigation aimed to determine if there was a crime of cyberterrorism or sabotage against state institutions. Ultimately, the case was archived in 2025 due to lack of sufficient evidence (biographical summary, laSexta).

b) Major power outage in April 2025

After a large-scale power outage in April 2025, Calama opened ex officio proceedings to clarify whether it was a cyberterrorist attack. He decreed secrecy of the proceedings and ordered complex technical reports, but months later archived the case due to lack of minimum evidence of sabotage (Onda Cero).

4. Terrorism and other highly sensitive cases

Although his recent profile is strongly linked to economic and technological crime, he has also taken on terrorism cases. Among them are investigations into former ETA members related to attacks such as the Santa Pola barracks bombing (2002), investigating the possible responsibility of the organization’s leadership (Confilegal). More generally, available reports highlight that his court has received cases related to financial fraud, cryptocurrencies, digital espionage, cyberattacks, and corruption with strong political and media impact (laSexta, Mundiario).

In short, José Luis Calama’s competencies as an investigating judge in the National Court cover some of the country’s most complex criminal investigations, with a clear focus on economic and technological crimes, but also with branches in terrorism and high-level corruption.

Brief answer

The National Police can only intervene and appraise assets in a criminal investigation within the framework established by the Criminal Procedure Law (LECrim) and the asset recovery and management regulations (especially Law 17/2003 and the regulation of the Asset Recovery and Management Office, ORGA). First, the seizure or intervention of items linked to the crime occurs, they are documented, and the chain of custody is guaranteed; then their deposit, custody, and, if applicable, expert appraisal are decided. For assets that deteriorate or have high conservation costs, their realization or early disposal may be agreed upon, usually with ORGA’s involvement. All this is done under judicial control, with participation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and respecting the guarantees of the right of defense and the parties’ appeals.

1. Intervention and seizure of items

According to articles 262 and following of the LECrim, the Police can intervene assets when there are indications of a crime, either during police investigation proceedings (in flagrante delicto, urgent actions) or already in preliminary proceedings directed by an investigating court. The intervention must be:

• Based on reasonable indications of the asset’s relation to the criminal act (instruments, effects, proceeds of the crime, etc.).
• Proportional to the pursued purpose (securing evidence, guaranteeing civil liabilities, confiscation, etc.).
• Documented in a report or record: detailed description of the asset, serial number, condition, place, date and time of seizure, identity of the agents and the person from whom it was seized.

In property crimes, money laundering, or organized crime, this extends to cash, vehicles, jewelry, and other valuables, as well as assets with patrimonial projection for future confiscation.

2. Chain of custody

Article 265 LECrim and jurisprudential doctrine require the Police to guarantee an uninterrupted chain of custody from seizure until presentation of the asset or sample before the judicial body. This implies:

• Uniquely identifying the item (seal, labeling, sample numbering).
• Registering in writing or electronic systems each delivery, receipt, transfer, analysis, or handling.
• Limiting access only to authorized and identified persons.

Breaks or deficiencies in the chain of custody may affect the probative validity of the seized asset during trial.

3. Deposit and management of seized assets

Based on article 265 LECrim and Law 17/2003, the Police must ensure adequate deposit of assets, distinguishing:

• Vehicles: sent to official deposits or contracted facilities, ensuring their conservation and avoiding damage or improper use.
• Cash: inventoried and deposited in safes or designated bank accounts under judicial control.
• Valuable objects (jewelry, watches, artworks, expensive electronics): stored in enabled and secure premises, with detailed and periodically updated inventories.
• Perishable or easily deteriorable assets: specific conservation measures are adopted or early sale or controlled destruction is promoted, as appropriate.

In complex cases (money laundering, organized crime), coordination with the ORGA is used, which assumes professionalized management of seized assets.

4. Appointment of experts and appraisal

The economic valuation of assets is essentially governed by articles 335 and following of the LECrim on expert evidence. The Police can:

• Request the court or the Public Prosecutor’s Office to appoint judicial experts (appraisers, art experts, real estate, accountants, etc.).
• Issue their own expert reports when they have specialized units (e.g., vehicle valuation or certain items).

The appraisal serves to set the amount for confiscation, civil liability, precautionary measures (seizures), and also for possible early sale. In complex or high-value assets, ORGA may channel specialized appraisals.

5. Early realization or disposal of assets

Based on articles 262.3 and 265.2 LECrim and Law 17/2003, early realization of seized assets (sale, auction, or other disposal) is possible when:

• The asset is perishable or easily deteriorates.
• Its conservation is very costly or disproportionate.
• There is a risk of loss or serious depreciation of value.

The Police submit a reasoned proposal to the Public Prosecutor and the judge; the decision is made by judicial resolution, after hearing the parties when possible. ORGA usually handles the administration, sale, and management of the proceeds, especially in economic crimes, money laundering, and organized crime, directing funds to damage repair and other public purposes.

6. Guarantees of the right of defense and judicial control

The entire process is subject to the control of the investigating judge and the Public Prosecutor’s Office:

• Relevant interventions, seizures, and precautionary confiscations are ordered by reasoned judicial resolution, which can be appealed by the defense and affected third parties.
• The Public Prosecutor ensures the legality of police action and promotes necessary measures to secure the assets.
• The defense can challenge the legality of the intervention, the chain of custody, the appointment of experts or their report, and the early realization of assets.

Thus, the National Police acts as a judicial assistance body: seizing, safeguarding, and proposing, but it is the judge and prosecutor who direct and control the assets’ involvement in the process, balancing effectiveness in fighting crime with guarantees of property rights and defense.