The Aldama of the Plus Ultra case: Julio Martínez and the company's executives place Zapatero at the forefront of the rescue

While his partner and friend Julio Martínez acknowledges that the former president "marked the steps" in the operation to rescue the airline, the company's executives admit to payments of more than half a million euros and maintain that they took on that "bribe" to try to save the company.

8 minutes

fotonoticia 20260630160750 1920

fotonoticia 20260630160750 1920

Add DEMÓCRATA to Google

Ask FREN

Published

Last updated

8 minutes

Most read

The judicial investigation into the rescue of 53 million euros granted to Plus Ultra by the Government during the pandemic continues to escalate. In separate writings sent to the judge of the National Court José Luis Calama, both the businessman Julio Martínez Martínez, partner and friend of the former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, and the top executives of the airline have provided a version that places the former socialist leader as a key figure in the efforts to obtain public aid.

The statements come just one day before the investigated parties appear before the investigating magistrate of the so-called Plus Ultra case.

The writings, submitted with the declared aim of cooperating with Justice, contain assertions that directly affect the role played by Zapatero and acknowledge for the first time the payment of a commission equivalent to 1% of the rescue, about 530,000 euros, for the intermediation work.

Zapatero "set the steps to follow"

In his writing, Julio Martínez Martínez claims that it was José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero himself who drove all the operations from the beginning. According to his defense, the relationship with Plus Ultra began in May 2020, when the former president informed him that he would receive a call from the top executives of the airline.

A few days later, the president of the airline, Julio Martínez Sola, and the CEO, Roberto Roselli, contacted him to explain the delicate economic situation the company was going through and the urgent need to find financing.

The businessman’s defense insists that Martínez Martínez did not have the capacity to obtain public or private financing by himself, but acted merely as an intermediary between the client and the true consultant.

This consultant, the writing expressly states, was Zapatero. "It was Zapatero who set the steps to follow", the defense literally asserts.

According to his version, the former president was the one who initially proposed trying to obtain an ICO credit through contacts with Banco Santander. To this end, he would have instructed the executives of Plus Ultra to send a letter to the bank's vice president, Juan Manuel Cendoya, following his instructions. Also, according to the account, the company attempted to obtain financing through La Caixa, although neither of the two avenues prospered.

From the failure of the ICO to the SEPI rescue

After the failure of attempts to obtain bank financing, the creation in July 2020 of the Support Fund for the Solvency of Strategic Companies (FASEE), managed by the State Society of Industrial Participations (SEPI), opened a new possibility for the company.

It was then when, according to the document, all efforts focused on obtaining that public bailout.

On July 30, 2020, Plus Ultra signed a contract with the company Análisis Relevante, owned by Martínez Martínez, which established fees of 5,000 euros per month plus VAT.

However, the defense argues that the reality was different from what was formally reflected in the contract. It claims that those payments actually corresponded to the advice that Zapatero had been providing since May 2020.

The 1% commission for the success of the bailout

In addition to those monthly fees, the document acknowledges another contract signed on January 19, 2021 between Plus Ultra and Idella Consulenza Strategica, one of the companies investigated by the judge.

In that agreement, it was established that the company would charge 1% of the financing obtained as compensation for the success of the operation. The defense expressly admits that the amount finally paid for mediating in obtaining the public aid amounted to approximately that percentage.

It also explains that, due to the enormous media pressure surrounding the bailout, it was decided to defer the payment until 2026 and channel part of the amounts through other companies linked to the businessman.

Zapatero announced that SEPI would grant the aid

One of the most striking aspects of the document is the moment when, according to Martínez Martínez, the former president informed him that the aid was going to be approved.

The defense maintains that it was on February 26, 2021 when Zapatero informed him that SEPI was going to grant the bailout requested by Plus Ultra.

Immediately, it adds, Martínez Martínez conveyed that information to the main shareholders of the company, Camilo Ibrahim and Rodolfo Reyes.

Few days later, on March 2, FASEE approved the operation and the Council of Ministers on March 9, 2021 gave the final green light to the bailout worth 53 million euros.

The executives of Plus Ultra confirm payments of more than half a million euros

In separate but practically identical writings, the president of Plus Ultra, Julio Martínez Sola, and the CEO, Roberto Roselli, also acknowledge that the airline ended up paying significant amounts to the environment of Zapatero.

The two officials state that they were aware that both Martínez Martínez and the former president intended to charge for the actions taken, something they decided to accept given the critical situation the company was facing.

In the very writing, a conversation intercepted by the Police between Roselli and the Venezuelan businessman Rodolfo Reyes is recovered.

In it, the CEO anticipated: "So that's where the kickback will come from." The defenses even use that expression to refer to the intermediaries' claim for payment.

However, they emphasize that they never came to know exactly what specific actions were taken to influence the granting of the bailout by SEPI.

530,000 euros between money and business class flights

The airline's officials detail the distribution of the payments made.

As they explain, the financial commitment reached approximately 530,000 euros, equivalent to 1% of the public bailout. The distribution would have been 249,000 euros for Análisis Relevante, 98,617 euros for Voli Analítica, and 110,799 euros for Domotic Europe.

In addition, they assure that the businessman agreed to replace part of the pending money with 69,000 euros in business class flight tickets, used from 2021 onwards.

The writings also describe how those payments were structured. According to their account, Plus Ultra issued around 40 invoices for amounts ranging between 6,050 and 7,250 euros, under the concept of "Monthly fees. Report preparation".

However, the defenses themselves now maintain that those reports had little real utility for the company and that their function was essentially to cover up the payments. A similar situation occurred with other invoices issued for flight management services Madrid-Caracas or through companies like IOT Domotic and Voli Analítica.

The executives add that they even intended to subsequently carry out a complete regularization of all the amounts paid, although that operation was interrupted by police action.

The first contact: a call from a hidden number

The version offered by the officials of Plus Ultra places the origin of the entire process in April 2020.

According to their explanation, the Venezuelan businessman Rodolfo Reyes suggested they seek political contacts that would facilitate access to public aid. After several efforts, the president of the airline received a call from a hidden number on April 30, 2020.

The person on the other end of the phone was, according to the document, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. For approximately ten minutes, Martínez Sola explained to the former president the serious financial situation of the company and the need to obtain financing through ICO credits.

According to this version, Zapatero responded that he could help and that he would carry out the necessary arrangements, indicating that the operational contact would be Julio Martínez Martínez.

The executives clarify, however, that in that conversation, there was never any talk of money or fees.

A consultancy designed around Zapatero

The document presented by the former president's partner also dedicates a broad section to explaining the operation of Análisis Relevante, the consultancy under investigation.

The company was founded in late 2019, driven by Martínez Martínez, journalist Sergio Sánchez, and Javier de Paz. According to the defense, the idea was to leverage Zapatero's prestige and international relations to offer strategic consulting services.

Although the former president did not formally appear as a shareholder or administrator, the defense argues that he was the one who really directed the company. "He was out of the shareholding and formal bodies, but he was the one who led it and decided all those issues of strategy and client acquisition."

It also claims that it was Zapatero who secured the four clients with whom the consultancy worked until 2025, including Plus Ultra, as well as companies like Softgestor, Alaska Ilimitada (later Inteligencia Prospectiva), and Grupo Aldesa.

Zapatero's daughters and the reports

The defense also explains that journalist Sergio Sánchez was responsible for shaping the reports prepared by the former president.

Subsequently, those documents were formatted by What The Fav, the company of Zapatero's daughters, also investigated in the case, through a monthly fee of 3,000 euros that, according to the document, was maintained until 2025.

The functions attributed to the former president consisted of preparing strategic reports, providing international advice, and offering conferences for the consultancy's clients.

The 286,000 euros found in his home

The writing also attempts to dissociate from the case the money located by the Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit (UDEF) during the search of Martínez Martínez's home.

The Police found 286,000 euros in cash, hidden in sports bags, furniture, and toiletry bags. The defense argues that this money came exclusively from the sale of real estate assets and that it has no relation to the investigations regarding Plus Ultra.

The defense also reconstructs the origin of the relationship between Martínez Martínez and Zapatero. As explained, they met in 2011 through Javier de Paz, in connection with the purchase and sale of a house owned by the Zapatero couple in Vera (Almería).

Subsequently, they shared a passion for running, which led to a personal relationship that, according to the writing, was maintained for years through frequent sports meetings until the end of 2025.

Plus Ultra acknowledges mistakes, but denies being a shell company

Despite all the admissions made, the airline's executives reject that Plus Ultra was an instrumental company.

In their writings, they argue that the company made mistakes, but they defend that it carried out a real economic activity, with employees, tax payments, and effective provision of services.

They also attribute all the investigated operations to the critical situation caused by the pandemic and the urgent need to obtain liquidity to ensure the company's survival.

Meanwhile, the judge of the National Court continues to investigate whether the actions taken to achieve the rescue of 53 million could constitute crimes related to influence peddling, money laundering, and other irregularities, in a case that, after the writings presented this Monday, incorporates for the first time statements from the investigated individuals themselves that place former president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as the protagonist of the strategy followed to obtain public aid and the remuneration system established after its granting.

More key points, information and questions with FREN

AI-GENERATED CONTENT

What is the current status of the judicial investigation into the Plus Ultra case and what steps remain pending in the process?

The judicial investigation into the Plus Ultra bailout is currently in the instruction phase at the National Court, overseen by Judge José Luis Calama. The case focuses on the alleged irregular use of the 53 million euros granted to the airline by the Solvency Support Fund (SEPI) and a possible scheme involving influence peddling, criminal organization, money laundering, and related offenses. In recent months, the number of suspects has increased (including José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, part of his circle, and the airline's executives) and separate case files have been opened, but there is no decision yet on opening a trial. The pending steps involve completing proceedings (statements, expert reports, international cooperation), resolving nullity requests, and finally, the judge issuing an order to dismiss or indict.

Procedural situation and competent body

After the dismissal of the first case regarding the bailout in January 2023 by the Madrid Court of Instruction 15, the investigation was reactivated when the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office reported possible misuse of the 53 million euros and a money laundering network linked to Venezuelan funds, as explained in contextual reports such as that of elDiario.es.

In December 2025, that Court 15 ordered the arrest of Plus Ultra's president, Julio Martínez, CEO Roberto Roselli, and businessman Julio Martínez Martínez for alleged money laundering, as detailed by the newspaper Demócrata in this report. Subsequently, the judge recused herself in favor of the National Court, and on March 3, 2026, Judge Calama took over the case, initially keeping it under secrecy, as reported in this news and a broader report on the money laundering context linked to Venezuela in Demócrata, consistent with previous accounts of how the matter reached the National Court and the recusal of the Madrid court.

Main charges and latest rulings

The turning point came with the order dated May 18, 2026, by which Calama charged Zapatero with alleged crimes of influence peddling, criminal organization, and document forgery, placing him at the head of a “hierarchical structure” to influence the Plus Ultra bailout, according to Demócrata's summary in this piece and the political analysis of Belarra's reactions. The order led to searches in his office and in his daughters' company.

Soon after, the judge expanded the circle of suspects: he charged Zapatero's daughters and his secretary, as reported in this report, and opened a specific case file regarding the jewels seized in the former president's office (valued at 1.3 million euros), investigating possible tax and smuggling offenses, according to another report. Calama rejected limiting questions about those jewels during the statement, as seen in this order.

Zapatero has already testified as a suspect regarding the alleged influence scheme, which led to a hearing on precautionary measures where the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office requested passport withdrawal and biweekly appearances, and several popular accusations even demanded imprisonment, as detailed by Demócrata. The judge must decide on these measures.

In parallel, Calama has ordered an investigation into leaks of confidential case documents, referring testimony to courts in Madrid, as explained in this news and the procedural impact analysis in this article. The National Court is also investigating another secret case file related to the case's environment, as revealed in this exclusive.

Defense strategy and nullity requests

Zapatero's defense has shifted to a “battle of substance” strategy: it has requested the nullity of the case and the exclusion of all evidence obtained from certain devices (a hard drive and a mobile phone sent from the U.S.), alleging defects in their seizure and analysis, according to this legal report and the subsequent development in this piece. The judge, for now, maintains that there are still sufficient indications to continue, as explained by Demócrata.

Pending steps in the instruction

Looking ahead to the coming months, several key proceedings remain to be conducted or resolved:

  • Additional statements: the appearance as a suspect of businessman Julio Martínez Martínez, a friend of Zapatero, is scheduled for July 21 at 9:00, according to the order noted in this article. Proceedings remain open regarding other companies and advisors (such as the consultancy Softgestor, in this report and profiles of suspects in this piece and this profile).
  • Resolution on nullities and leaks: the judge must rule on the global nullity request and on the possible impact of leaks on the validity of some evidence.
  • International cooperation and economic analysis: lines related to alleged international money laundering and the use of the 53 million euros continue, connected with the investigations described about Venezuela and gold operations in the orders reproduced by Demócrata and international media such as BBC Mundo, as well as contextual pieces like this encyclopedia entry.

Once these proceedings are completed, the instruction must close with two alternatives: dismissal (archiving) or opening of oral trial against the suspects. Demócrata itself reminds, in this procedural context text, that the final decision will depend on the indications consolidated during the instruction.

Political environment and other fronts

Alongside the criminal case, the Senate investigation committee on SEPI and the Solvency Fund continues (with testimonies such as former executive José Ángel Partearroyo and SEPI vice president Bartolomé Lora, collected by Demócrata in this expert hearing, this Lora appearance and this reconstruction of the bailout), the Congress motion demanding maximum transparency on Plus Ultra (Congress note), and an intense political battle by the PP and Vox, visible in their statements about the bailout (Plus Ultra auditor, demand for review, Partearroyo appearance, action before the European Commission, Fúnez reaction, Montserrat complaint, Plus Ultra and European funds, offensive in SEPI, meeting with Escrivá, questions to Bolaños, generic accusations, reaction to daughters’ indictment) and Vox's demand for government accountability (Vox note).

From the Executive, both Moncloa and Pedro Sánchez himself uphold the legality of the bailout and deny favoritism, as the president reiterated in his appearance before Congress and in clarifications about the role of the Solvency Fund director, collected in this report and, from an economic perspective, in the interview with the Governor of the Bank of Spain.

What exactly does the indictment order against Zapatero say about his alleged role in the Plus Ultra scheme? What specific evidence has the UDEF provided and how is it influencing the instruction of the Plus Ultra case? How is the Senate investigation committee on SEPI and the Plus Ultra bailout developing?

What are the legal competencies and powers of the former Prime Minister in situations involving the management of public bailouts?

The mere fact of being a former Prime Minister of Spain does not by itself confer any specific legal authority in matters of managing public bailouts (financial, business, or otherwise). The relevant decision-making powers in crises and bailouts belong to the current Government and, where applicable, the Prime Minister, never to those who have left office. A former Prime Minister could only intervene with legal effects if formally appointed to a position with specific competencies or if acting as part of a body with legal powers. As an informal advisor, their role is strictly political and influential, without binding decision-making capacity.

1. Competencies of the Government and the Prime Minister (not the former Prime Minister)

The rules cited in available sources show that powers in sensitive decisions belong to the active Government and the Prime Minister, not to former officeholders:

  • The authority to file a constitutional challenge against a law corresponds, among others, to the Prime Minister, not to former holders of the office.
  • The possibility for the Government to veto the processing of legislative proposals that imply increased spending or reduced public revenues is recognized only for the Government in office, especially regarding the General State Budgets.

Both examples are illustrative: when the legal framework refers to powers in key matters (control of the legality of laws, preservation of budgetary balance), it assigns them to the Prime Minister and the Government in office, without considering any role for former Prime Ministers. There is no reference in the consulted sources attributing specific public powers to the figure of the former Prime Minister.

2. Former Prime Minister in an honorary or institutional capacity

As a former Prime Minister in an honorary capacity, their position is purely institutional and political, without command or decision-making powers over public bailouts. Based on the available information, it can be stated:

  • They cannot make executive decisions about the use of public money, bailout design, or approval of aid.
  • They are not among the legally empowered subjects to exercise normative control mechanisms such as constitutional challenges or to veto initiatives with budgetary impact.
  • Their participation in public debates, forums, or official acts is representative or symbolic, not decisive.

Consequently, a former Prime Minister cannot “order” or “authorize” a bailout; the initiative and signature always correspond to the current Government bodies.

3. Former Prime Minister with a formal position in the Administration or a public entity

A different matter is when a former Prime Minister is appointed to a specific position within the Administration or a public entity (for example, chair of a commission, high commissioner, head of a public fund, etc.). In that case:

  • The powers do not derive from their status as former Prime Minister, but from the specific position and the regulation governing it.
  • Only if that regulation grants them functions over aid management, bailout proposals, or fund supervision could they legally intervene in those matters.
  • Their actions would be subject to the same framework of responsibility, control, and budgetary limits as any other senior official.

Therefore, if they participate in a public bailout with effective decision-making capacity, it is because they hold a newly created and regulated formal position, not because they are a former Prime Minister.

4. Former Prime Minister as an informal Government advisor

Sometimes, a former Prime Minister may play a role as an informal advisor to the Government, holding meetings, offering technical or political opinions on the advisability of a bailout or its design. In this scenario:

  • There is no formal legal appointment granting them specific powers.
  • Their recommendations are not binding; the final decision remains exclusively with the Government and the bodies with budgetary competence.
  • They do not legally assume authorship of the decision, nor do they sign agreements or regulations related to the bailout.

Their influence is real in political or technical terms, but does not translate into autonomous legal power. Any eventual political or legal responsibility falls on those who formally adopt and execute the decisions.

5. General conclusion

In light of the powers expressly attributed to the Prime Minister and the Government in office in sensitive matters (such as constitutional control of laws or protection of budgetary balance), and the absence of specific mentions to former Prime Ministers in decision-making functions, the answer is clear: the status of former Prime Minister does not, by itself, grant any legal authority to manage public bailouts. Any active role in this matter requires a formal appointment to a body or position with defined powers; outside of that, their intervention can only be consultative or political, without legal effects of their own.

Could you specify which Government bodies normally have formal competence to approve a public bailout in Spain? How do bailout decisions made by the Government differ legally from those made by a public entity such as a bailout fund? What parliamentary control mechanisms exist over bailout decisions adopted by the Government?

What were the results of the last general elections in which José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero participated and to which political party does he belong?

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero last ran as a candidate for the Presidency of the Government in the general elections of March 2008. In those elections, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (**PSOE**), to which Zapatero belongs, obtained around 44% of the votes (about 11.2 million) and secured 169 seats in the Congress, ahead of the People's Party (PP), which obtained 153. This result allowed him to renew his mandate and serve a second term as Prime Minister. In the previous 2004 general elections, he had also won, but with 164 deputies and approximately 42.6% of the votes.

Last general elections in which he was a candidate: 2008

The last Spanish general elections in which José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was the PSOE's lead candidate were held in March 2008. According to data collected from open sources such as Zapatero's biographical profile and the English summary of his political career in another biographical entry, the PSOE then achieved:

  • Vote percentage: around 44% of the votes cast, with about 11.2 million ballots.
  • Seats: 169 deputies in the Congress, compared to 153 for the PP.
  • Political effect: a clear victory over Mariano Rajoy and consolidation of Zapatero's second term.

With this result, the PSOE did not reach an absolute majority (176 seats), but had a sufficient majority to govern alone with occasional support, as had happened in the previous legislature. This second victory confirmed Zapatero, described in the newspaper Demócrata as one of the “most influential leaders in Spanish politics” and a “reference” of socialism in pieces like this political biography, as the leader of the progressive space in mid-2000s Spain.

Context: his first victory in 2004

To understand the magnitude of the 2008 result, it is useful to relate it to his first victory in 2004. In those elections, held three days after the March 11 attacks, the PSOE obtained 164 seats and 42.59% of the votes, according to the detailed results in the 2004 electoral summary and analyses from media such as this press report. That first majority allowed Zapatero to be invested Prime Minister in April 2004, as also recalled in the official chronology of the VIII Legislature and compilations like the article on his governments.

In various historical assessments — such as those by RTVE on his 2004 victory or retrospective articles from international media, for example this review of “20 years of Zapatero” — it is emphasized that these two consecutive victories (2004 and 2008) consolidated a socialist cycle marked by significant social reforms, such as the same-sex marriage law and the Dependency Law.

Did he run as a candidate in 2011?

New general elections were held in November 2011, but José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero did not run as a candidate. Various reconstructions of his career, such as those summarized in his political biography, recall that after the heavy wear caused by the economic crisis and austerity measures, he announced he would not seek a third term. The PSOE then designated Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba as candidate, who lost to Mariano Rajoy's PP.

In summary: the last general elections in which Zapatero was a candidate were those of 2008; therefore, the results that answer your question are the 169 deputies and 44% of the vote that the PSOE obtained in those elections, which allowed him to remain in La Moncloa until late 2011.

Political party of Zapatero

Regarding his political affiliation, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero belongs to the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE). This is reflected both in his biographical profiles — such as this summary in Spanish or his English profile in another biographical source — and in numerous recent reports from Demócrata. Among them, notable pieces include “The darkest day for José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and the PSOE”, analyses on his judicial situation and the impact on the party in “June complicates the PSOE”, or news about the socialist leadership closing ranks in articles like “The PSOE closes ranks with Zapatero” or Pedro Sánchez's statements reaffirming his support.

This organic and political link with the PSOE also appears repeatedly in reports about his role in regional campaigns, such as chronicles of the closing rally in Valladolid of the Socialist Party in Castilla y León or in events of the Andalusian PSOE covered in this piece on his criticisms of the Andalusian PP. All this confirms that, both in the past and currently, his political reference remains the PSOE.

Other links cited in the investigations

Although not directly related to Zapatero's electoral results, the search trace also included institutional or cultural references, such as a note from the Basque Government about a Bruce Springsteen concert in Bilbao (note about Bruce Springsteen) and another about the first Women's Flag of La Concha (women's regatta of La Concha), which do not provide electoral data but are part of the set of documents tracked.

Could you provide the complete results of the 2008 general elections by party, not just those of the PSOE? What were the main political and social reforms promoted by Zapatero during the legislatures won in 2004 and 2008? How did the 2008 economic crisis affect the electoral wear of the PSOE and Zapatero's decision not to run in 2011?

Play

Test your knowledge with FREN!

How much do you know about this topic? Answer the following 3 questions.

Who was identified as a key figure in the efforts to obtain the public bailout of Plus Ultra?

Question 1 of 3

What percentage of the public bailout is recognized as a commission for the intermediation in the Plus Ultra operation?

Question 2 of 3

Which organization managed the Fund to Support the Solvency of Strategic Companies (FASEE) that granted the bailout to Plus Ultra?

Question 3 of 3

Hola, soy Fren. ¿Cómo te ayudo?