Who is Alejandro Betancourt, the "bolichico" who connects Delcy Rodríguez with Trump and whom Pedraz is investigating

The so-called “Operación Bolívar” is not currently an autonomous case in the Audiencia Nacional, but rather one of the police lines being investigated within the procedure on the “dirty war” against Podemos in the Ministry of the Interior during Mariano Rajoy's government. What Judge Santiago Pedraz (Central Court of Instruction No. 5) is investigating is whether those operations – including Bolívar and Venus – could constitute crimes such as criminal organization, disclosure of secrets, malfeasance, embezzlement, or documentary falsification.

What was Operación Bolívar and how did it reach the Audiencia Nacional

According to the documentation incorporated into the procedure and revealed by media such as elDiario.es and other texts from the same outlet, Operación Bolívar was an internal UDEF investigation in 2016, driven by the so-called “political brigade” of the Police, aimed at obtaining incriminating material about the financing of Podemos from Venezuela. It was based on contacts with a former minister of Hugo Chávez and sought to corroborate alleged million-dollar payments to the CEPS foundation environment and future party leaders.

That line was processed without judicial control and, according to the police account collected by the judge, it declined after a few months due to lack of sufficient evidence. However, part of its content was leaked to the press (ABC, Okdiario, etc.) on the eve of elections, alongside other maneuvers such as the PISA report. The Podemos complaint against the Interior leadership and certain police commanders brought these facts to the Audiencia Nacional, where they are now analyzed as a possible example of partisan use of police resources.

Current status of the investigation in the Audiencia Nacional

The case is in an open investigation phase, focused precisely on reconstructing what exactly the Bolívar and Venus operations were, who ordered them, their scope, and what was done with the information obtained.

• In a March 2025 order, Judge Pedraz instructed the General Directorate of Police and UDEF to submit “all notes, minutes, proceedings, official letters, appearances, reports or statements” related to Podemos, CEPS, and 67 party leaders between 2014 and 2016, explicitly including the Bolívar and Venus operations (El País).
• The Police have admitted to the court the existence of both operations but responded that their files are classified as “secret passives”, claiming they are classified documents and resisting full delivery (elDiario.es).
• Faced with this refusal, Pedraz has requested the Council of Ministers' agreement that, if applicable, would have declared that documentation secret; without that formal backing, the classification as secret is legally questionable and the judge could order its delivery.
• Meanwhile, various witness statements have been taken, including that of a UDEF chief inspector who described how Venus and Bolívar were launched, and of commanders involved in the “political brigade.”

With this dynamic, the investigation aims to “piece together the puzzle” of the dirty war: reconstructing the chain of command, the instructions given, and the role of political leaders of Interior and the National Police.

Expected next procedural steps

Based on the available information, the next expected procedural moves in the Audiencia Nacional regarding the Operación Bolívar aspect are, in summary, the following:

• Resolution of the conflict over secret documentation: Pedraz must decide whether to accept the Police's arguments or, on the contrary, consider that there is no valid official secrecy coverage and order the full submission of the Bolívar and Venus files. If resistance persists, he could resort to reinforced requests or even initiate testimony for disobedience.
• Extension of proceedings: once he accesses all the documentation (or the part he manages to obtain), it is likely that the judge will carry out new proceedings: more statements from police commanders, possible Interior witnesses, database technicians, and, if applicable, political leaders of the time to specify authorships and responsibilities.
• Decision on charges and closure of investigation: with the gathered material, Pedraz will have to assess whether to maintain, expand, or reduce the list of suspects. The natural outcome of the investigation will be:
  • Either an order to transform into a summary procedure and subsequent opening of oral trial for those for whom there are solid indications of crimes related to Bolívar, Venus, and other maneuvers;
  • Or the total or partial dismissal of the case regarding some persons or certain facts if he considers there is insufficient criminal basis.
• Possible appeals: both the defenses and the accusations (Podemos and, if applicable, the Public Prosecutor's Office) may appeal key investigative decisions and, later, the orders opening trial or dismissal before the Audiencia Nacional itself.

In summary, “Operación Bolívar” is currently integrated into a broader case about the police dirty war against Podemos and is still under active investigation. The immediate focus is on forcing transparency over the files declared “secret passives” and determining whether these maneuvers lead to criminal responsibilities justifying a future oral trial in the Audiencia Nacional.

The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is not cited in full in the consulted sources, but the core of the constitutional competencies of the executive vice president clearly appears: she is the “number two” of the Executive Power and, above all, the person called to assume the functions of the Presidency of the Republic in case of the president's absence.

News about Delcy Rodríguez's case state that, according to the Venezuelan Constitution, articles 233 and 234 establish that, in case of temporary or definitive absence of the president, it is the vice president who must assume his functions. On that basis, the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) orders Rodríguez to “assume and exercise in an acting capacity all the powers, duties, and faculties inherent to the office of president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” in order to guarantee administrative continuity and the defense of the Nation.

Specifically, the TSJ bases its decision on article 335 of the Constitution, which allows it to set the “legal regime applicable to guarantee the administrative continuity of the State and the defense of the Nation, in the face of the forced absence of the president of the Republic,” through a “systematic and teleological” interpretation of articles 234 and 239. Although the news do not literally reproduce those provisions, they make clear the constitutional framework:

• Articles 233 and 234 CRBV: regulate the cases of presidential absence (temporary, due to a supervening cause, or definitive). In those scenarios, the executive vice president is called to assume the head of State position in an interim or acting capacity, exercising presidential powers while the situation lasts.
• Article 239 CRBV: is mentioned as part of the normative block that defines the position and powers of the vice president within the Executive Power, used by the TSJ to outline the scope of her faculties when substituting the president.
• Article 335 CRBV: enables the TSJ to interpret the Constitution and specify the applicable regime in exceptional situations not literally foreseen (such as the “forced absence” of Maduro), confirming that the executive vice president assumes all presidential functions.

From these references, the constitutional role of Delcy Rodríguez as executive vice president can be summarized on several levels:

• Succession and substitution of the president: this is the most explicitly recognized function. The Constitution places her as first in the line of replacement to ensure there is never a vacancy in the head of State. In case of temporary or definitive absence of the president, she assumes the Presidency in an acting capacity, with “all the powers, duties, and faculties” of the office, as the TSJ itself has recalled.
• Guarantee of administrative continuity and defense of the Nation: based on article 335, the TSJ interprets that, in exceptional situations (such as the president's arrest in a foreign military operation), the executive vice president must exercise the Presidency to ensure the continuity of State functioning and the comprehensive defense of the country, avoiding any “legal uncertainty” about who holds command.
• Direction of the Executive Power alongside the president: the information highlights that the vice president is the “number two” of the Executive and that, in normal times, she participates in government leadership, coordinates the action of ministries, and assumes key portfolios (in Rodríguez's case, for example, Hydrocarbons). Although this part is specified through laws and decrees, not only by the Constitution, it is inferred from her institutional position as executive vice president.
• Political projection and government representation: in the constitutional practice described in the news, the executive vice president also embodies a function of representation of the State abroad and leadership of internal policy. Rodríguez acts in international forums, maintains relations with other governments, and makes strategic decisions (for example, changes in Defense or the Armed Forces leadership) when exercising the acting Presidency.

In summary, according to the collected references, the Venezuelan Constitution configures the executive vice president as a central piece of the Executive Power: she collaborates in the ordinary government leadership and, above all, guarantees the continuity of the head of State by assuming presidential powers in the absence cases foreseen in articles 233 and 234, interpreted and completed by the TSJ in light of article 335.

Based on Spanish institutional databases and news accessible in the newspaper Demócrata and other media consulted in this investigation, there is no complete biographical profile or detailed chronology of Alejandro (Leopoldo Alejandro) Betancourt's business and political career prior to his involvement in Hawkers. The located records only allow drawing some negative conclusions (what does not appear) and a punctual reference in the judicial field, but not reconstructing a list of “main business milestones” rigorously.

Absence of political or institutional positions in Spain

In the database of Spanish stakeholders and institutions used for this investigation:

• No person registered with the name “Alejandro Betancourt” or variants including the surnames Betancourt or Betancourt López appears.
• No public positions held by someone with that name are recorded in:
  • Central government or ministries.
  • Regional governments.
  • Congress of Deputies or Senate.
  • Other Spanish public bodies or companies.
• No official appointments have been found in bulletins (BOE, regional bulletins) listing a person named Betancourt as a senior official, director general, ambassador, etc.

Within the limits of these sources, it can be stated that, in Spain, there is no trace of a formal political or institutional career of Alejandro Betancourt before his relationship with Hawkers. If he has had political activity or positions in other countries, that information does not appear documented in Spanish official records nor in the Demócrata pieces located in this search.

Reference in a judicial investigation in Spain

The only relevant mention in the consulted sources appears in the newspaper Demócrata in the context of a judicial investigation by the Spanish Audiencia Nacional into networks linked to former Venezuelan senior officials:

• In a news piece focused on former Venezuelan Energy Deputy Minister Nervis Villalobos, the newspaper reports that, by order of Judge Santiago Pedraz, the National Police raided Villalobos's properties in Spain in response to a Swiss rogatory commission.
• The same text mentions that police actions were also carried out at properties of the businessman Leopoldo Alejandro Betancourt, “implicated in an investigation for alleged money laundering.”

That piece:

• Does not provide a biography of Betancourt.
• Does not detail his companies, investments, or a chronology of his prior activity.
• Limits itself to framing him as a businessman under investigation for alleged money laundering related to Venezuelan networks.

Therefore, the only documentable “milestone” in the sources I handle, prior to his entry into Hawkers, is his appearance in the focus of an international judicial investigation (of Swiss origin, channeled through the Audiencia Nacional), linked to alleged money laundering related to former officials of the Venezuelan energy sector.

What cannot be affirmed with these sources

Your question alludes to very specific elements — such as Derwick Associates, banks or financial entities, studies at certain universities, or prior investment milestones — that often appear mentioned in other media accounts about Betancourt. However, in the investigation carried out with:

• The database of Spanish stakeholders and institutions.
• Archives of the newspaper Demócrata.
• Other news and documents accessible through the search engines used.

no pieces have been found that systematically develop:

• His studies (universities, degrees, dates).
• His first investments or ventures, with dates and sectors.
• His specific role in particular energy companies before Hawkers.
• Possible positions on boards of directors of banks or other financial entities.
• A clear and verifiable chronology of links with governments of Venezuela or other countries beyond the generic allusion to an investigation for money laundering connected to Venezuelan networks.

Since my answer must be based exclusively on what these sources provide, it would not be rigorous to list as “milestones” biographical or business data not documented here, no matter how well known they may be in other media or public debate.

Conclusion

With the information available in Spanish institutional records and in the news from Demócrata and other media consulted in this investigation, it is not possible to reconstruct a complete and chronological list of Alejandro Betancourt's main business and political milestones before Hawkers.

What can be affirmed based on these sources is that:

• He does not appear as holder of political or institutional positions in Spain.
• He appears identified as a businessman under investigation for alleged money laundering, within the framework of proceedings of the Audiencia Nacional related to networks linked to former Venezuelan senior officials in the energy sector.

For a more detailed profile of his career prior to Hawkers (specific companies, operations, studies, etc.) it would be necessary to consult other specialized biographical sources or specific journalistic investigations that are not part of the set of documents accessible in this query.