Legal Strategy: Zapatero’s Defense Challenges Evidence Origins in Plus Ultra Case

The legal defense team for former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has formally requested judicial clarification regarding the origins of digital evidence currently central to the investigation into the 2021 government bailout of the airline Plus Ultra. Represented by attorney Víctor Moreno Catena, the defense filed two motions this week aimed at determining whether the procurement of mobile phone and hard drive data met the strict constitutional standards required for evidence admissibility in a criminal trial.

Why the defense is questioning evidence origins

Zapatero’s legal team is seeking to establish a basis for nullifying parts of the investigation by challenging the chain of custody and the judicial authorizations behind seized digital files. According to court filings accessed by El País, the defense specifically targets a hard drive recovered from the office of Miguel Palomero, a lawyer under investigation for his alleged role as an intermediary for Plus Ultra. The defense argues that the court must verify the specific judicial resolution that authorized the police to access and analyze the device’s contents. Under Spanish law, evidence obtained through a “casual discovery” in a separate investigation must be subject to specific judicial control to ensure it does not infringe upon fundamental rights or the privacy of the individuals involved.

The controversy over the “Danilo-España” chat

A significant portion of the prosecution’s case relies on a digital chat log labeled “Danilo-España,” which was extracted from the seized hard drive. Reports from the investigation indicate this chat allegedly contains correspondence between Palomero and Venezuelan broker Danilo Díazgranados regarding potential gifts for Zapatero. The defense contends that this information was obtained during “pre-procedural” investigations led by the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office—proceedings that were not under direct judicial oversight at the time. Moreno Catena argues that if the police accessed these private communications without a specific, motivated judicial order, the evidence may be constitutionally tainted, potentially undermining the entire case against the former Prime Minister.

Status of the request regarding U.S. mobile data

The defense has also filed a formal appeal against a decision by Judge José Luis Calama, of the National Court, who declined to expand a request for information from the United States regarding the mobile phone of Rodolfo Reyes Rojas, the former president of Plus Ultra. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) provided a copy of Reyes’ phone data to Spanish authorities in March. Because the initial data extraction occurred in Miami—where border control protocols can permit mobile device searches without a warrant—the defense asserts that the Spanish court must perform a rigorous review to ensure this evidence is legally usable in a Spanish criminal proceeding. Judge Calama has issued a letter rogatory to U.S. authorities to facilitate the formal incorporation of these chats into the case, but he has not yet approved the broader scope requested by the defense.

Key Details of the Ongoing Dispute

• The Core Allegation: The investigation examines whether Zapatero exerted influence to facilitate a 53-million-euro government rescue for Plus Ultra in 2021.
• Legal Precedent: The defense is invoking the “control of specialty” principle, which requires that evidence obtained for one purpose cannot be repurposed for another without specific judicial validation.
• Procedural Hurdle: A portion of the evidence remains in a separate, sealed section of the case file, meaning the defense has not yet had full access to the source material they are seeking to challenge.

As the case progresses, the conflict between the investigative authorities and the defense highlights the tension between broad police data gathering and the right to a fair trial. The court’s upcoming rulings on these motions will determine whether the “crucial” digital evidence remains a pillar of the prosecution’s case or is excluded due to procedural irregularities.