Subscribe
Europe cannot afford governments that operate as private insurance schemes for those in power. Nor can it ignore the slow institutional corrosion of one of its major member states when that corrosion is systemic, persistent, and politically protected. Yet this is precisely the situation in Spain under Pedro Sánchez’s Socialist government.
What looks like an improvised series of scandals is better understood as a single ecosystem: overlapping circles of influence, procurement, patronage, and institutional pressure—followed by an increasingly aggressive effort to delegitimise oversight. The point is not merely that corruption allegations exist; it is that, taken together, they suggest a pattern of governance reduced to self-preservation.
A guide to the cases: the “tree” of scandals in around 500 words
The central trunk in the picture you shared is what Spanish media call the “Koldo case”—a broad investigation stemming from the arrest (February 2024) of Koldo García, aide to former Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos. From this trunk branch several lines of inquiry across different courts.
(1) Pandemic procurement (“masks”): The first and most publicly legible branch concerns alleged irregularities in Covid-era contracting: intermediaries, commissions, and the award of large public contracts for medical supplies. The narrative you provided places Víctor de Aldama as a key intermediary figure, with claims of payments and benefits tied to access and contracts involving administrations within the Socialist orbit. The political sting is that emergency conditions became, allegedly, an opportunity for rapid monetisation of state purchasing.
(2) Public works tenders (Acciona–Servinabar): A second branch expands from masks to infrastructure. A Guardia Civil (UCO) report, as described, allegedly situates Santos Cerdán at the centre of a scheme involving the award of public works contracts from the Transport ministry ecosystem. Servinabar, a small firm, is portrayed as a vehicle for channelling commissions while partnering with larger companies—Acciona appearing as the most prominent name. The allegation is not simply bribery, but the replication of a model: from Navarra to the national level once the network had state-scale access.
(3) Party cash payments (“envelopes”): A third branch concerns alleged cash expenditure practices within PSOE and discrepancies between declared amounts and internal communications. The significance is obvious: it moves from corrupt transactions to the question of party financing culture and controls, raising suspicion about how money is recorded, justified, or potentially laundered through expenses.
(4) Transport ministry appointments and contracting: A related strand handled more slowly is described as focusing on secondary officials and public entities (e.g., ADIF, appointments, and contracting decisions allegedly influenced through ministerial channels). This matters because it frames corruption less as isolated theft and more as control of administrative machinery.
Alongside this trunk, two other major storylines intensify the “captured state” argument. One is the hydrocarbons case, described as a separate investigation into VAT fraud in the fuel sector, again touching the same intermediary world and alleging political influence in licensing or administrative outcomes, with commissions and gifts allegedly circulating. The other is the Begoña Gómez case, a judicial investigation into alleged influence peddling and corruption-related offences linked to the Prime Minister’s wife’s professional activities and the claimed use of public resources for private projects.
Finally comes the most institutionally corrosive dimension: the alleged “plumbing” operations around Leire Díez, described as attempts to gather compromising material against investigators and to trade access or favours for help targeting UCO figures and prosecutors. Add the “brother in Badajoz” case (alleged irregular appointment/patronage around David Sánchez), the controversy surrounding the State Prosecutor General, and the Plus Ultra investigation (bailout politics intersecting with claims of opaque foreign-linked flows), and the overall picture is no longer a blur. It is a system: procurement, contracts, patronage—and pressure against scrutiny.
The silent damage: strategic paralysis
The most severe consequences are not only legal. They are geopolitical. Spain, by virtue of its history, language, and cultural capital, should be a central European actor in Latin America—and a credible voice on Venezuela. A government consumed by scandal lacks the authority to lead abroad. While other European states articulate firmer positions against authoritarian entrenchment and hostile influence in the Western Hemisphere, Madrid becomes strategically irrelevant.
This is not neutrality. It is abdication—and an opportunity cost for Spain and for Europe.
Europe’s double standard
The EU cannot credibly police the rule of law selectively. If European institutions lecture some governments while indulging others for reasons of political convenience, they weaken the very norms they claim to defend. Spain’s institutional stress test should matter in Brussels precisely because it concerns a major member state.
Conclusion: Europe cannot afford a paralysed Spain
A Spain governed for the survival of a narrow circle is not merely a domestic problem. It is a European liability: strategically absent, morally compromised, and institutionally degraded. Europe should demand better—and Spain deserves far better than a government trapped in its own web.