Spanish prosecutors and state lawyers reject Zapatero's bid to exclude PP-led popular prosecution from jewellery investigation

Prosecutors' opposition

Spain's Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the State Legal Services (Abogacía del Estado) have formally rejected a request by former prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to exclude the popular prosecution, grouped under the representation of the Partido Popular (PP), from a separate line of inquiry within the broader Plus Ultra case. Prosecutor Elena Lorente submitted a written argument stating that Zapatero's aim is to "close the door to the exercise of the popular action before even knowing with certainty the legal classification of the offence under investigation." The State Legal Services, represented by lawyer Zaida Fernández Toro, argued that the popular prosecution is a constitutional right serving as an instrument of citizen participation in the administration of justice.

What the appellant seeks is to close the door to the exercise of the popular action before even knowing with certainty the legal classification of the offence subject to this piece, and even less the position of the prosecutor and private prosecution in the face of a potential request to open an oral trial.

The jewellery investigation

The National Police's Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit (UDEF) discovered the jewellery during a search of Zapatero's office on 19 May 2026. The items were initially valued at 1.3 million euros and their origin remains unknown, according to the investigating judge. Among the material seized was a set of three necklaces, three bracelets, three rings, and three pairs of earrings crafted from white gold with sapphires and emeralds originating from Zambia or Thailand, appraised at 1.2 million euros. Judge José Luis Calama of the Audiencia Nacional opened a separate piece of the investigation in early June, focusing on suspected tax offences and smuggling related to the jewellery.

Legal arguments

The State Legal Services, acting on behalf of the Tax Agency (AEAT) as a possible injured party, maintained that crimes against the Public Treasury affect two dimensions simultaneously. There is a specific financial victim, the Public Treasury itself, represented by the AEAT through the State Legal Services, and a collective interest tied to the sustainability of the tax system and the constitutional duty to contribute to public expenditure. This public dimension, the submission argues, justifies citizens or authorised entities promoting criminal proceedings from the perspective of the general interest. The prosecutor added that while the role of popular prosecutions may be limited at later stages if both the prosecutor and private prosecution request a provisional dismissal, this does not strip them of legitimacy during the early investigative phase.

In crimes against the Public Treasury, two dimensions of the protected legal interest coexist simultaneously. On one hand, there is a specific financial victim, the Public Treasury, whose representation corresponds to the AEAT through the State Legal Services; and on the other hand, a collective or general interest is also affected, linked to the sustainability of the tax system and the constitutional duty to contribute to the maintenance of public expenditure.

Separate phone evidence dispute

In a parallel procedural front, Zapatero's defence has also challenged evidence obtained from a mobile phone belonging to Venezuelan businessman Rodolfo Reyes. The phone was seized by US Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) at an airport in 2021 when Reyes attempted to enter the United States. Its contents were forwarded to Spanish police earlier in 2026 after Reyes' name was entered into police search systems and his home was searched under a warrant from the Audiencia Nacional. Anti-corruption prosecutor Elena Lorente backed Judge Antonio Piña's view that it was premature to request detailed explanations from US authorities about how the phone was obtained, stating the device had been seized by "sovereign authorities of another country, in this case the United States, under its own legislation and internal regulations." The judge has instead asked the US for authorisation to use the material in a potential trial, and will review the defence's extensive list of queries only after receiving an answer.