José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has asked National Court judge José Luis Calama to explain to him how Rodolfo Reyes’ mobile phone was obtained in the United States, the Venezuelan businessman whose messages have become one of the main pieces of evidence in the investigation into the Plus Ultra bailout. The former president demands to know who authorized the extraction of the device, how the data dump was carried out, and what mechanisms were used to guarantee the authenticity of the data.
The request, filed with the court, comes at a particularly relevant moment for the case. Just yesterday, it was learned that the magistrate had formally requested authorization from U.S. authorities for the phone’s content to be used as evidence in a potential trial, and not solely as investigative material.
In his writing, Zapatero denounces the “scarcity of information” that, in his view, exists regarding the origin of a piece of evidence that has acquired central weight in the proceedings. Therefore, he requests that the exact circumstances under which the device was obtained, the authorizations that allowed access to its content, and the verification systems used to guarantee the integrity of the messages be detailed.
The importance of that phone lies in the fact that several conversations originate from it, which investigators consider relevant to clarify the actions taken regarding the 53 million euro bailout that Plus Ultra received from the Solvency Support Fund for Strategic Companies approved during the pandemic.
We recommend reading: Former President Zapatero charged with three crimes in airline bailout case
More Read
Among the messages included in the summary is one that has had the most repercussions since the investigation became public. In it, Rodolfo Reyes states: “Yes bro. Our buddy Zapatero is behind it.” In another conversation, dated March 2020, when the airline was seeking support to access public aid, the businessman wrote: “Delcy should call Ábalos or Zapatero.”
The references to the former president appear in various exchanges between shareholders and executives linked to the company. Investigators believe that these conversations could reflect a relevant intervention in the negotiations related to the bailout. Zapatero’s defense, however, is now focusing its strategy on questioning the origin and legal guarantees of evidence obtained outside of Spain.
An investigation born far from the National Court
Rodolfo Reyes’ phone did not appear within the framework of the investigations into Plus Ultra. Its origin lies in an investigation carried out by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the U.S. agency specializing in financial crimes and international corruption networks.
More Read
The operation began in 2018 and was directed against a network of Venezuelan businessmen and politically exposed persons suspected of participating in activities related to money laundering, corruption, and asset concealment. Authorities from several countries collaborated in it, including Spain, France, Switzerland, Andorra, and Portugal.
One of the lines of work focused on Reyes, a shareholder of Plus Ultra and currently the subject of an international search and arrest warrant. According to the documentation incorporated into the case, U.S. investigators linked him to alleged operations carried out through entities such as Capital Bank, Panacorp, and Dinosaur Bank.
It was during those inquiries that the U.S. authorities obtained an extraction from the businessman’s mobile phone. Although the action was initially linked to other investigations, the analysis of the device revealed communications that were subsequently considered of interest to the Spanish authorities.
On March 18, 2026, Homeland Security Investigations forwarded the entire contents of the phone to the Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit (UDEF). Spanish agents then incorporated that information into the reports they were preparing regarding the Plus Ultra bailout. In fact, the two police reports that served as the basis for Zapatero’s indictment rely heavily on the messages found on that device.
According to the UDEF, the information arrived through international police cooperation mechanisms. One of the reports incorporated into the proceedings explains that the HSI office based at the United States Embassy in Madrid informed Spanish investigators of the existence of material that could be of interest to their inquiries.
U.S. authorities considered that the information obtained could be useful for an investigation that had Rodolfo Reyes among its protagonists and decided to share it after obtaining the necessary authorizations.
More Read
The judge seeks to secure the validity of the messages
Although the messages are already part of the investigation, Judge Calama has decided to take an additional step to reinforce their legal validity. On June 5, he agreed to request international judicial cooperation from the United States to obtain express authorization to use the phone’s content as evidence in a potential oral trial. The letter rogatory will be processed with the collaboration of Eurojust.
The initiative responds to a common procedural issue when an investigation incorporates evidence obtained in another country. Data provided by foreign police forces can serve to guide an investigation, but its subsequent use in criminal proceedings requires meeting certain legal requirements.
National Court Judge José Luis Calama, who is investigating former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero for alleged influence peddling in the bailout of the company Plus Ultra, has requested “international legal cooperation” from the United States to use the contents of the phone of Rodolfo Reyes, a former executive of the airline, “as evidence.”
You can also read:
For that reason, the magistrate intends to ensure that the messages can be used with full procedural effect if the case goes to trial. In his resolution, he explains that the information provided by foreign police authorities can serve as a source of investigation, but it requires proper incorporation into the proceedings to become judicial evidence.
The decision does not represent any progress on the merits of the case nor does it imply an assessment of the responsibility of those under investigation. However, it does affect one of the most sensitive elements of the proceedings: the validity of a piece of evidence that has come to occupy a central place in the investigation into the Plus Ultra bailout.
