Aldama testifies before judge as Government denies all allegations

Aldama testifies before judge as Government denies all allegations

Will the Government fall due to Víctor de Aldama's testimony? The short answer is that no one knows, but the long answer is that the businessman appeared before a judge, placed himself at a Pedro Sánchez rally, and left behind two uncomfortable certainties: the Supreme Court already has his statements in hand, and the Prosecutor's Office has not requested his release trinc his testimony. From there, everyone chooses their own narrative. The official line claims it is all misinformation. The media opposition speaks of the largest corruption scheme known to date. And in the middle remains a man in prison who, according to those leaking information, said what he said because Sánchez himself asked him to.

The striking part is not that a person under investigation for tax fraud is speaking to a judge. The striking part is that his account, if false, adds the crime of perjury; and if true, it describes illicit payments that implicate half of the Executive. In either scenario, the result is the same: no one comes out clean from this appearance.

What Aldama told the judge

The centerpiece of the appearance is a phrase attributed to Aldama: he attended Sánchez's rally because the president "wanted to meet me and thank me for my efforts." From this, supporters derive proof that Sánchez was aware of everything, while critics view it as mere intermediary vanity.

The detail that is actually on record is more prosaic and more serious: the judge urgently referred the statements to the Supreme Court. This haste has a technical reading. An investigator does not escalate proceedings when a confession is just a page of anecdotes; they escalate them when there are indications, documents, or names that support what was said. This is the most common argument among those analyzing the case file with the coldness of someone who has nothing to gain.

The Government spokesperson's office came out to deny everything in a block. And there appears the logical problem that no one can now avoid: if Aldama is lying, the Prosecutor's Office maintains an accusation of perjury; if he is not lying, the accusation hits the core of the party. There is no comfortable third way.

The businessman's two legal fronts

It is worth remembering who Aldama is before believing or disbelieving him. He has two problems with the Justice system, not one. The first is the hydrocarbon scheme, a massive tax fraud being investigated by Judge Santiago Pedraz at the Central Court number 5 of the Audiencia Nacional (the National Court): shell companies that sold diesel to gas stations below market price, disappeared, and left taxes unpaid. The Prosecutor's Office estimates the fraud at 182 million euros, and for that case, he faces sentences that could approach 20 years in prison.

The second front connects him to pieces of the Gürtel case and to deals, according to published reports, with different political groups. This does not disprove what he testified regarding the PSOE (the main social democratic party), but it does force a close look at every name he mentions. A confessed incivil can tell the truth; they can also tell the part of the truth that suits them.

In the political use of the data, the discussion is different. A former Prime Minister noted that confessed incivil should not set the political agenda, and on social media, the response was immediate: the same yardstick is used differently depending on which party is being pointed at.

The threat in Soto del Real

The part that no one expected is the prison aspect. According to the businessman's inner circle, an inmate from the same module approached him in a common area of the Soto del Real prison and told him, in words reported by the press, that "I'm going to kick you and you won't go to testify." The warning, according to that version, was heard by two other inmates. Aldama did not respond.

It could be prison bravado or it could be proof that someone inside antiestéticars what might come out of his mouth. The truth is that the scene fits a known pattern: when an investigated person starts talking about powerful people, the message arrives through the prison gallery before it arrives through a court. And it adds an ingredient that no procedural strategy manual knows how to manage: the physical safety of the witness.

Why the Supreme Court changes the game

The legal immunity (*aforamiento*) of high-ranking officials means the case will not remain in the Audiencia Nacional. If the statements point to members of the Government with parliamentary seats, jurisdiction passes to the Supreme Court, and that changes the timeline: slower investigation, more guarantees, fewer leaks.

There, the first forecast of the day falls apart. The idea that the Executive was going to fall overnight ignores that a procedure against privileged officials is measured in years. There is even speculation that the forensic data from mobile devices held by the police unit investigating the case might be available on specific dates. If it appears, it will be material; if not, it will be another recycled expectation.

Civil war: a hyperbole that doesn't hold up

The conversation quickly drifted toward scenarios of total rupture: regime change, dissolution of the party, even civil confrontation. There is no judicial, police, or electoral evidence to support such a leap. What does exist is a social majority that continues to vote for the PSOE no matter what, and a minority convinced that the entire system is a farce of alternation between two parties that take turns in power.

Some argue that everything will remain a couple of headlines and a few television jokes. Against that, the opposing argument is that the Supreme Court does not open proceedings out of vanity. And in the middle, the thesis that Justice will go to the end even if it takes five years, which is the only prediction that the judicial system itself allows without being untruthful.

Because in the end, the big winner of the day was neither the Government nor the opposition. It was the judicial secrecy (*secreto de sumario*): the only procedural figure capable of keeping everyone talking for two years about something that no one has actually read.