The Pact That Freed Víctor de Aldama and Unleashed García Ortiz's Anger

The businessman Víctor de Aldama, identified as a key figure in the Koldo plot and the hydrocarbon fraud, was released from prison on November 21.

His release was the result of an agreement with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, which allowed him to avoid jail in exchange for information about alleged bribes.

According to journalistic revelations, Aldama provided details about illicit payments to government and PSOE figures.

The State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, was not informed of this agreement, according to sources close to the investigation.

These same sources claim that his knowledge was deliberately omitted due to his alleged affinity with Pedro Sánchez's Executive. It is argued that, had he been notified, García Ortiz could have blocked the agreement reached.

The Attorney General only learned of the agreement after Aldama's statement at the National Court. Hours after his testimony, the businessman was released, which caused surprise and anger in García Ortiz.

According to journalistic information, he demanded explanations from the Anti-Corruption Chief Prosecutor, Alejandro Luzón, questioning why he had not been informed beforehand.

Secret Meetings and Negotiations

The agreement between Aldama and the Prosecutor's Office was forged in confidential meetings, according to consulted sources. Luzón, Aldama's lawyer, José Antonio Choclán, and a high-ranking UCO officer participated in these meetings.

In these conversations, Choclán expressed his client's willingness to cooperate with justice in exchange for his release.

The lawyer assured that Aldama had relevant documents about a corruption network involving members of the Executive.

According to his testimony, these officials would have received illegal commissions in exchange for public awards. The key meeting took place at the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office headquarters in Madrid.

In that meeting, the possibility of Aldama testifying in exchange for procedural benefits was raised.

The Opinion of the Civil Guard

The Anti-Corruption Chief Prosecutor, Alejandro Luzón, then requested the opinion of a UCO officer leading the investigation.

The officer's response was decisive: the Civil Guard had already analyzed part of the seized material and had strong evidence.

However, they considered that any additional information provided by Aldama would be beneficial to clarify the case.

As a result of this consultation, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the businessman's lawyer finalized the agreement that allowed Aldama's testimony.

This testimony included self-incriminations about his role in the corruption plot linked to public contracts.

Denials and Controversies

Despite the controversy, sources from the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office have denied that there was a formal prior agreement and have downplayed García Ortiz's alleged anger at Luzón.

From the judicial sphere, it has been described as unusual for Aldama to testify before Judge Ismael Moreno, the instructor of the Koldo case.

Subsequently, Magistrate Santiago Pedraz ordered his provisional release. This apparent contradiction is explained because the agreement was closed with the Prosecutor's Office and not with the judges directing the case.

In this process, the anti-corruption prosecutor in charge of both investigations is Luis Pastor, a subordinate of Luzón.

Implications of the Case

Aldama's release has caused debate in the political and judicial spheres. His cooperation with justice could lead to new charges within the Government and the PSOE.

Additionally, the role of the Prosecutor's Office and its lack of transparency in managing the case is questioned.

Sources close to the process warn that this investigation is not yet over. New evidence and testimonies are expected to come to light in the coming months, which could affect high-ranking officials of the Executive.

Meanwhile, the controversy surrounding the Attorney General and his lack of information continues to raise questions about the independence of the Public Prosecutor's Office.