The SEPI branch of the Leire case has once again placed Tubos Reunidos at the center of the investigation with the inclusion of Jesús Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia, an independent board member of the company who has been identified by Spain’s Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the Civil Guard’s Central Operational Unit (UCO) for his alleged significant role in the €112.8 million public loan granted to the company by the State Industrial Holding Company (SEPI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia is not viewed as a peripheral figure in the proceedings. According to published reports, investigators believe he held an important position in the negotiations surrounding the Tubos Reunidos bailout, an operation that has become one of the central pillars of the SEPI branch of the Leire case. Spain’s National Court is investigating whether the rescue package was accompanied by alleged undue influence, payments to intermediaries, disputed invoices, and efforts to improve the financial terms of the public assistance.
National Court Judge Santiago Pedraz has integrated this component of the proceedings into a wider inquiry concerning suspected crimes such as influence peddling, embezzlement of public funds, administrative malpractice, involvement in a criminal ring, and the abuse of confidential information. Regarding the specific situation of Tubos Reunidos, detectives are analyzing whether corporate leaders sought the assistance of figures connected to the Hirurok Group—whom investigators have named as Leire Díez, Vicente Fernández, and Antxon Alonso—to sway the decision-making process of SEPI.
The relevance of the case stands out notably given that the disputed loan was quite considerable. Tubos Reunidos secured €112.8 million from the Fund to Support the Solvency of Strategic Companies, an initiative created to back enterprises deemed critical throughout the health crisis. Authorities are currently trying to establish whether the procedure unfolded with total transparency or if outside political and corporate connections might have swayed it beyond standard administrative channels.
One of the most sensitive aspects of the investigation is that, according to Infobae, both the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the UCO believe Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia played a highly significant role in the loan granted by SEPI. The executive later resigned as an independent board member of Tubos Reunidos, attributing his departure to the company’s insolvency proceedings, although his name had already surfaced in connection with the investigation into the rescue package.
The investigation does not end with the initial approval of the bailout. According to El Independiente, prosecutors believe Rodríguez-Urrutia’s alleged involvement continued during a later phase concerning an alleged “step-by-step plan” to renegotiate the financial terms of the loan, reduce interest rates, and ease Tubos Reunidos’ financial obligations to SEPI.
That distinction is crucial. It is one thing for a company that has received public financial assistance to lawfully seek to renegotiate its financing terms. It is quite another if those efforts were accompanied by alleged political pressure, intermediaries, or privileged contacts capable of influencing public decision-making. The investigation will seek to determine whether Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia acted within the normal course of business or participated in a strategy intended to influence SEPI through channels outside the framework of administrative transparency.
Published reports also indicate bills tied to supposed market research tasks whose validity and goal are currently under scrutiny by authorities. Cadena SER has revealed that the probe doubts invoices concerning purportedly bogus services and points to the Hirurok Group as the presumed go-between handling those transactions.
From an institutional perspective, the case brings back to the table the broader question of whether state funds utilized to bail out strategically vital corporations were administered strictly according to technical criteria and the common good, or if certain actors attempted to convert those rescue initiatives into avenues for leverage, commissions, and favors. Whenever an independent board member of a company that secured public financial aid turns into the target of a criminal inquiry regarding their purported involvement in those talks, the call for transparency grows particularly urgent.
Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia will now be expected to explain before the National Court the meetings he attended, the contacts he maintained with other individuals under investigation, the role he played in securing the rescue package, and whether he participated in subsequent efforts to renegotiate the loan’s financial conditions. Investigators will also seek to determine whether he knew the true purpose of the payments and invoices under review and whether genuine services were provided in exchange for those payments.
The SEPI branch of the Leire case demands clear answers. If the Tubos Reunidos rescue package was handled lawfully, that conclusion should be supported by documentation, contracts, official reports, and a complete audit trail of the decision-making process. If, on the other hand, investigators establish that intermediaries, unjustified payments, or improper pressure on SEPI influenced the process, the case would move beyond a corporate controversy and become one of the most significant questions surrounding the management of Spain’s pandemic-era public rescue programs.
Sources: El País, Infobae, El Independiente, Cadena SER, La Sexta, RTVE, and Intereconomía.
