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 incorporated this aspect of the proceedings into a broader investigation into alleged offenses including influence peddling, embezzlement of public funds, misconduct in public office, participation in a criminal organization or group, and misuse of privileged information. In the specific case of Tubos Reunidos, investigators are examining whether company executives relied on individuals linked to the so-called Hirurok Group—identified by investigators as Leire Díez, Vicente Fernández, and Antxon Alonso—in an attempt to influence SEPI’s decision-making.
The significance of the case is particularly notable because the loan under investigation was substantial. Tubos Reunidos received €112.8 million from the Fund to Support the Solvency of Strategic Companies, a program established to assist businesses considered strategically important during the pandemic. Investigators are now seeking to determine whether the process was conducted with full transparency or whether it may have been influenced by political and business contacts outside the ordinary administrative framework.
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 probe does not conclude when the rescue package is first cleared. As reported by El Independiente, investigators are convinced that Rodríguez-Urrutia kept participating at a subsequent stage involving a purported sequential blueprint aimed at restructuring the credit agreement’s monetary conditions, lowering borrowing costs, and lightening Tubos Reunidos’ monetary burdens toward 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 point to invoices for alleged market research services whose legitimacy and purpose are being examined by investigators. Cadena SER has reported that the investigation questions invoices for allegedly fictitious services and identifies the Hirurok Group as the alleged intermediary behind those payments.
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.
