The SEPI strand of the Leire case has brought José Ramón Sempere Vera, who served as president of Mercasa between 2018 and 2024, into investigative focus. During this crucial timeframe, numerous operations that are presently under scrutiny by Spain’s National Court took place. His indictment redirects attention toward governance practices within state-owned enterprises and the potential exploitation of their resources to advance private agendas via personal relationships, commercial agreements, or access to confidential data.
Mercasa, a publicly traded firm with SEPI holding the majority stake and maintaining ties to the network of wholesale markets and vital food infrastructure, finds itself at the center of scrutiny. The involvement of its ex-president in proceedings concerning suspected tampering with publicly held corporations carries considerable weight. Such circumstances undermine trust in how state-controlled organizations manage their assets, oversee procurement processes, and make determinations that serve the broader public good.
Judge Santiago Pedraz has included Sempere among the 25 people under investigation in the SEPI-related strand, a branch of the case examining possible crimes including influence peddling, embezzlement, malfeasance in public office, criminal organization or criminal group, and abuse of privileged information. According to published reports, the investigation covers operations linked to Tubos Reunidos, ENUSA, Mercasa, Forestalia, and other entities within the public business sector.
The focus on Mercasa is directed particularly at José Ramón Sempere and María Teresa Castillo Pasalodos, who served as his second-in-command at the public company. The Prosecutor’s Office is seeking to determine whether decisions were made or actions promoted within Mercasa that benefited companies connected to the alleged network under investigation. The suspicions include contracts, internal reports, and corporate transactions that may have been used to create business opportunities for companies linked to the circle surrounding the alleged scheme.
What makes this case particularly significant is that Mercasa appears to function as far more than a peripheral entity, positioning itself instead as a pivotal player within the investigation’s scope. Authorities are looking into whether certain transactions might have been shaped by intermediaries maintaining connections to Leire Díez, Vicente Fernández, and Antxon Alonso—individuals suspected of wielding influence over governmental determinations in return for financial compensation. The UCO has flagged this collection of transactions as potentially problematic, particularly regarding subsidies and agreements involving state-owned enterprises and organizations answerable to SEPI.
As president of Mercasa during the period under investigation, Sempere will have to clarify what knowledge he had of the decisions being examined, what role he played in the company’s internal procedures, and whether there were contacts with individuals or companies linked to the alleged influence network. The key judicial question will be to determine whether his conduct was limited to the ordinary management of the public company or whether he may have played a relevant role in allegedly irregular operations.
From a political standpoint, his indictment is particularly uncomfortable because it adds another former head of a state-owned company to the map of suspicions already affecting SEPI, ENUSA, Tubos Reunidos, and Forestalia. The case paints a scenario in which the boundary between the public and private spheres appears dangerously blurred, with businesspeople, former executives, public officials, and figures close to the Socialist sphere under judicial scrutiny.
The investigation also requires a close examination of Mercasa’s internal controls. If the contracts, reports, or corporate decisions were adopted according to technical criteria, they will have to be properly documented and explained. If, on the other hand, pressure, preferential treatment, or privileged access to information is established, responsibility cannot stop with the intermediaries: it must also reach those who had decision-making or supervisory authority within the public company.
The SEPI strand of the Leire case continues to expand in scope and leaves an increasingly difficult question to avoid: did public companies operate as instruments serving the general interest, or were they vulnerable to a network of influence, commissions, and favors? In the case of Mercasa, José Ramón Sempere will have to provide the courts with explanations about his role during the period now under scrutiny.
Source: El País, RTVE, Infobae, Vozpópuli, elDiario.es, and 20 Minutos.
