The SEPI strand of the Leire case also involves María Teresa Castillo Pasalodos, who previously served as Director of Corporate Development and Institutional Relations at Mercasa, a state-owned enterprise with majority ownership held by SEPI. Her position as an investigated party brings renewed scrutiny to one of the most delicate aspects within Spain’s public business landscape: the potential exploitation of official roles, institutional connections, and privileged knowledge to influence public determinations benefiting particular agendas.
Mercasa operates as a public entity connected to the wholesale market network and the administration of vital food infrastructure, rather than functioning as a minor organization within state structures. Consequently, the emergence of a former director of Corporate Development and Institutional Relations among those facing investigation in proceedings centered on purported misconduct regarding public entities amplifies both the political and institutional significance of the matter.
Judge Santiago Pedraz has summoned Castillo Pasalodos as part of the group of 25 people under investigation in the SEPI-related strand, in which possible crimes of influence peddling, malfeasance in public office, embezzlement, criminal organization or criminal group, and abuse of privileged information are being examined. At this stage, the investigated party fully retains the presumption of innocence, but her summons makes it necessary to clarify what role she may have played in the operations under suspicion.
According to published reports, the investigation links Castillo Pasalodos to Mercasa and to actions related to contracts or corporate transactions that may have benefited companies connected to the Hirurok group, the core that investigators place around Leire Díez, Vicente Fernández, and Antxon Alonso. The UCO and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office are seeking to determine whether there was a network of contacts capable of influencing decisions by public companies and channeling economic benefits through contracts, reports, or intermediaries.
Among the various investigative angles being pursued, one focuses on potential agreements granted to Servinabar 2000, an entity that the UCO views as having ties to the subjects under investigation. The inquiry further examines correspondence, telephone exchanges, written communications, and organizational records pertaining to the drafting of an analytical document that could have served to substantiate the transfer of Mercasa‘s main office and facilitate subsequent property development opportunities. The interplay between corporate documentation, management choices, and alleged personal gain represents one of the most delicate dimensions of this inquiry.
The central suspicion is not merely that a questionable business decision was made, but whether that decision may have been prepared, conditioned, or facilitated by people with access to privileged information within Mercasa. From her position in Corporate Development and Institutional Relations, Castillo Pasalodos would have held a particularly relevant role for understanding contacts, internal strategies, relationships with third parties, and decisions with an economic impact.
The investigation will have to clarify whether her actions were merely administrative and professional or whether she played a more active role in the events under examination. It will also have to determine whether she knew the real purpose of the operations under suspicion, whether she facilitated documentation, whether she took part in contacts with other people under investigation, or whether her name appears in the case because of her position within Mercasa’s structure.
The case is particularly serious because Mercasa forms part of Spain’s state public sector and is 51% owned by SEPI. This means that any suspicion regarding its management affects not only one specific company but also the system of oversight of public corporations. When a former executive of a public company appears in an investigation into alleged manipulation, the political question is unavoidable: were there sufficient mechanisms to prevent business decisions by state-owned companies from being used for purposes unrelated to the public interest?
The SEPI strand of the Leire case is drawing an unsettling map: senior officials, former executives, businesspeople, technical reports, public aid, contracts, and strategic companies under investigation. The presence of María Teresa Castillo Pasalodos on that list reinforces the impression that the case is not limited to an isolated episode, but is examining a broader network of relationships between the public, political, and private spheres.
The National Court will now be tasked with establishing whether María Teresa Castillo Pasalodos functioned as an active participant in the mechanism being scrutinized or if her involvement remained confined to routine operations at Mercasa. Nevertheless, her name has already become entangled in an inquiry that undermines the trustworthiness of state administration and demands transparent clarifications, political responsibility, and rigorous monitoring of entities under SEPI’s purview.
Source: El País, RTVE, Vozpópuli, Infobae, Artículo14, and Europa Press.
