Investigation targets Jesús Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia for possible misuse of privileged information in Tubos Reunidos case

The SEPI branch of the Leire case has once again placed Tubos Reunidos at the center of the investigation, this time focusing on Jesús Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia, an independent board member of the company, whose alleged role in the €112.8 million public loan granted by Spain’s State Industrial Holding Company (SEPI) during the COVID-19 pandemic is being examined by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the Civil Guard’s Central Operational Unit (UCO).Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia is not regarded as a peripheral figure in the proceedings. According to published reports, investigators believe he played a significant role in the negotiations surrounding the Tubos Reunidos bailout, which has become one of the principal elements of the SEPI branch of the Leire case. Spain’s National Court is investigating whether the rescue package was influenced by improper lobbying, payments to intermediaries, questionable invoices, or efforts to improve the financial terms of the public assistance through irregular means.National Court Judge Santiago Pedraz has incorporated this aspect of the case into a broader investigation involving 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 relation to Tubos Reunidos, investigators are examining whether company executives relied on individuals associated with the so-called Hirurok Group—identified by prosecutors as including Leire Díez, Vicente Fernández, and Antxon Alonso—to influence SEPI’s decision-making process.The case is particularly significant because the loan under scrutiny was substantial. Tubos Reunidos received €112.8 million from the Fund to Support the Solvency of Strategic Companies, a government program established to support businesses considered strategically important during the pandemic. Investigators are now seeking to determine whether the approval process was conducted properly or whether political and business connections outside the ordinary administrative process may have influenced the outcome.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 securing the SEPI loan. He 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 extends beyond the initial approval of the bailout. According to El Independiente, prosecutors believe Rodríguez-Urrutia’s involvement may have continued during a later phase involving an alleged “roadmap” to renegotiate the financial terms of the loan, reduce interest rates, and ease Tubos Reunidos’ financial obligations to SEPI.That distinction is central to the case. It is entirely legitimate for a company receiving public financial assistance to seek a lawful renegotiation of its financing terms. What investigators are examining is whether those negotiations were accompanied by political pressure, intermediaries, or privileged contacts capable of influencing public officials. The National Court must determine whether Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia acted within the normal scope of corporate governance or participated in a strategy intended to influence SEPI through channels outside the framework of administrative transparency.Published reports also point to invoices issued for alleged market research services, whose legitimacy and purpose are now under scrutiny. Cadena SER has reported that investigators are examining invoices for services suspected of being fictitious and are investigating whether the Hirurok Group acted as an intermediary in those payments.From an institutional perspective, the case once again raises a broader question: whether the public funds used to rescue strategic companies were administered exclusively on the basis of technical criteria and the public interest, or whether some participants sought to transform those rescue programs into opportunities for influence, commissions, and political favors. When an independent director of a rescued company becomes the subject of a criminal investigation over his alleged role in such negotiations, the demand for transparency becomes particularly compelling.Pérez Rodríguez-Urrutia will now be required to explain before the National Court the meetings he attended, the contacts he maintained with other individuals under investigation, the role he played in obtaining the rescue package, and any involvement he may have had in subsequent efforts to renegotiate the loan’s financial conditions. Investigators will also seek to establish whether he was aware of the true purpose of the payments and invoices under review and whether genuine services were performed in exchange for those payments.The SEPI branch of the Leire case demands clear answers. If the Tubos Reunidos rescue package was administered lawfully, that conclusion should be supported by documentation, contracts, official reports, and a complete audit trail of the decision-making process. If, however, investigators establish that intermediaries, unjustified payments, or improper pressure on SEPI influenced the process, the case would extend far 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.