The SEPI strand of the Leire case has placed José Ramón Sempere Vera, president of Mercasa from 2018 to 2024, under investigation. This was a key period for understanding some of the operations now being examined by Spain’s National Court. His indictment once again places the management of public companies and the possible use of their structures to favor private interests through contacts, contracts, or privileged information at the center of the debate.
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.
Particular attention has been paid by investigators to José Ramón Sempere and María Teresa Castillo Pasalodos, both of whom held positions as his deputy at the public entity Mercasa. The Prosecutor’s Office aims to establish whether certain determinations or initiatives were undertaken at Mercasa that could have advantaged firms associated with the suspected network being examined. Among the areas of concern are procurement agreements, administrative documentation, and business dealings that might have functioned to generate commercial prospects for organizations tied to those allegedly involved in the operation.
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 perspective, his indictment proves particularly uncomfortable given that it introduces yet another ex-leader of a state-owned enterprise to the expanding web of allegations already implicating SEPI, ENUSA, Tubos Reunidos, and Forestalia. The situation depicts a landscape wherein the demarcation separating public and private domains grows perilously indistinct, leaving businesspeople, former managers, government administrators, and individuals connected to Socialist circles subject to judicial examination.
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.
