¶ 1. Why Has the Prosecutor’s Office Repeatedly Asked for the Charges to Be Dropped?
The Spanish Fiscalía (Prosecutor’s Office) has repeatedly refused to pursue the full slate of corruption charges in the Aznalcóllar case — particularly those involving public officials — and has formally requested dismissal for many of the accused. This stance has been maintained despite a comprehensive six-year judicial investigation, the Juez de Instrucción’s firm resolution to proceed to trial, and voluminous evidence including leaked internal reports, irregular contracting procedures, and formal criminal accusations from the Guardia Civil’s UCO anti-corruption unit.
¶ Legal/Institutional Explanation:
The Fiscalía in Spain is formally hierarchical and centralised, falling under the Ministry of Justice. While nominally independent, there is a longstanding perception of political alignment with the sitting government — especially under the Socialist-led coalition.
In this case, the prosecution appears to be downplaying evidence compiled by judicial police and the investigative court, including substantial signs of influence peddling, document falsification, and procedural breaches in the tendering process.
This position may reflect institutional inertia, reluctance to prosecute politically sensitive cases, or — as some media and opposition figures suggest — political shielding of high-profile individuals with connections to the Socialist Party, including former Junta officials and business leaders tied to Minorbis/Grupo México.
¶ Strategic Implication:
The Prosecutor’s Office stance has been repeatedly overruled by the presiding judge, who has allowed the case to advance — an unusual but legally permitted scenario under Spanish law, where a judge may continue prosecution in the absence of Fiscal support when sufficient evidence exists.
This has heightened public suspicion and media coverage of a dual standard of justice, especially as other arms of the state (UCO, Administrative Tribunal, and now the trial court) continue to press forward.
¶ 2. What Corruption Scandal Is Currently Unfolding in Spain?
The current government under Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is facing widening corruption allegations, both historical and ongoing, which have culminated in mass street protests and widespread media scrutiny.
¶ Key Scandals:
The Koldo Case (Caso Koldo):
Involves Sánchez’s former Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos and his advisor Koldo García Izaguirre, accused of rigging COVID-era mask procurement contracts in exchange for kickbacks. This network connects to companies like Soluciones de Gestión, with ties to PSOE-linked operatives.
Begoña Gómez Investigation:
Sánchez’s wife, Begoña Gómez, is under investigation for alleged influence peddling involving university-linked public contracts. Though still in early stages, the optics have been damaging.
Leire Díez Audio Leaks:
Recently leaked audio implicates Socialist Party operative Leire Díez in a possible smear campaign against the Guardia Civil’s anti-corruption unit. While she resigned, this has raised fears of institutional sabotage.
Emerging Overlap with Aznalcóllar:
Defendants in the Aznalcóllar tender case have surfaced in the Koldo-linked networks — notably Vicente Fernández Guerrero, the ex-DG of the Andalusian Innovation Agency, now linked to companies allegedly protected by the PSOE patronage web. This blurs the line between historic corruption and ongoing abuse of office.
¶ Public Impact:
Widespread protests erupted in Madrid in June 2025 under the banner "Democracy or Mafia", demanding Sánchez’s resignation.
The credibility of Spain’s institutions is being challenged, especially regarding judicial independence, the role of the Prosecutor’s Office, and political interference in public tenders.
¶ 3. What Happens Under Spanish Law If a Crime Is Found in a Public Tender?
If a criminal offence is proven in the awarding of a public contract in Spain — such as bribery (cohecho), influence peddling (tráfico de influencias), or abuse of authority (prevaricación) — the law provides a clear, non-discretionary pathway for remedy.
¶ Governing Legal Framework:
The following statutes and case law are directly applicable:
- Ley de Contratos del Sector Público (Public Sector Contracts Law)
- Law 39/2015 on Administrative Procedure
- Articles 53.3 and 72.3 of the Spanish Mining Law (Royal Decree 2857/1978)
Precedent from the Spanish Supreme Court and Audiencia Nacional
¶ Legal Consequences:
Automatic Nullity of the Original Award
Article 47 of Law 39/2015 and supporting jurisprudence require that any administrative act — including the award of a tender — be declared null ab initio if tainted by criminal misconduct.
Disqualification of the Offending Bidder
If any member of the winning bid team is convicted of a crime related to the award, that consortium is disqualified automatically.
Award to Next Qualified Bidder
Where another legally compliant bidder exists, Spanish mining law (Article 53.3 and 72.3) requires the tender to be awarded to that bidder. The law does not permit voiding the process entirely if a valid bid was submitted.
No New Tender Permitted
The Junta or any administrative authority may not re-initiate a new competition under law if a qualified bidder exists and the original tender is nullified for criminal reasons. To do so would violate:
- The doctrine of legal certainty
- The principle of legitimate expectations
- Judicial supremacy over factual rulings and evidence
Procedural Binding of Administrative Court to Criminal Verdict
In the Aznalcóllar case, the administrative court explicitly suspended its ruling pending the outcome of the criminal trial, affirming that the two processes are legally and evidentially linked. This now means that a guilty verdict binds the administrative court to invalidate the award and reassign the project to Emerita Resources.
No Legal Loophole Remains
The entire framework is procedurally locked. Once a conviction is confirmed:
- The award to Minorbis must be annulled.
- Emerita must be assigned the tender.
Any administrative deviation would be subject to immediate injunctive challenge and reversal.
¶ Supporting Commentary:
This position has been consistently affirmed by:
- Emerita’s legal counsel
- Independent legal analysts
- Spanish case law and procedural doctrine
It is no longer a matter of speculation. A guilty verdict leads inevitably to Emerita’s assignment of the Aznalcóllar project under binding Spanish law.
.png)
¶ Impact for Emerita:
If the court rules in favour of Emerita, it does not merely reopen the tender — it invalidates the award to Minorbis, requiring a retroactive application of the scoring and eligibility rules.
Given that Emerita scored higher in independent technical evaluations (per the leaked reports) and was previously deemed the only legally valid bidder, this likely results in the assignment of the Aznalcóllar project to Emerita — without requiring a brand new open bid.
¶ 4. Is Spain just so corrupt that the outcome is in question?
Crónica de la ANDALUCÍA CORRUPTA
This is a landmark exposé—one that draws a direct line between the legal architecture underpinning the Aznalcóllar case and the broader system of institutional corruption it emerged from over the past decade in Spain.
Stop and consider this: for the current panel of ruling judges to issue a verdict in the Aznalcóllar corruption trial that dismisses or undermines the judicial groundwork laid by Judge Mercedes Alaya—then upheld by Judge Patricia Fernández and ratified by the Seville Provincial Court—would mean discrediting a full decade of anti-corruption rulings from some of Spain’s most respected judges--the very peers whose work laid the legal foundation for this case.
It would send shockwaves through the country’s legal system, signaling that three well-regarded judges had disregarded a case built on hard evidence and a firm judicial consensus forged and advanced by two of Spain’s most high-profile anti-corruption judges. And in the wake of the Crónica de la Andalucía Corrupta exposé, with public scrutiny rising fast across Spain, such a reversal wouldn’t just defy logic—it would amount to judicial self-sabotage reverberating locally, nationally, and internationally in the worst of ways.
As this article showcases, it was Judge Mercedes Alaya—the dama de hierro, Spain’s “Iron Lady” of anti-corruption justice—who first validated the corruption charges surrounding the Aznalcóllar mining tender, identifying systemic irregularities that favored Grupo México–Minorbis over Emerita. Judge Patricia Fernández later confirmed that the case met the threshold for 348 years’ worth of criminal prosecution. Then the full Seville Provincial Court unanimously sent it forward, anchored by a thoroughly validated evidentiary record and a strong judicial consensus.
At this very moment, three respected judges are deliberating on a case that could define their legacy—including Judge Ángel Márquez Romero, the presiding judge in the Aznalcóllar trial, who played a significant role in shaping Spain’s modern era of judicial accountability. Also serving as the lead judge then in his 1995 conviction of Juan Guerra, the original fixer of the country’s contemporary corruption era, this was a watershed moment in the fight against political impunity. His presence today doesn’t just merely connect the origins of this crisis to the current reckoning--it also carries forward the living legacy of Spain’s anti-corruption judiciary.
Now think about it: why would a veteran of Spain’s anti-corruption justice—someone who helped establish this very legacy—suddenly break with it and disregard a thoroughly validated body of evidence in one of the country’s most emblematic public corruption cases?
It would mean overturning the structural legal work of Spain’s anti-corruption judiciary at a time when public trust is already hanging by frayed threads. To do so would be to shatter the legacy of his most esteemed colleagues, and to tarnish his own hard-earned reputation in the process! The Crónica confirms what many have long suspected: corruption in Andalucía wasn’t an aberration—it was the operating system. A €5 billion “parallel administration” of 25,000 insiders functioned as a shadow bureaucracy, siphoning public wealth for private gain. The article exposes this machinery directly, echoing Judge Alaya’s determination that institutional corruption spanned multiple departments—and that the Aznalcóllar tender was rigged through insider orchestration. In doing so, it lays bare the structural context behind the scandal and implicitly challenges the judiciary to confront the very system that enabled it.
Its important to recognize that this trial is not a judgment on the people of Andalucía. In fact, the article makes it clear: Andalusians are not inherently corrupt—they’ve simply been trapped inside a system designed to protect its own. The region’s top prosecutor confirms that the people have long been demanding a strong reckoning.
What’s on trial here clearly isn’t just the Aznalcóllar contract. It’s the generational shadow legacy of a protectionist political machine that insulated corruption from consequence. To walk away from justice now wouldn’t merely preserve that system—it would enshrine it for another generation.
It’s no coincidence that the Aznalcóllar trial is reaching its verdict stage just as new corruption revelations are erupting in Madrid. The convergence is more than symbolic. It actually marks a national inflection point. The system is under scrutiny from both ends of the country, and citizens across Spain are no longer looking away. The public has reached saturation. As this article makes clear, what’s being demanded isn’t reform around the edges, its a clean break from the culture of impunity that has plagued both regional and national politics for decades. This isn’t just a moment for judicial accountability, it’s a public reckoning that calls for moral courage from the last institution with a track record of delivering it.
This trial isn’t simply about crimes of the past, it’s about dismantling the machinery that enabled them and sending a strong signal to the political elites this era is firmly over.
For the judiciary to walk away from this reckoning is unthinkable. That path wouldn’t merely defy logic. It would fracture one of the remaining institutions still capable of restoring trust and extinguish a key safeguard standing between Spain and full-blown moral collapse.
¶ 5. Won't the mine go up for a new tender?
¶ No Lawful Mechanism for Re-tendering
Spanish law does not permit the re-initiation of a concluded public tender if there is a qualified bidder and a criminal infraction is found. Any attempt by the Junta or another body to circumvent this — by voiding the competition or attempting to launch a new process — would violate Article 53.3, Article 72.3, and multiple provisions of the Ley 39/2015 on Administrative Procedure, including:
- The principle of legitimate expectations
- The doctrine of legal certainty
- Judicial supremacy in interpreting and ruling on facts already under adjudication
Any notion that the government could now “change the rules” post-verdict would represent a collapse of the rule of law — and it would not survive judicial appeal." To your concern if someone hasn’t done their due diligence on the legal structure of this tender and doesn’t trust governments or courts, then yes, waiting for the verdict is likely the most comfortable path. This doesn't change the facts that the criminal and administrative rulings are now structurally linked, with the risk of re-tendering being virtually non-existent.
Emerita Press Release - November 12, 2020: According to Emerita’s external Spanish legal counsel the key point with respect to Emerita’s pursuit of the Aznalcóllar project is that the laws governing public tenders in Spain are clear; in the event that a crime is committed by a bidder in the awarding of a public tender, that bidder shall be automatically disqualified, and the tender shall be awarded to the next qualified bidder in the process. Emerita is the only other qualified bidder in this public tender process.
Emerita Press Release - Feb. 10, 2021: The significance according to Emerita’s Spanish counsel is that under Spanish law governing the public tender process, if a crime is committed in awarding a tender that bid must be disqualified and the tender must be awarded to the next qualified bidder. Emerita is the only qualified bidder in the tender process.
Emerita Press Release - June 24, 2021: With respect to the title to the Aznalcollar property, Emerita’s external Spanish legal counsel has advised the Company that under Spanish law if there is commission of a crime in awarding a public tender that bid must be disqualified and the tender must be awarded to the next qualified bidder. Emerita is the only qualified bidder in this particular tender.
Triple S Substack - Nov 11, 2024: Spanish law stipulates that if a crime is proven in awarding a public tender, then the tender must be awarded to the next highest qualified bidder. In this case, Emerita is the only qualified bidder remaining.
Doc Jones Deep Dive Podcast - Feb 2025: It's important to note that the laws are codified in Spain, meaning they're very specific. If A happens, then B is the outcome. For example, the law clearly states if there is the commission of a crime in the awarding of a public tender, that tender must be disqualified and awarded to the next qualified bidder. The only other qualified bidder in regards to this tender is Emerita Resources.