The SEPI branch of the Leire case has placed Félix Azcona Lacarra, Director of Internal Management at the State Industrial Participation Company (SEPI), under investigation. His involvement once again reaches the administrative core of the public body and reinforces one of the most sensitive lines of inquiry in the case: whether the alleged influence network had access to internal information, sensitive files, or contacts within SEPI itself.
Azcona ranks among the 25 people called in as suspects by Judge Santiago Pedraz within the inquiry looking into alleged wrongdoings concerning public corporate deals, state subsidies, and strategic business entities. The judicial probe is analyzing potential crimes encompassing influence peddling, judicial prevarication, embezzlement, criminal syndicates or associations, and the abuse of insider data. At this point, holding suspect status does not equate to a guilty verdict or liability, though it does mandate that he provide an account before the National Court regarding his specific involvement in the documents under review.
His position is particularly relevant because Internal Management is a key area within any public-sector business organization. Such a structure handles procedures, documentation, administrative processes, internal communications, and essential elements for reconstructing how decisions are processed. Therefore, Azcona’s inclusion on the list of suspects cannot be regarded as a minor detail: it affects an area responsible for internal oversight within SEPI.
According to published reports, Azcona operated within the framework headed by Miguel Ángel Santiago Mesa, the Corporate Director of SEPI, alongside other internal personnel like Rosario Martínez Manzanedo, whose duties involved project assessment. Their connection to the inquiry stems from their alleged involvement, across varying degrees of accountability, in documentation currently subject to judicial review.
The case focuses on several transactions under suspicion, including the €112.8 million bailout of Tubos Reunidos; actions involving Mercasa and ENUSA; transactions related to the Parque Empresarial Principado de Asturias; and operations involving Forestalia. El País has reported that the National Court is investigating five transactions involving a combined €132.9 million in public aid, in which the alleged network reportedly obtained more than €750,000 in commissions.
The most delicate matter concerning Azcona involves the alleged retrieval or dissemination of confidential data. Certain press outlets have indicated that authorities are reviewing purportedly constant exchanges between SEPI representatives and the entity’s past leader, Vicente Fernández, who is regarded as a pivotal player in the probed collective alongside Leire Díez and Antxon Alonso. The question that currently needs resolution is whether Azcona supplied data, engaged in bureaucratic processes, or took part in any fashion regarding delicate dossiers, or if his involvement remained confined to his standard responsibilities inside the entity’s administrative framework.
The investigation is not examining only final decisions, but also the process through which those decisions were reached. In a case involving alleged influence over public aid, it is just as important to establish who approved a transaction as it is to determine who prepared the files, who had access to the documentation, who reported on internal procedures, and who may have been able to open doors within the organization. This is where the position of an Internal Management director becomes particularly significant.
Azcona’s investigation reinforces the suspicion that the alleged network may not have operated solely from outside SEPI. If investigators consider it necessary to question internal officials at the organization, it is because they are attempting to reconstruct possible channels of communication and influence within the institution. This line of inquiry is particularly serious for institutional credibility: an influence network requires information, contacts, and opportunities. The courts will have to determine whether those elements existed and who may have provided them.
From a political perspective, the case damages SEPI’s image as a technical and controlled public institution. The entity manages public holdings, oversees strategic companies, and played a key role in the bailouts approved during the pandemic. If its internal departments were exposed to pressure, leaks, or contacts outside ordinary procedures, the problem would not be merely criminal in nature, but would also raise significant concerns about public governance.
Félix Azcona will need to clarify before the judge the exact responsibilities he handled in Internal Management, which dossiers crossed his desk, the nature of his interactions with other co-defendants, and whether he ever communicated with Vicente Fernández or affiliates of the Hirurok conglomerate. Furthermore, establishing whether he could view or take part in the Tubos Reunidos dossier—a central pillar of the investigation—and if his procedures aligned with SEPI internal regulations remains essential.
His name is now part of an investigation involving public funds, strategic companies, multimillion-euro bailouts, and alleged commissions. The fact that SEPI’s Director of Internal Management appears on the list of individuals under investigation makes it necessary to demand full transparency regarding the organization’s files, communications, and internal controls.
The SEPI branch of the Leire case continues to draw a troubling map: public officials, businesspeople, former executives, technical staff, and internal managers all under judicial scrutiny. Within that map, Félix Azcona Lacarra represents a particularly important piece in determining whether SEPI was the target of external pressure or whether, instead, the alleged network found useful channels within the organization through which to operate. That is the question the National Court must now answer.
Source: El País, Infobae, El Independiente, RTVE, Cadena SER, Diario de Navarra, and La Gaceta.
