Koldo García testified Thursday at the Supreme Court in Madrid that he performed personal errands for former Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos [1].
The testimony is central to the 'Caso Mascarillas' trial, as it explores the boundaries between official government duties and private favors. These revelations may illustrate the depth of the relationship between the former minister and those involved in the corruption probe.
García said he first met Ábalos through businessman Víctor de Aldama [2]. During his time as an adviser, García said he handled various private tasks to reduce the minister's workload. He described these activities as searching for a chalet, picking up children, purchasing gifts, and paying for hotels [3].
"Ábalos trabajaba mucho y yo tenía que quitarle el máximo de trabajo," García said [4].
The proceedings also addressed the role of other associates. García said he met a woman named Jesica through Aldama [2]. He said that Jesica had attempted to blackmail Ábalos by threatening to reveal personal information she had learned via Aldama [2].
Other witnesses have also provided extensive accounts to the court. Businessman Víctor de Aldama testified for eight hours [5]. The trial continues to examine the network of influence and the alleged irregularities surrounding the procurement of masks during the pandemic [3].
García's testimony on April 30, 2026 [6], focuses on clarifying the nature of his professional and personal ties to the former minister. The court is weighing whether these personal services were part of a broader pattern of illicit influence or simply administrative support.
“"Ábalos trabajaba mucho y yo tenía que quitarle el máximo de trabajo."”
The testimony shifts the focus of the 'Caso Mascarillas' trial from purely financial irregularities to the personal dynamics of power. By detailing the performance of private errands, García highlights a level of intimacy and dependency between the former minister and his adviser that may suggest a blurring of public office and private service, potentially opening new avenues for prosecutors to argue a systemic lack of oversight.
