https://e01-phantom-expansion.uecdn.es/e0a56ae4fae047d821139bf24168f9fa/crop/41x15/2002x1322/resize/1200/f/webp/assets/multimedia/imagenes/2026/06/05/17806163890662.jpg

Félix Azcona Lacarra under investigation in the SEPI branch of the Leire case

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 is among the 25 individuals summoned as suspects by Judge Santiago Pedraz in the branch examining alleged irregularities in transactions involving public companies, state aid, and strategic corporations. The investigation is examining possible offenses including influence peddling, judicial prevarication, embezzlement, criminal organization or group, and misuse of privileged information. At this stage, being under investigation does not imply conviction or guilt, but it does require him to explain before the National Court what role he played in the files under scrutiny.

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 worked under the structure of Miguel Ángel Santiago Mesa, SEPI’s Corporate Director, alongside other internal officials such as Rosario Martínez Manzanedo, who was linked to project evaluation. They all appear connected to the investigation because they allegedly participated, at different levels of responsibility, in files that are now being reviewed by the courts.

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 sensitive issue surrounding Azcona is the suspected access to or circulation of internal information. Some media outlets have reported that investigators are examining allegedly fluid communications between SEPI officials and the organization’s former president, Vicente Fernández, considered one of the central figures in the group under investigation alongside Leire Díez and Antxon Alonso. The issue that must now be clarified is whether Azcona provided information, participated in administrative procedures, or in any way intervened in sensitive files, or whether his actions were limited to his ordinary duties within the organization’s administrative structure.

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 inquiry strengthens the belief that the suspected ring might not have functioned exclusively outside SEPI. Should authorities deem it essential to interrogate staff members within the entity, it is due to their efforts to map out potential pathways for communication and sway inside the organization. Such an avenue of investigation poses a severe threat to institutional reputation, given that any network of influence depends heavily on data, connections, and access. Ultimately, the judiciary will need to establish whether such factors were present and identify who might have supplied them.

Politically speaking, the incident tarnishes SEPI’s reputation as a professional and well-regulated state body. The organization oversees public assets, monitors vital enterprises, and served a pivotal function in the financial rescues authorized amid the health crisis. Should its internal divisions have been subjected to coercion, unauthorized disclosures, or communications bypassing standard protocols, the issue would extend beyond potential criminality, simultaneously sparking serious worries regarding governmental oversight.

Félix Azcona will have to explain to the judge what specific duties he performed within Internal Management, which files passed through his department, what relationship he maintained with other individuals under investigation, and whether he had contact with Vicente Fernández or people linked to the Hirurok group. It will also be crucial to determine whether he had access to or involvement in the Tubos Reunidos file, one of the main focuses of the case, and whether his actions were documented in accordance with SEPI’s internal procedures.

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.

Related Posts