She did not actually work at the public companies that employed her
En los pasillos del Tribunal Supremo, una declaración que pretendía distanciar al ex ministro José Luis Ábalos de la corrupción terminó, paradójicamente, acercándolo más a ella. Jésica Rodríguez admitió no haber trabajado en las empresas públicas que la contrataron ni saber quién pagaba su lujoso apartamento en la Plaza de España, revelando un entramado donde los favores circulan en silencio y la ignorancia declarada rara vez es inocente. La investigación del juez Leopoldo Puente avanza hacia una pregunta que las sociedades democráticas deben hacerse: ¿hasta dónde llega la responsabilidad de quien ocupa el poder cuando quienes le rodean prosperan a su sombra?
- Rodríguez confesó ante el Supremo que nunca acudió a trabajar en INECO ni en TRAGSATEC, empresas públicas que la contrataron mientras Ábalos dirigía el Ministerio de Transportes.
- Un presunto testaferro del empresario Víctor de Aldama habría pagado 2.700 euros mensuales de alquiler por su apartamento de lujo durante tres años, en lo que los investigadores sospechan que fue un soborno encubierto a cambio de contratos públicos.
- La estrategia de Rodríguez de presentar a Ábalos como ajeno a su situación laboral chocó de frente con conversaciones de WhatsApp en las que el propio ministro instruía a su asesor para gestionar sus renovaciones de contrato.
- El caso se expande: Ábalos también habría vivido en viviendas financiadas por la misma red, y el empresario Aldama le acusa de haber recibido 400.000 euros en comisiones en efectivo.
- La declaración del jueves no alivió la presión sobre el ex ministro, sino que redujo aún más el margen para una negación creíble.
Jésica Rodríguez compareció el jueves ante el Tribunal Supremo y reconoció lo que la investigación llevaba meses rodeando: no trabajó realmente en las empresas públicas que la contrataron y desconoce quién pagaba el alquiler de su apartamento de lujo con vistas a la Plaza de España de Madrid.
Ese piso, situado en uno de los barrios más caros de la capital, ocupa el centro de la investigación por corrupción contra José Luis Ábalos, ex ministro de Transportes y expareja de Rodríguez. Entre 2019 y 2022, alguien abonaba 2.700 euros mensuales. La Guardia Civil apunta a que esos pagos constituían un soborno canalizado a través de Luis Alberto Escolano, colaborador cercano del empresario Víctor de Aldama, a cambio de contratos públicos durante la pandemia, especialmente en la compra de mascarillas. Rodríguez reconoció que cuando algo se estropeaba en el apartamento, llamaba a Escolano, aunque afirmó ignorar quién sufragaba los gastos.
Sobre su empleo en INECO y TRAGSATEC, ambas bajo el paraguas del Ministerio de Transportes, Rodríguez admitió que no acudía a trabajar. Atribuyó su contratación a Koldo García, asesor de Ábalos, y a su hermano Joseba, insistiendo en que el ex ministro no tuvo nada que ver. Sin embargo, los mensajes de WhatsApp recuperados por la policía cuentan otra historia: cuando su contrato en INECO estaba a punto de vencer, Rodríguez avisó a Ábalos, quien trasladó el mensaje a García con una instrucción directa. La respuesta de García fue elocuente: había que moverla a otro sitio y luego reincorporarla. Ábalos cerró el intercambio con un escueto «díselo».
El juez Leopoldo Puente investiga al ex ministro por posible cohecho, tráfico de influencias y otros delitos conexos. A las viviendas pagadas por la misma red se suman las acusaciones del propio Aldama, quien afirma haberle entregado 400.000 euros en comisiones en efectivo. La declaración del jueves no despejó ninguna sombra sobre Ábalos; al contrario, dejó menos espacio que nunca para la duda razonable.
Jésica Rodríguez walked into the Supreme Court on Thursday and admitted what the investigation had been circling for months: she did not actually work at the public companies that employed her, and she had no idea who was paying the rent on her luxury apartment overlooking Plaza de España in Madrid.
The apartment itself—a gleaming property in one of the city's most expensive neighborhoods—sits at the center of a sprawling corruption investigation into José Luis Ábalos, the former Transport Minister with whom Rodríguez had been in a romantic relationship. Between 2019 and 2022, someone was covering the monthly rent of 2,700 euros. Rodríguez testified she did not know who. Civil Guard investigators, however, had a theory: the payments were a bribe, funneled through a front man for businessman Víctor de Aldama, in exchange for lucrative public contracts awarded during the pandemic, particularly for mask purchases.
The suspected intermediary was Luis Alberto Escolano, a close collaborator of Aldama's who appeared in the businessman's phone contacts simply as "brother." Escolano, now implicated in the broader Koldo case at the National Court, had arranged the apartment through a corporate entity and maintained it as Rodríguez's residence for three years. When something broke or needed fixing, Rodríguez testified, Escolano was the person she called. Yet when asked directly who was actually paying the bills, she claimed ignorance. She said she had found the apartment through Koldo García, Ábalos's former advisor, but insisted she knew nothing of the financial arrangements behind it.
Rodríguez's testimony also addressed two jobs she held at state-controlled companies: INECO and TRAGSATEC, both under the Transport Ministry's umbrella. She admitted she did not show up to work at either place. When asked how this happened, she attributed the hiring to García and his brother Joseba, claiming she had never asked Ábalos himself to place her in any position. This attempt to distance the former minister from her employment, however, collided with evidence the police had already gathered.
A WhatsApp exchange between Ábalos and García told a different story. Rodríguez had sent a message warning that her contract at INECO was about to expire. She forwarded it to Ábalos, who then passed it to García with a note. García's response was blunt: "My God, I already warned about this. This is too much. We need to move her somewhere else and then bring her back. She's already been there 18 months." Ábalos replied with a direct instruction: "Tell her." The message suggested the minister was actively managing her employment situation, not passively uninvolved as Rodríguez claimed.
Judge Leopoldo Puente is investigating Ábalos on multiple fronts. The apartment rent is being examined as potential bribery. The employment arrangements are being scrutinized as possible abuse of influence. Beyond Rodríguez, other evidence has emerged: Ábalos lived in a house and an apartment, both paid for by the same network. And Aldama himself has made accusations that Ábalos received 400,000 euros in cash commissions for steering contracts to favored bidders. The testimony on Thursday did not clear the former minister. If anything, it narrowed the space where plausible deniability could still exist.
Citas Notables
My God, I already warned about this. This is too much. We need to move her somewhere else and then bring her back. She's already been there 18 months.— Koldo García, in WhatsApp message to Ábalos regarding Rodríguez's contract situation
Tell her.— Ábalos, instructing García to communicate the plan to Rodríguez
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would someone admit in court that they didn't actually work at their jobs? That seems like it would hurt her own position.
Because the alternative—lying under oath in the Supreme Court—carries its own risks. She may have calculated that partial honesty about the employment was safer than maintaining a fiction the judge could easily disprove.
But she still claims not to know who paid her rent. That's a pretty convenient gap in knowledge for someone living in a luxury apartment.
It is. Though it's worth noting that in these arrangements, the person receiving the benefit often isn't told the mechanics. Plausible deniability works both ways. She gets the apartment; she doesn't ask questions; she can later say truthfully that she doesn't know.
The WhatsApp messages seem to contradict her claim that Ábalos wasn't involved in her hiring.
Exactly. She's trying to say García and his brother handled everything, but the messages show Ábalos actively directing García to manage her contract situation. That's not passive. That's hands-on.
So what does her testimony actually accomplish for her defense?
It distances her from the bribery angle, perhaps. She can say she didn't know the apartment was paid for as a quid pro quo. But it doesn't help Ábalos much. If anything, it makes the judge's job easier—she's confirmed the employment was fake and the apartment was mysterious, which supports the corruption theory.