Aldama’s associate asks for his designation as a suspect to be annulled because he was investigated behind his back

Claudio Rivas’s defence challenges the validity of the investigative measures taken against him during the Gaslow case.

Original photo caption: Claudio Rivas, centre, appears as a suspect in the fuel-fraud case. Mariscal / Agencia EFE

ÁNGELA POVES

Madrid  Created: 20 Sep 2026 02:00  |  Last updated: 20 Sep 2026 02:00

Claudio Rivas, an associate of Víctor de Aldama, the businessman implicated in the Koldo case, and a man linked to the alleged purchase of the villa in La Alcaidesa, Cádiz, that was rented for former minister José Luis Ábalos’s family holidays, has asked the National Court to annul his addition to the Gaslow case as a suspect.

The Civil Guard’s Central Operational Unit (UCO) attributed to Rivas the leadership of three companies linked to the fuel fraud involving the operator Gaslow and money laundering valued at more than €20 million. He argues that evidence against him accumulated for years without his being brought into the proceedings or being able to exercise his defence rights.

His appeal raises two separate consequences: first, he considers the investigative measures carried out after the deadline to be unlawful; second, he maintains that his late addition to the case violated his right to defend himself.

Rivas, under investigation for offences against the Public Treasury, criminal organisation, continuous falsification and money laundering, argues that, of the four people regarded as the scheme’s ringleaders, he alone ‘went through the entire investigation without any procedural act or safeguard’.

The first ground raised by the businessman concerns the extension of the investigation.

He states that investigating judge Santiago Pedraz did not calculate the extension ‘properly’. This, he argues, made the subsequent investigative inquiries ‘unlawful’ and also breached his defence rights in relation to the suspect’s statement, which was ordered and taken ‘out of time’.

‘Every single requirement leading to manifest denial of a defence is present, regardless of the view the Chamber may take of the calculation argument,’ his submissions state.

The defence traces the problem to two orders that formally instituted the proceedings, dated 22 and 25 March 2021 respectively.

In its view, the second order could not restart the calculation because the case had already been opened three days earlier. ‘The defect is structural; it affects the very foundation of the proceedings.’

It therefore argues that the mistaken understanding of when the case was opened caused a cascading effect: none of the extensions connected with the statutory time limit, and each merely extended an ‘extraordinary period’ that never joined the ordinary one.

According to the defence, the investigation was in fact conducted without a valid time limit: four and a half years of investigative activity that was substantively out of time.

Rivas’s defence maintains that he was added to the proceedings after the investigative period had ‘expired’ and following years of an inquiry conducted ‘behind his back’. Counsel argues that this renders the proceedings constitutionally invalid because the businessman was unable to defend himself.

‘He had no possibility whatsoever—legal or practical—of knowing that the evidence was directed against him, because no procedural act was addressed to him and those that touched his circle pointed to others by decision of the investigating body itself.’

The defence bases its claim that he was investigated ‘behind his back’ on a UCO report.

That report stated that Rivas owned two companies connected to the fuel fraud, that he was linked to the purchase of Gaslow, and that witnesses had referred to him as the ‘boss’.

The defence explains that this evidence was sufficient for Rivas to be brought into the proceedings as a suspect and, from that point, to have ‘the opportunity to participate in an adversarial investigation’.

It also notes that, despite all those assertions, neither its client’s homes nor his companies were searched. He was not arrested and no precautionary measure was imposed on him.

The defence further argues that all these ‘irregularities’ meant that Rivas gave his statement in court ‘out of time’, after more than four years of investigation.

It stresses that, despite the evidence against him, he was neither formally placed under investigation nor summoned to testify within the applicable time limit.

Indeed, the defence says he had not even entered an appearance in the case and did not receive the written submissions until two months after his court appearance.

‘The investigation of a case substantively directed against him was extended seven times without his being able to take part in that debate […]. The denial of a defence is real and specific, and in no way rhetorical,’ it adds.

The filing sent to the National Court concludes that, in light of all the arguments presented, ‘it appears that Claudio Rivas was heard so that the case could be closed, not so that it could be investigated’.

See original article