José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero announced, after being charged with an alleged offence of influence peddling and having his office searched on 19 May, that he would soon explain himself to the public. He did not do so, and when, on 17 June, he appeared before judge José Luis Calama at the Audiencia Nacional, he asked for more time — "a week or ten days" — to clarify the origin of the jewels found in the safe in his office on Calle Ferraz, which an expert report has valued at 1.3 million euros. He did not do so once that deadline had passed either. On Thursday, in an interview on TVE — that is, more than two months after the discovery — when journalist Javier Ruiz asked him where the jewels had come from, the former prime minister merely said they were "a courtesy gift," but continued to offer no explanation of their origin. That, he assured, he would do before the judge.

Zapatero insisted there had been no "patrimonial intent" whatsoever, but the fact is that the moment he did not hand those jewels over to Patrimonio Nacional they became part of his personal assets. The former president did not specify when he received them, beyond saying it was "a very long time ago," nor from whom: "The country, I am not going to say."

EL PAÍS consulted a magistrate, a professor of Criminal Law and a tax law expert about how that small revelation — that the jewels were a gift — affects the judicial case. Judge Calama opened a separate proceeding for a possible tax offence and smuggling following the discovery, which also carries ethical and political implications for the former president, whom the PSOE has on occasion held up as a moral beacon.

Zapatero has still not clarified when he received the jewels, but Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez suggested on 18 June that it was in 2007. In a conversation with journalists in Brussels, the head of government explained that he speaks with the former president daily and added: "The Spain of 2007 is not the Spain of 2026. Nor is today's legislation that of 2007. Fortunately, this has since been regulated." But in 2007 the code of ethics was already in force — a non-statutory instrument introduced by Zapatero's own government in 2005 for all members of the executive and senior officials of the General State Administration. The text of the measure, published in the Official State Gazette on 7 March 2005, reads: "At the present time, it is necessary for public authorities to offer citizens the assurance that all senior officials, in the exercise of their functions, must comply not only with the obligations laid down by law, but also that their conduct must be inspired and guided by ethical and behavioural principles that have not, until now, been expressly set out in regulations." Among those "principles of conduct," the code specifies in point 3.6: "Any gift, favour or service received on advantageous terms that goes beyond customary social and courtesy norms, or any loans or other financial benefits that could influence the performance of their duties, shall be declined, without prejudice to the provisions of the Criminal Code. In the case of gifts of greater significance of an institutional nature, these shall be incorporated into State assets, under the terms set out in Law 33/2003 of 3 November on the Assets of Public Administrations."

Asked this Thursday on TVE whether he had violated his own ethical code, Zapatero responded: "It will be open to interpretation, like everything. Obviously, as with so many things that happen in life, when history unfolds and you look back, you probably would have made a different decision at the time."

**The value and origin of the jewels**

Initially, Luis Arroyo, the former president's unofficial spokesperson, had stated that the jewels found in the safe in the office on Calle Ferraz were gifts and inheritances worth between 30,000 and 50,000 euros. Following the expert report that raised that figure to 1.3 million euros, he apologized for having "led people astray." This Thursday, Zapatero assured that the valuation "will be subject to contradiction," meaning he will present a counter-expert report to challenge the one already held by Judge Calama.

As for their origin, the former president has not yet been willing to clarify who gave him that "courtesy gift," but Miguel Sebastián, Minister of Industry during Zapatero's second term, suggested in an article on elDiario.es that they could be from Saudi Arabia, because in 2008 he had received from the then-king of that country a case containing emerald and diamond jewels. In that article, he explained that after consulting his "chief of staff," he was told the usual practice was for ministers to keep such gifts — which indicates that even members of the Cabinet were unaware of the ethical code they had approved three years earlier — but that he had ultimately decided to hand them over to the National Heritage body and have them displayed in a cabinet at the ministry.

In 2007, Saudi Arabia sentenced a young victim of gang rape to six months in prison and 200 lashes for being in the company of a man to whom she was not related at the time of the attack. The King subsequently pardoned her from the lashes. The Saudi Penal Code also maintained at that time the death penalty for those who engaged in homosexual relations. The Zapatero government approved the gender equality law in March 2007 and the same-sex marriage law in 2005.

**Three scenarios**

The three experts consulted by EL PAÍS agree that any possible tax offenses arising from the gift would have passed the statute of limitations, and that if the then-president received the gift in Spain from a foreign head of state, no smuggling offense would apply.

But the first step, emphasizes magistrate Joaquim Bosch of the association Judges for Democracy, is to clarify the origin of the jewels, and three scenarios present themselves. "Either Zapatero provides documents proving that it was indeed a gift from 2007; or Zapatero fails to prove it, but the judge succeeds by carrying out a series of inquiries: investigation into the type of jewels, the manufacturer, or even requesting that information from the authorities of other countries. Or neither Zapatero nor the judge manages to establish it, in which case the most reasonable interpretation would be the one most favorable to the defendant, namely, that the statute of limitations applies."

For his part, Manuel Cancio, professor of Criminal Law at the Autonomous University of Madrid, explains that if Zapatero demonstrates the jewels were a gift received in 2007 but he did not declare them, "he would be admitting that he committed a tax offense at the time, even if it is no longer prosecutable due to the statute of limitations." The professor also finds it striking that the former president asked the judge for more time to explain the origin of the jewels once the expert appraisal report valuing them at 1.3 million euros was made public, "because from the moment they were found during the search of his office [May 19], he knew he would be asked about their origin."

José María Mollinedo, secretary general of the Union of Technical Staff of the Ministry of Finance (Gestha), explains that offenses against the public treasury (Article 305 of the Penal Code and subsequent articles), when the amount defrauded exceeds 120,000 euros, have a statute of limitations of five years for the basic tax offense and ten years for the aggravated offense (from 600,000 euros of fraud onwards). This means they would be time-barred if it were proven that the jewels were a gift from 2007. Mollinedo warns that, in any case, the value of the pieces would need to be established at the time of receipt, not at the time of discovery. The official notes that it was Zapatero's government that in 2008, during the financial crisis, "established a 100% rebate on wealth tax, which is why it became known as the zombie tax, although it was later reinstated." Furthermore, the Community of Madrid [where Zapatero resides], which also provides a rebate on this tax, only requires a wealth declaration from two million euros upwards.