The Plus Ultra airline is once again making headlines, this time for reasons unrelated to its commercial activity. The company’s president, Julio Martínez, and the CEO, Roberto Roselli, were arrested on Thursday in a police operation investigating an alleged money laundering offense related to the economic management of the company and the public bailout approved in 2021.
The company, which defines itself as a Spanish airline specializing in connections between Madrid and several Latin American and African cities, has been embroiled for years in controversies related to its financing, shareholding and economic viability.
From an ambitious project to a suspect operation
Although its first flights took off in 2015, Plus Ultra’s story began in 2011, driven by Spanish executives Julio Martinez Sola and Fernando Gonzalez Enfedaque, former heads at Air Madrid: its goal was to compete on long-haul routes between Spain, Latin America and Africa operating mainly with Airbus A330 aircraft.
However, since its foundation, the airline has never been able to show a profit. The lack of profitability was covered for years with capital increases and loans from various companies, including two linked to three Venezuelan businessmen with interests in Panama: Rodolfo José Reyes Rojas, Raif El Arigie Harbie and Roberto Roselli Mieles. These companies (Snip Aviation and FlySpain) control today more than half of the shareholding and have kept the company operating through successive economic injections.
The origin of these funds, their relationship with financial structures in Panama (considered a tax haven by Spain) and the growing weight of Venezuelan investors marked the beginning of the controversies surrounding the company.
The public bailout that triggered the political debate
In the middle of the crisis caused by the pandemic, Plus Ultra asked for help to the State for guaranteeing its continuity. On March 9th, 2021, the Government authorized a 53 Million Euros bailout through the Solvency Support Fund for Strategic Companies, managed by SEPI: the decision was based on external reports which considered as strategic the routes operated by the company.
The financial package included an ordinary loan of 19 million and a participative loan of 34 million for the payment of debts, salaries, passenger reimbursements and fleet renewal. Although the operation had technical support, it opened an intense political debate: opposition parties questioned the transparency of the process and focused on the majority participation of Venezuelan businessmen and on the airline’s links with companies based in Panama.
Fernando García Manso, then president of the company, defended that the public aid was “strictly necessary” and that the disappearance of Plus Ultra could generate monopolies on essential routes.
The origin of the cause: loans, foreign accounts and Venezuelan capital
The turning point came in October 2024, when the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office filed a complaint stating that part of the ransom would have been used to pay off debts related to an alleged international money laundering network from Venezuela. According to the preliminary investigation, the public funds could have been diverted to foreign accounts linked to that organization.
The Audiencia Nacional, after reviewing the case, declined jurisdiction due to lack of territorial competence, referring the procedure to the Juzgado de Instrucción nº 15 of Madrid, where it is still under secret summary proceedings. It is in this context where the arrests of Martínez and Roselli took place, considered key to clarify the flow of money and the role played by the shareholder companies.
An airline in the spotlight
Plus Ultra presents itself as a Spanish airline with its own crew and consolidated routes to Latin America and Africa. However, the combination of recurring losses, opaque foreign capital and a highly questioned bailout has turned the airline into one of the most controversial cases in the airline industry in recent times.
The investigation is still open and must determine whether there was an illegal diversion of funds, whether there was a laundering network linked to Venezuelan investors and what was the degree of responsibility of the detained executives.
