In a significant legal ruling, the Provincial Court of Madrid has acquitted Luis Medina, the son of the late 19th Duke of Feria, of fraud and falsification charges while sentencing Alberto Luceño to three years and eight months in prison for his role in a high-profile case regarding the procurement of sanitary materials during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The trial, which became a focal point of public attention as it unfolded in February 2025, addressed allegations that Luceño and Medina had defrauded the Madrid City Council. The pair were accused of pocketing approximately six million euros in commissions from the sale of sanitary equipment amid the severe health crisis.
On March 19, 2025, the court delivered its verdict, stating that Luceño had committed tax fraud and falsification of official documents while clearing Medina of the accusations linked to fraud. Both defendants had faced serious allegations, with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office suggesting nine and fifteen years of prison time for Medina and Luceño, respectively.
The court explained that it was not proven that Medina and Luceño had informed city officials—specifically Elena Collado, the then head of City Hall purchases—that they would not charge any commissions for their services, which they were not legally obliged to disclose. The ruling mentioned, "The businessmen denied such an extreme in the trial, indicating that this statement does not appear in any of the messages exchanged with city representatives. Thus, we conclude that no fraud was committed."
Despite the absence of proof supporting a deception claim, the court found clear evidence of Luceño's failure to report income amounting to 1.35 million euros to the tax authorities, which resulted in his tax fraud conviction. Information revealed during the trial indicated that the price of sanitary products sold to the Council had been artificially inflated—by 60% for masks, 81% for nitrile gloves, and 71% for tests—with profit margins significantly benefitting both Luceño and Medina.
During the trial, Luceño asserted that he was merely following instruction from a Malaysian supplier who established the price of medical goods, disputing claims that he had pocketed excessive commissions without disclosure. He emphasized, "The procurement was done in an ethical manner, and no one from the administration inquired about our commission." Medina, on the other hand, attempted to position himself as a facilitator in the deal, stating that his goal was to help the city during the critical period.
While the Municipal Authorities entered the trial with hopes of securing justice for the alleged fraud, they were left disappointed. Madrid's Mayor, José Luis Martínez-Almeida, mentioned that the city's legal team would review whether to appeal the court's decision. He indicated, “The determination that these actions do not constitute fraud does not lessen the ethical implications involved.”
Furthermore, the legal outcome has prompted public scrutiny, with alluding political ramifications. Madrid's opposition party, Más Madrid, has expressed its disappointment, with representative Nuria Zapico highlighting the sentiment of betrayal felt by citizens who believed they were misled during a time when transparent and honest practices were essential.
The case is emblematic of the struggle against corruption that has intensified in Spain, especially during the COVID-19 crisis as governments scrambled to procure necessary medical supplies in an unprecedented health emergency. The court’s ruling, which emphasized the need for harder evidence to convict for fraud, underscores the complexities inherent in these transactions, often clouded by urgency and confusion.
Moving forward, observers expect more intense scrutiny on public procurement processes and calls for reform to protect against potential abuses by private intermediaries. The acquittal of Medina and the sentencing of Luceño signal a dual narrative where ethical conduct in business is increasingly put under the microscope, but also where legal frameworks require further refinement to prevent exploitation during crises.
In conclusion, the case remains a critical point of discussion about transparency and accountability in public contracting, reflecting not just on the individuals involved but also on broader societal implications in governance and public trust.
