The Valencia six-judge court has brought a high-profile case to light, accusing Sergio Blasco, once the director of the General Hospital, along with eleven others, of a series of offenses including embezzlement, fraud in administration, favors in exchange for influence, fraud, and bribery connected to the hospital’s operations spanning 2005 to 2014 as outlined in the official case briefing. One other related figure, Rafael Blasco, a former health minister and relative of Sergio, faced provisional dismissal with the finding that his involvement did not appear sufficiently justified.
The investigation began in earnest after a complaint filed by Marina Albiol, a former member of the United Left party, in 2014. This led to the first rounds of searches and arrests in March 2017. According to the indictment, Sergio Blasco allegedly built a network of firms and individuals who exploited the public contracting process. The aim was to secure direct and indirect commissions through favored suppliers and contractors, while these firms outsourced services to other members of the same network to widen the flow of illicit payments.
The alleged organizational framework unfolded in three tiers. At the first level, the companies Out-Log, Maintenance Integral Turia, and Connectall Systems SL reportedly received hospital contracts totaling about thirty-three million euros. The second tier comprised mixed-activity companies that moved roughly two million euros into contracts and six hundred thousand euros in payments from subcontractors. The third tier represented entities with little or no real economic activity; these entities allegedly retained more than one million euros paid by subcontractors and served to cover private expenses for Sergio Blasco, his family, and associated individuals on the land.
Experts note that the pattern described in the indictment suggests a deliberate scheme to channel funds through a layered corporate network. The structure appears designed to mask real ownership, the flow of money, and the true beneficiaries of the awarded resources. Observers say that by arranging contracts through several intermediaries, the involved parties could obscure the origin and destination of payments while creating the appearance of legitimate business activity. The implications extend beyond the hospital and into broader public procurement practices, raising questions about oversight, auditing, and the safeguards needed to prevent conflicts of interest in state-funded health services. The case continues to unfold in court, with prosecutors outlining how the network allegedly operated and who stood to gain at various points in the process, from decision-makers to subcontractors and service providers.
Judicial authorities have emphasized the importance of transparency in how public contracts are awarded and executed. They stress that contracts should reflect genuine service needs, fair pricing, and verifiable performance, with adequate checks to prevent kickbacks and undue influence. The hospital administration and its stakeholders face ongoing scrutiny as the legal proceedings proceed. The broader public interest centers on restoring trust in public health institutions and ensuring that taxpayer funds are used in ways that support patient care and system efficiency. The case is tracked by the judicial system as it moves through investigations, indictments, and potential trials, with regular updates issued by the court and defense teams. Statements from officials and legal representatives are cited as part of the ongoing examination of the evidence and its implications for governance and accountability in the public health sector.