Questioning the scope and timing of the ongoing investigation

Critics of the current judicial trajectory warn that the focus on Plus Ultra risks becoming an overly politicized endeavor that ignores the broader context of pandemic-era emergency measures. While financial transparency is important, some observers express concern that the repeated, exhaustive demands for information on the airline's history may be less about uncovering genuine fraud and more about sustaining a long-running political narrative against former government officials. There is a risk that the intense scrutiny of this specific case, while other larger economic issues remain, could create a chilling effect on the state's ability to act decisively during future crises. Furthermore, the defense for those involved has repeatedly pointed out that the bailout was approved through established institutional channels and has already been reviewed by European authorities, who found no grounds to reopen the case. By continuing to dig into every historical detail of the company's capital, the court may be overextending its reach, potentially turning a standard administrative review into a prolonged legal ordeal that consumes significant public resources. The focus on the 'Venezuelan connection' is viewed by some as a way to keep the case in the headlines, rather than addressing the actual legal merits of the initial bailout decision, which was designed to preserve jobs and connectivity during an unprecedented global shutdown.