One of the longest and most debated trials of recent years has concluded in Madrid—the Pujol family case, linked to years of holding large sums in accounts in Andorra. After six months of hearings and 38 sessions, the judge declared the case closed, but the main question—where the money came from—remains unanswered. The family claims the funds are an inheritance from Florenci Pujol, while the prosecution insists the money has a corrupt origin. Neither side was able to present convincing documents or witnesses to definitively support their version.
The final day of the trial
At the closing session held in the courthouse in San Fernando de Henares, all seven children of former Catalonia leader Jordi Pujol were present. The ex-president himself, now 95, was excused due to health reasons. None of the defendants exercised their right to a final statement. The defense reiterated that the Andorran funds are family inheritance, not the result of corruption schemes. The prosecution, for its part, is seeking a 29-year prison sentence for the eldest son, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, arguing that his business activities were merely a front for receiving kickbacks from government contracts.
Arguments of the parties
During the hearings, the defense lawyers insisted there was no evidence of guilt and urged the court to issue an acquittal. They noted that the charges were based on assumptions rather than facts, and criticized the prosecution’s approach as excessively harsh and generalized. At the same time, the prosecution referred to numerous suspicious transfers and the lack of transparency regarding the origin of the funds, indicating a possible connection to corruption schemes from the Pujol era in Catalonia.
The key issue — the origin of the money
The court must decide whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to recognize the funds in Andorra as the result of corruption. By law, a money laundering charge requires the presence of a so-called ‘predicate offence,’ which, according to the prosecution, is corruption. However, the defense argues that even if the origin of the funds is not documented, the version of family inheritance is no less likely than allegations of corruption, and in such a case, the presumption of innocence must apply.
During the proceedings, various theories regarding the origin of the funds were discussed: from the bankruptcy of Banca Catalana and schemes surrounding Grand Tibidabo to major deals made during preparations for the Barcelona Olympics. However, none of these hypotheses was fully confirmed. The Pujol family claims that the accounts in Andorra were opened in 1990 to safeguard capital in case of political instability, and the increase in the amount is explained by investments in government bonds and financial instruments.
Context and reaction
The Pujol family case has become one of the symbols of the fight against corruption in Spain and generated significant public outcry. During the hearings, the defense repeatedly pointed to pressure from the so-called “patriotic police” and the prolonged nature of the investigation. Similar arguments had already been voiced earlier: for example, in another high-profile trial, the family’s lawyers also emphasized the lack of direct evidence of corrupt origins of the funds, as noted in the report on the defense’s position regarding the Andorra accounts case.
The decision now rests with the court: either to acquit the accused or to rule that the presented evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict. The verdict is expected to be announced in the coming months.