A Spanish National Court in San Fernando de Henares, near Madrid, is set to rule on whether former Catalan president Jordi Pujol, 95, must testify in a corruption trial. The Spanish public prosecutor is seeking a nine-year prison sentence for Pujol, alleging he led a corrupt scheme that used his political position to create a network of patronage, enriching himself, his family, and businesses linked to the former Convergència party.
After nearly six months of proceedings, the trial has reached the stage where the accused are due to give their statements. Pujol's health has been a central concern, with medical assessments indicating moderate cognitive deterioration. This condition casts doubt on his physical and mental capacity to appear in court and defend himself.
In November, at the start of the trial, the court cited Pujol via videoconference and postponed a decision on his testimony. Last Tuesday, the court, presided over by José Ricardo de Prada, decided to summon him in person to re-evaluate his health. This required Pujol to travel to San Fernando de Henares for a medical examination at 9:30am, with the judge's decision expected half an hour later when the session begins.
Health Concerns and Judicial Scrutiny
The court's decision to compel Pujol's travel sparked controversy, particularly due to the judge's stated reasons: that he was 'not prejudiced' and did not want to 'fall into ageism'. However, doctors who have assessed Pujol's health have been clear, concluding he has 'moderate cognitive deterioration'. This condition makes his ability to participate in a trial and defend himself questionable. His defence also previously stated that Pujol had blood markers for Alzheimer's disease. One argument presented is that Pujol suffers from a 'severe alteration of verbal memory that leads him to confuse facts and people'.
At the trial's outset, the court's desired image was clear: the former president alongside his seven children, facing judgment. Pujol appeared via videoconference, visibly aged, in a superimposed box, while his children were in the dock in San Fernando de Henares. The general expectation is that Pujol will not have to testify, given the clear medical verdicts. However, due to the strong political element of the proceedings, the court's decision cannot be predicted with certainty.
Pujol Ferrusola Siblings to Break Silence
Regardless of the decision on Jordi Pujol, the testimony phase will see the Pujol Ferrusola siblings break their long silence. Some have spoken in limited interviews: Oriol Pujol admitted to Catalunya Ràdio before the trial that having money abroad was a 'disgrace' for the family. Josep Pujol defended his father's legacy in the documentary La sagrada família. The other siblings, especially the eldest, Jordi, have not spoken publicly for many years, particularly since his appearance in the Catalan Parliament.
According to the Spanish anti-corruption prosecutor's indictment, the money the family attributes to an inheritance was, in reality, profits from commissions received in exchange for awarding public contracts to trusted companies. The eldest son, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, allegedly received substantial invoices from these companies for 'intermediation services', such as alerting them to private business opportunities, which earned him a commission. Much of the witness questioning so far has focused on determining if these services were genuine.
Allegations of Money Laundering and Political Motivation
The prosecution claims the money was laundered by creating multiple companies in tax havens, accounts in the names of third parties, and numerous transfers and cash deposits. This 'allowed the Pujol Ferrusola family to distribute illicit funds and access them through accounts in Andorra'. The accused business owners are charged with necessary cooperation in money laundering, allegedly falsifying commercial documents to complete the cycle.
The family has admitted to holding undeclared money abroad, which is a crime. However, the defence argues that the inherited fortune grew not through commissions or fraudulent manoeuvres, but through investments made to keep the money in circulation. On several occasions, the children have also argued that the judicial process was driven by a desire to 'politically kill Pujol', as part of 'Operation Catalonia'. Joan Pau Miquel, former CEO of Banca Privada d'Andorra, told the court that Marcelino Martín Blas, head of internal affairs for the Spanish police, threatened him to violate the Pujol family's banking secrecy. Miquel stated that Martín Blas told him, 'We are at war against Catalan nationalism.'
Key Developments and Defence Arguments
During preliminary questions, defence lawyers alleged numerous fundamental rights violations over the years and criticised the prosecution's brief as 'undetermined, vague, labyrinthine, cryptic, and obscure'. While most defendants have adopted a technical defence, lawyers for Josep and Oriol Pujol introduced a more political nuance. Both recalled that the true beginning of the investigation was 'Operation Catalonia', arguing that the 'patriotic police' blackmailing Andorran banks led to the violation of banking secrecy, a prominent El Mundo newspaper headline, and eventually the former president's confession. In addition to Miquel's testimony, agents involved in 'Operation Catalonia', such as former commissioner José Manuel Villarejo, also testified, feigning ignorance.
Perhaps the most significant testimony came from Álvaro Ibáñez, the UDEF inspector who signed most of the reports underpinning the accusation. Ibáñez started his testimony poorly, admitting 'animadversity' towards the Pujols. Over several sessions, he was forced to admit significant methodological gaps. So far, the prosecution has struggled to prove large-scale corruption. While there is undeclared money abroad, suspicious contracts, strange operations, and curious links, neither the agents, the prosecutor, nor the state lawyers have managed to prove, or even clearly define, which public tenders were allegedly manipulated, by whom, or how, for Jordi Pujol Ferrusola to supposedly collect commissions that he then distributed among his siblings.
Prosecutor Fernando Bermejo has secured almost no substantial witnesses, such as officials or company representatives who paid Jordi Pujol Ferrusola for services, to testify against him. Consequently, he has relied heavily on UDEF reports and expert evidence. In recent days, tax inspectors have argued that the intermediation services for which Pujol was paid were fictitious, supporting the prosecution's case. Conversely, professionals hired by the defence have maintained that the payments corresponded to genuine services providing commercially valuable information. According to the tax inspectors, the lack of documents proving these tasks is an anomaly; the defence's experts stated this is common in the sector, as intermediation is primarily a verbal business.
Penalties Sought by Prosecution
The prosecution is seeking nine years in prison for former president Pujol for illicit association and money laundering. For his eldest son, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, the prosecution requests 29 years in prison for illicit association, document falsification, and money laundering.
