Operation Catalonia, competition and vagueness: the complaints of the defense on the first day of the Pujol trial

San Fernando de Henares / BarcelonaThe first day of the Pujol Ferrusola family trial left two images for the history books: the former president of the Generalitat following the proceedings remotely from his home, and his seven children seated in the dock. It also highlighted two distinct yet complementary defense strategies: one that emphasizes the National Court's lack of jurisdiction to try the case and the statute of limitations on the alleged crimes, and another that stresses the impact of Operation Catalonia.

Once the court announced that Jordi Pujol and Soley would be triedThe first to speak out was Cristóbal Martell, the lawyer for the eldest son, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, and four of his siblings (Marta, Pere, Mireia, and Oleguer). He himself highlighted the division of roles: he complained that the court had denied a "group of police officers from the so-called patriotic police" the opportunity to testify as witnesses, but indicated that he would leave it to "other defense teams" to explore in detail. And so it was.

"Operation Catalonia is not trivial"

Oriol Pujol's lawyer has spearheaded a more politically charged defense and explicitly brought Operation Catalonia into the discussion. This is no coincidence: Pujol was the Secretary General of Convergència, and the lawyer was the party's legal counsel. As his opening statement, Francesc Sánchez criticized the "illegal" initiation of the case, arguing that it stemmed from a complaint filed by Vicky Álvarez—a former associate of Jordi Pujol Ferrusola—which was accompanied by the "will" of "pseudo-police officers" and "part of the state apparatus." "Operation Catalonia is not trivial," he emphasized.

Francesc Sánchez completed the presentation begun by his predecessor, Jaime Campaner, the lawyer for Josep Pujol Ferrusola, who also traced the origins of the case. He presented the front page ofThe World Regarding the Pujol family's fortune in Andorra as the "original sin," he has dubbed it a "banking striptease" and denounced the evidence as having been obtained "unconstitutionally and criminally." The lawyer has urged the court to determine whether this evidence was obtained by violating fundamental rights and, therefore, has "tainted" the entire process. He also addressed the role of former police commissioner José Manuel Villarejo: "There are reasonable grounds to suspect the involvement of individuals linked to state power."

The case is in Barcelona

The second major point of contention in the trial's opening session was the "lack of jurisdiction" of the National Court to try the case. Cristóbal Martell argued that this judicial body is "only" competent when the crime is committed "entirely abroad" and pointed out that, since the crimes the Pujol family is accused of allegedly took place in Spain, the Barcelona Provincial Court should be the one to try the case. Therefore, he requested that the case be transferred to the courts of Catalonia.

"Vagueness and generality"

One diagnosis on which the defense lawyers agreed was the "vagueness and generality" of the accusation. Josep Oriol Rusca, the lawyer for Mercè Gironès, the ex-wife of Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, has been particularly critical: "From the prosecution's brief, I don't know exactly what my client has done," he complained, alleging that she suffers from "brutal defenselessness" due to the charges. "What has she participated in? What specifically has she done that would allow me to say whether it's true or not? It's impossible, it doesn't exist," the lawyer declared, ironically questioning whether it's a crime "to be the partner or ex-partner" of the eldest Pujol.

The other lawyers expressed similar sentiments. "The accusation is vague and imprecise; this makes a defense practically impossible," lamented Cristóbal Martell. "What tenders? What resolution? What contracting committee?" he asked, referring to the alleged irregular public contracts. Josep's and Oriol's lawyers also alleged violations of the right to a defense and to be informed of the charges, on the one hand, and the principle of adversarial proceedings, on the other. Some of the alleged crimes have passed the statute of limitations.

Finally, the defense attorneys for all the children have concurred in arguing that some of the alleged crimes have passed the statute of limitations. In other words, they can no longer be prosecuted. In Josep's case, Jaime Campaner emphasized that the "exceeding of the insurmountable time limit" particularly affects the tax offense attributed to him because it wasn't until two years after the deadline for investigating it had passed that the National Fraud Investigation Office (ONIF) submitted its report. Similarly, Jordi's lawyer argued that two of the five tax offenses the prosecution accuses him of (from 2007 and 2008) have passed the statute of limitations, and Oriol Pujol's lawyer argued that his two offenses have also become moot. They pointed out that money laundering has a ten-year statute of limitations and tax evasion, a five-year statute of limitations. And the investigation began more than twelve years ago.