The UDEF admits that Pujol's confession was the "direct trigger" of the case: "It was paralyzed"

MadridHow did the investigation into the Pujol family's accounts in Andorra begin? It's one of the big questions the National Court is trying to answer this week. After the statements from the top brass of patriotic policeAfter the investigation into the origin of the banking information of the former president of the Generalitat's family, which had feigned ignorance, it was now the turn of Álvaro Ibáñez, the investigator from the Central Unit for Economic and Fiscal Crime (UDEF) who signed all the reports in the investigation. Some twenty documents and more than 2,000 pages. After the complaint filed by Vicky Álvarez, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola's former lover, encouraged by José Manuel Villarejo in 2012, his first action was to "corroborate with factual data" what she had recounted. For example, whether the eldest son had been at the Eurobuilding Hotel or if he was the authorized representative of a British company. He analyzed notarial deeds, databases from the Tax Agency, and payment records. But he couldn't examine everything: "Initially, I couldn't verify whether or not the millions in cash deposits in Andorra actually occurred." And the case was "paralyzed" for almost two years.

When was it reactivated? In July 2014 with the confession of the former president of the Generalitat. "It's a triggering event for the proceedings," Álvaro Ibáñez admitted. He recounted that there was a period of no progress in the investigation and confessed that the level of apathy was such that he embarked on the investigation of the fire cartel in Valencia and put the Pujol case on hold. It wasn't until The World He published the screenshot of the Pujol family's accounts in Andorra—a "banking striptease" and the "original sin" of the case, according to the defense—in an operation where there are suspicions of state-sponsored dirty tricks, and where Jordi Pujol issued a statement confessing that he had money in Andorra. "The case was then propelled forward," said Álvaro Ibáñez. And he concluded with a direct question from prosecutor Fernando Bermejo: "Was the statement and the subsequent detection of regularizations the direct trigger?" And he answered affirmatively.

"Personal animosity"

Right at the beginning of his testimony, which lasted more than four hours with just the prosecutor's questions, Ibáñez admitted to having a "personal animosity." He didn't specify what it was, but alluded to a case against him. At the end of the prosecutor's questioning, he sought to clarify his statement. He denied that it was animosity toward the defendants and specified that he was referring to their lawyers. "I like him," he even said about the eldest son. During a recess in the morning, the eldest son of the former Catalan president thanked him for his treatment during a transfer in 2017, when he entered prison: "I tried to make sure he had a pleasant trip," the witness recalled.

Álvaro Ibáñez has been involved in two legal cases linked to the Pujol family. On one hand, he was investigated—and exonerated—in the memory stick case, which was initiated by the eldest son and ended with the conviction of Eugenio Pino. On the other hand, Carles Sumarroca included him in the lawsuit he filed regarding Operation Catalonia, which has been circulating for over three years in Spanish courts, each of which has repeatedly dismissed it. Currently, it is pending an appeal to the Madrid Provincial Court for its admission to proceedings.

False invoices and consulting contracts

Throughout, Álvaro Ibáñez has maintained the argument put forward by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office in its indictment regarding the false invoices: "The same descriptions and the same services reflect the instrumental nature of the companies; they completely disregard the resources they are supposed to have," he explained. However, the defense for the eldest son and the businessmen has insisted from the beginning of the trial that no infrastructure is needed to carry out the intermediation tasks for which Jordi Pujol Ferrusola was paid.

The UDEF investigator also alluded to the concept of a "single fund," according to which, "regardless" of where the money is located, it "is used interchangeably" for a "common purpose." "Ownership has no factual value," he added. Regarding money laundering, he has focused on the "three pillars" that are applied methodologically: the crime of corruption as a predicate offense—even if no one is accused of malfeasance or bribery—, "unjustified" asset gains, and "the absence of activity" that would justify them. He has also tried to discredit the idea that the Pujol family's money in Andorra came from their grandfather, Florenci: "Neither the dynamics of the many accounts corresponded to the management of the inheritance, nor was the distribution logical."

"Temper sensitivities"

The prosecutor's questioning was a breeze. Fernando Bermejo gave him free rein and allowed him to elaborate with overly generic questions. But there were two tense moments with the defense lawyers. "Any problem?" Álvaro Ibáñez blurted out, addressing Oriol Rusca, Mercè Gironès's lawyer. Rusca denied it, but the witness complained that Ibáñez was making comments under his breath. "I ask that you temper your sensitivities," the presiding judge, José Ricardo de Prada, urged him. He then corrected Ibáñez's manner of answering: "There's no need to give legal lectures; that's what we legal experts are for." After a long while, Ibáñez complained again that some of the lawyers' conversations were distracting him.