The trial against the Pujol Ferrusola family has entered its final stretch. This week has been dominated by the experts proposed by the prosecution and the defense to assess the business dealings of the eldest son of the former president of the Generalitat. And the highlight has been the confrontation between two tax experts and three specialists proposed by the firstborn's defense, which began on Tuesday and will conclude next Friday in an extraordinary session. In total, it will amount to over ten hours of testimony.

After three months of listening to witnesses, the trial against the Pujol Ferrusola family is immersed in the declarations of experts, who must shed light on the business dealings of the eldest son of the former president of the Generalitat. Two of those who appeared this Tuesday at the Audiencia Nacional were names that emerged in the media in July in the framework of the Montoro case: Francisco Piedras and Manuel de Vicente-Tutor. They are tax inspectors, they are managing partners of Equipo Económico – the firm founded by Cristóbal Montoro and which is at the epicenter of the alleged corruption scheme – and they are being investigated by the courts of Tarragona.

Does the fortune of the Pujols in Andorra come from the famous inheritance of grandfather Florenci or from illegal commissions in exchange for political favors? This is the big question that is being tried to be clarified in a trial that already has 24 sessions and has brought 200 witnesses before the National Court so far. The interrogations, with recurring technical problems and repeated memory lapses, are focusing particularly on the operations carried out by Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, who faces 29 years in prison for five crimes. Many witnesses have accredited the eldest son's role as an intermediary: he offered "many business opportunities" to businessmen – it was all relationships between private individuals – and in return, he received compensation if the project was successful. However, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office believes that the money movements served to mask commissions that responded to a "network of clientelism" that his father had woven from the Generalitat. For the moment, this favoritism has not been proven during the trial.

"I don't know." And so on, up to 35 times. The head of the Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit (UDEF) that prepared the reports in the Pujol case admitted today that he may have made inaccuracies and errors in his reports. After testified yesterday for more than five hours Answering questions from the prosecution and the state attorney, the defense lawyers cornered him for six hours today, attempting to discredit the hypotheses and inferences he made in the twenty or so reports he signed. "We are witnessing his ineptitude," summarized Cristóbal Martell, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola's lawyer, at one point during his cross-examination. When Pau Ferrer, the lawyer for four of the former president of the Generalitat's children, asked him about the inheritance of their grandfather Florenci—which the witness questioned yesterday—he admitted to searching for information on Google. He also admitted to using the famous search engine at other times. So much so that Oriol Rusca, the lawyer for Mercè Gironès—the eldest son's ex-wife—mocked him for it.

How 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.

Since the court in the Pujol trial accepted that José Manuel Villarejo and other members of the patriotic police would testify as witnesses, there was a lot of expectation –especially in the media– about what they would say. They were to answer about the obtaining of banking information from the family of the former president of the Generalitat, which was leaked to El Mundo, and about the genesis of the criminal case, which started more than ten years ago. However, they have provided few specifics, few certainties, and many shadows of doubt on all the questions the defense attorneys have asked them. With contradictory statements that have been denied by journalistic investigations and revelations in recent years.

Since the Pujol case trial court accepted that José Manuel Villarejo and other members of the patriotic police When they testified as witnesses, there was much anticipation—more from the media than the courts—to hear what they would say. They had to answer questions about the maneuvers they carried out to illegally obtain banking information from the family of the former president of the Generalitat—information that was leaked to The World—and regarding the origins of the criminal case—which began more than ten years ago following a complaint filed by Vicky Álvarez, the eldest son's former lover, encouraged by Villarejo. However, the four witnesses who have testified have provided few concrete details and few certainties, and instead have offered a display of evasiveness and sown many shadows of doubt.

During the trial of the Pujol Ferrusola family, which has been underway at the National Court since November, more than 200 witnesses will have to testify. The court is working tirelessly to organize and summon them, and to make the most of the sessions. But it's proving to be no easy task. The difficulties in connecting with the witnesses—most are testifying remotely—and in locating them—a few days ago the court acknowledged that some thirty were in unknown locations—are adding another layer of complexity to the hearings, which are becoming somewhat chaotic. And this Thursday, in the sixteenth session, the blunder was summoning a witness who wasn't actually the one who was supposed to be questioned.

The accounts held by the Pujol Ferrusola family in Andorra were the focus of the thirteenth session of the trial, which has been underway for two and a half months at the National Court. The eldest son—who continues to attend every session in person—watched as the prosecutor scrutinized transactions between his bank accounts and others at Andbank, whose holders claim to know nothing about these transfers. Some even admit to having accounts in the Pyrenean country. In other words, the prosecution called as witnesses on Monday individuals who allegedly sent or received money from Jordi Pujol Ferrusola without his knowledge.

One of the most anticipated witnesses of the week in the Pujol Ferrusola family trial was Esteban Urreiztieta, deputy director ofThe WorldThe newspaper that in July 2014 published the screenshot of the accounts held in Andorra by Marta Ferrusola—the wife of the former president of the Generalitat—and five of her children. He explained that he did not participate in the writing of the article, which was signed by the journalist Fernando Lázaro, who died in June of last year. After prosecutor Fernando Bermejo completely ignored the famous "screenshotThe question posed to him by state attorney José Ignacio Ocio directly asked if former police commissioner José Manuel Villarejo or the "patriotic police"—without explicitly calling them that—were the source and origin of the news. Urreiztieta replied that he did not produce the information: "I know them, and even if I did, I couldn't provide any details," he stated. This is because journalists are protected by professional secrecy and have the right not to reveal their sources when testifying as witnesses in a legal proceeding. However, Esteban Urreiztieta boasted that the "veracity" of the Pujol story, published days later, is "absolutely unquestionable." He also said that after the publication, and within the framework of the judicial investigation, the UDEF—the central unit for economic and fiscal crime—did not ask them for any explanation regarding its content. Who could provide more details about the origin of the information? They will have to testify as witnesses in the coming months.

After eight sessions in San Fernando de Henares, 25 kilometers from Madrid, the trial of the Pujol family resumed this Monday at the National Court headquarters on Génova Street. And it was like going back to school: the defense lawyers had to change buildings to get their robes, the state attorneys didn't know which machine to use. vending They could use it, and the security guard at the entrance had to ask Jordi Pujol Ferrusola if he needed a robe. "We're going around in circles like a hamster," one of the lawyers muttered before the trial began. What's happening in the court sessions? This Monday, one of the issues brought to the table was the Tivissa landfill.

The commissions Jordi Pujol Ferrusola received for acting as an intermediary in private business deals were the focus of the seventh session of the trial against the family of the former president of the Generalitat (Catalan government). For three hours, five transactions were considered particularly significant. One of the most prominent, which had already surfaced the previous day, was the expansion of a Repsol refinery in Cartagena. Martín Francisco Sicilia, director of the construction division of Técnicas Reunidas—the company that contracted Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales for this project—claimed ignorance of the eldest son's involvement and asserted that "no one external" intervened. Prosecutor Fernando Bermejo asked him if the case involved "private intermediation." "Absolutely not," he replied. Jordi Pujol Ferrusola received €612,000 for this transaction. Cristóbal Martell, the eldest son's lawyer, attempted to discredit his claim of ignorance. "Do you have any evidence to suggest that, prior to initiating these proceedings, Repsol couldn't have informed someone, who in turn informed Copisa, that Repsol would expand the refinery?" he asked. "Don't you have any evidence to suggest that this wasn't leaked and eventually became known to Copisa?" he insisted. And Martín Francisco Sicilia replied that it was "obvious" and that "everyone knew it."

The trial of the Pujol family is progressing well. In two hours on Tuesday, seven witnesses testified, shedding light on the commissions Jordi Pujol Ferrusola received for brokering private acquisitions of Copisa—a company chaired by Josep Cornadó, who is on trial for money laundering and document forgery. According to Judge José de la Mata's investigation, a total of €2.9 million in commissions was paid to the eldest son of the former president of the Generalitat (Catalan government). One of the most noteworthy testimonies came from Orlando de Porrata-Doria, Copisa's CEO, who spoke about the expansion of Repsol's Cartagena refinery: the eldest son received €612,000 in three invoices for informing them about this business opportunity. There was no contract. "They pay €199,000 in fees for a phone call?" remarked prosecutor Fernando Bermejo, referring to the first of the three invoices. "We're talking about a contract worth almost 36 million euros," said De Porrata-Doria. And, just like Jordi Puig did this on Monday —the brother of former regional minister Felip Puig—, has acknowledged that there is no document to prove it: "Jordi Pujol Ferrusola regularly worked with other sections of our group and was a trusted person. Therefore, there was no contract involved," he explained.

The trial of the Pujol Ferrusola family has resumed at the National Court, far from the media spotlight. Without photographers and with only seven journalists following the proceedings from San Fernando de Henares, five witnesses testified remotely, though the connection wasn't always easy to understand. Only two of the defendants were present in person: Jordi Pujol Ferrusola and businessman Francesc Robert Ribes. The star witnesses were Joan Anton Sánchez Carreté, the family's tax advisor, who recounted what happened behind the scenes after July 7th. The World He published a screenshot with the Pujol family's bank information in Andorra; and the brother of former minister Felip Puig, Jordi Puig, admitted that there was no "formal contract" that proved what his company billed to a company owned by the eldest son and Mercè Gironès.

This week, the trial of the Pujol family began. In the National Court, one lawyer's intervention stood out among the defense arguments. This was Cristóbal Martell, who is defending former president Jordi Pujol and several of his children, including Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, the family member for whom the prosecution is seeking the longest prison sentence. Martell's presentation of preliminary matters served to introduce many topics that the other lawyers responded to and elaborated upon, earning him praise from fellow lawyers present in the courtroom who were defending other defendants. For example, Fermín Morales, the lawyer for an Andorran businessman under investigation for doing business with Pujol Jr., described Martell's intervention as "brilliant": "It leaves little room for nuance." Martell, who has represented, among others, Messi, Dani Alves, and Jonathan Andic, the son of the founder of Mango, explains to ARA that he takes his work with great "responsibility and commitment." "Ultimately, someone has placed a problem they're suffering in your hands," he says. That's why he believes the profession requires "a lot of dedication and hard work." Legal professionals in the sector who have known him for years highlight his "exceptional oratory skills," as well as his "extremely important" legal training. "There are many people who know a lot about law but don't know how to present it, and this man is phenomenal," they say. In fact, this skill was evident during his appearance on Monday, with constant gestures and exclamations that created a much more expressive and passionate discourse than what is usually seen in courtrooms. However, Pujol's lawyer admits that he tries not to listen to himself afterward: "I'm very embarrassed by it, I don't like it."

"What am I doing here?" "What am I defending myself against?" These are two questions that have been raised by two of the lawyers for the accused businessmen in the trial of the Pujol Ferrusola family which summarize the impotence expressed by the rest of the defense teams during the second session. They all converged in repeatedly denouncing violations of the right to a defense, the right to a fair trial, the right to effective judicial protection, and the adversarial principle. Basically, they believe that the facts that have brought them to trial are vague and indeterminate, and that their description can only lead to exoneration.

The family is made up of human beings. No two people are alike, and therefore, differences in potential grow and develop between parents, between siblings, and between parents and siblings, forming complex power systems that culminate in unique relationships of dependency. The figure of the eldest sibling is a classic example: they believe themselves to be superior to others and, at the same time, entitled to take advantage of their parents (the figure of the heir, enshrined in this country, is a perverse institutionalization of this reality). If the family is large, the dynamics become more complex, as do the combinations of loyalties. There is a far from innocent tendency to believe that everything is justified in the family's best interest. And it is in this context that the principle of reality is often lost, and nihilism unfolds: everything is permitted. Simultaneously, internal rivalries and loyalties take shape, with the father-mother dynamic as the guiding thread.

By 7:30 in the morning, journalists were already waiting at the entrance to the National Court building in San Fernando de Henares. The location, in the middle of an industrial park, is hardly inviting: asphalt, trucks, warehouses, and surrounded by National Police officers. It's also that dry cold of the central plateau which requires wearing gloves, a hat, and a fleece. All the cameramen are waiting for one image: the Pujol family entering the National Court. The Pujols could hardly have imagined, when the father left the presidency of the Generalitat 22 years ago, that they would all end up in the dock in Madrid. The untouchables not only ceased to be so, but became the State's scapegoat during the Process. A Process that no longer fills newspaper front pages, but which was very much present again today in the session in San Fernando de Henares.

"The court has decided that the trial will begin with him present." Despite unfavorable forensic reports advising against it, the National Court has refused to exonerate Jordi Pujol i Soley and has decided to proceed with his trial. His seven children, the eldest son's ex-wife, and ten businesspeople are also in the dock in a trial that comes four years after the investigation concluded and which must determine whether the Pujol family's fortune in Andorra originated with their grandfather, Florenci, or was augmented with money from illegal commissions. The prosecution accuses the former president of the Generalitat of the crimes of illicit association and money laundering and is seeking a nine-year prison sentence.

This Monday it begins at the National Court the trial of the decade. Over the course of six months, the court will have to discern whether the money that the Pujol Ferrusola family had in Andorra came from the inheritance of grandfather Florenci, as the former Catalan president claims since his confession in July 2014, or came from "illicit million-dollar payments" from businessmen in exchange for "political favors".