Aid to former wards of DGAIA: Antifrau points to possible "contractual breaches" and the Prosecutor's Office will continue investigating
The office closes the first of the two open files without evidence of fraud
BarcelonaThe Office for Fraud Prevention of Catalonia (OAC) has closed the investigation of one of the two files it had open for possible irregularities by the Directorate General for Child and Adolescent Care (DGAIA) in housing aid received by young people who were in foster care. According to legal sources, the investigation could not prove that there was fraud, but it does conclude that there could be contractual breaches. As ARA already explained, the case is in the hands of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and now Antifrau has sent its conclusions. The public prosecutor's office will continue to investigate whether the clauses of the contracts signed with the companies responsible for managing the benefits were met.
Regarding the case where Antifrau has already delivered its report to the prosecutor, the investigation was opened due to the suspicion that some financial aid to young former wards was given without control, and it would even have been granted to people who no longer lived in Catalonia. Antifrau's report concludes that no criminal or fraudulent aspects have been detected.
Therefore, Antifrau has sent its conclusions to the public ministry, and this will verify if there were deficiencies in the fulfillment of the DGAIA's contracts with the collaborating entities, and if the administration had failed in its follow-up and supervision. The Prosecutor's investigation will have to conclude whether there are only administrative irregularities and dysfunctions of the public body, or if there could be crimes. If so, it would then be brought to a court for in-depth investigation.
The procedure will be similar with the second file that Antifrau keeps open, which is also at the Prosecutor's Office. Like the first one, it also affects a foundation from Girona managed by a UTE formed by the Mercè Fontanilles Foundation and the Resilis Foundation. In this case, the possible existence of accommodation places is being investigated ghost,that is, places for which entities charged the Generalitat for hosting young people whom they did not actually host. In this second case, Antifrau has not yet reached any conclusions and still has a large amount of documentation to analyze.
Research from 2025
The case broke out in January 2025 with the complaint of a third sector worker who had detected irregularities in economic and housing benefits affecting young people leaving care. In one case, for example, a young man was receiving both benefits, when he had been living and working in Valencia for months. Even, the foundation responsible for managing the aid had changed the young man's flat, alluding that he was looking for a job, when, in reality, he had been working outside Catalonia for months.
Later, three workers reported that an entity, despite having empty places in the flats to accommodate young people, charged the Generalitat as if the homes were full.
Furthermore, in June last year, the Court of Auditors issued a report concluding that the Department of Social Rights paid 167.56 million euros improperly through economic benefits between 2016 and 2024. Of these 167 million, 4.7 million were related to the reported case because they were undue payments to young people leaving care.
On the other hand, a court in Barcelona dismissed last April a lawsuit filed by the legal collective Acció Cassandra against four former regional ministers of the Generalitat and senior officials for alleged embezzlement at DGAIA. The lawsuit rejected by the court was directed against the former ministers of the social area Dolors Bassa, Chakir El Homrani, Violant Cervera, and Carles Campuzano. Also against former secretary Josep Ginesta and three former directors of DGAIA, among others. It invoked crimes of embezzlement, prevarication, document forgery, fraud, concealment, workplace harassment, and possible illegal party financing. Following the dismissal, the entity announced that it would file an appeal.