Aid to ex-foster children of the DGAIA: Antifraud points to possible "contractual breaches" and urges the Prosecutor's Office to investigate

BarcelonaThe Office of Anti-Fraud of Catalonia (OAC) has closed the investigation of one of the two cases it had open for possible irregularities by the General Directorate for Child and Adolescent Care (DGAIA) in housing aid received by former foster youth. According to legal sources, the investigation could not prove that there was fraud, but it does conclude that there could have been 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 and urged it to investigate whether the clauses of the contracts signed with the companies responsible for managing the benefits were complied with.

Regarding the case where Antifrau has already handed over 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 fraud aspects have been detected, although legal sources warn that the investigation capacity and resources of the Prosecutor's Office are much greater.

For this reason, Antifrau has asked the public prosecutor's office to verify if there were deficiencies in the fulfillment of the DGAIA's contracts with 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 malfunctions 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 in the hands of the Prosecutor's Office. Like the first, 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 to say, 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 who had been in 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 apartment, claiming he was looking for work, when, in reality, he had been working outside of Catalonia for months.

Later, three workers reported that an entity, despite having empty places in the apartments to accommodate young people, charged the Generalitat as if the homes were full.

In addition, in June of last year, the Court of Accounts 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 who had been in care.

On the other hand, a Barcelona court dismissed a lawsuit last April by the legal collective Acció Cassandra against four former councilors of the Generalitat and senior officials for alleged embezzlement at DGAIA. The lawsuit rejected by the court was directed against the former social affairs councilors Dolors Bassa, Chakir El Homrani, Violant Cervera, and Carles Campuzano. Also against former secretary Josep Ginesta and three former DGAIA directors, among others. It invoked crimes of embezzlement, prevarication, falsification of documents, fraud, concealment, workplace harassment, and possible illegal party financing. In response to the dismissal, the entity announced it would file an appeal.