The State Attorney maintains that the file order is “contrary to Law”, since it considers that “it does not meet the minimum motivation requirements, by not making any reference” to why it considers that “the commission of the crime is not duly justified “
The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office have filed appeals before the Central Investigating Court number 5 of the National Court, headed by Santiago Pedraz, in which they request that annul the dismissal that was decreed in the cause of Oleguer Pujol, the youngest son of former Catalan president Jordi Pujol i Soley. Both the prosecutor José Grinda and the head of Criminal Affairs of the State Attorney’s Office, Rosa María Seoane, warn the magistrate that he has filed the proceeding with an order that “absolutely lacking in motivation” and without having received the report that he had commissioned from the Tax Agency on the possible tax crimes of the youngest of the former Catalan president and Marta Ferrusola.
On July 13, Pedraz filed with a car of a single page the investigation that was opened on July 15, 2020 in the Central Court of Instruction number 5 of the National Court. In his resolution the instructor explained that succinctly that “the commission of any crime” was not duly justified. He also explained that of the procedures carried out there was not even a basis “to appreciate evidence of any crime, and those that were supplied were mere suspicionsnot fit to follow a criminal proceeding”.
Precisely, because of the meagerness of the order, the head of Criminal Affairs of the State Attorney’s Office maintains that the resolution is “contrary to law“, because it considers that “it cannot be accepted” that the paragraph included “complies with the minimum requirements of motivation, by not making any reference to the factual assumption that leads the Investigating Judge to consider that the commission of the crime is not duly justified” .
“Lack of motivation”
That is why the resolution, continues Seoane, “suffers from a lack of motivation, since not even, as required by the constitutional Courtincludes a minimal assessment of the factual material contributed to the performances”.
The head of the Criminal Law Office herself recalls that the order of July 15, 2020, by which the investigation against Oleguer Pujol was opened, justified the opening of the procedure because the investments of the youngest of the children of Pujol i Soley “they came from a place common to their brothers“.
However, Seoane points out that in the order “there is no reasoning, however succinct or superficial, that allows us to notice and know to what extent those indications appreciated at the time of the opening of the separate piece and that were already included at that time and motivated the opening itself have ceased to be such or on the occasion of what proceedings and in what manner”.
It also warns that “neither facts nor investigations are specified in respect of which the necessary analysis is projected that must precede a resolution such as the order of dismissal.” Finally, Seoane concludes: “Not only does the lack of reasoning prevent judicial review of the resolution, but it also places us in a situation of material, real and effective defenselessnesswhich prevents us from knowing and thereby refuting the specific reasons on which the dismissal is based”.
Jose Grinda
Prosecutor José Grinda expresses himself in similar terms, who recalls that in relation to the crimes against Public Treasury, “with respect to which a judicial aid from the Tax Agency has been designated”, “there is still no final report”.
On this last point, the State’s lawyer recalls that “there are proceedings, agreed upon by the investigating court and which have not yet been carried out, so that in order to agree on the dismissal that is now being challenged, the result must be awaited. We are specifically referring to to the report requested from the AEAT in aid of the court on the possible existence of possible crimes against the Public Treasury of those investigated”.
Pedraz himself, in an order dated July 29, 2021, had agreed not toor extend the instruction, although it did allow the proceedings to be carried out agreed upon and pending receipt, such as the aforementioned Treasury work. And this report, Seoane continues, “has not yet been issued, so in his case, the instructor should have officiated the AEAT in order to issue it prior to agreeing to the dismissal.”
Drago Capital
Pedraz filed the separate piece that followed against Oleguer Pujol for tax crimes and money laundering for real estate operations carried out through the company Drago Capital. Unlike what he decided a year ago, the magistrate considered that what was instructed was not “duly justified for the commission of any crime.”
Oleguer Pujol is being prosecuted in the so-called Pujol case, due to the fortune that the family hid in Andorra, in which the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor requests a prison sentence for him eight years in jail for a crime of money laundering and another for illicit association. It is the same penalty that is claimed for each of his brothers, except Jordi and Josep. The first faces a request for 29 years in prison, for having been in charge of managing the family assets, and the second for 14. For the ex-president, the prosecutor’s request is for nine years in prison.