The Pujol family suspect that he is going to sit in the dock because of who he is, because of his last name. In his defense brief, he harshly charges against the order of the National Court judge José de la Mata, who attributes to them, among others, a crime of criminal organization. For the lawyers of the former Catalan president, his wife and their seven children - all of them prosecuted - the judge has not provided a single proof of this crime. On the contrary, "he goes to a kind of responsibility of the tribe and of author's criminal law (being a Pujol)".
- The Parliament will vote if Pujol should return to the Treasury the 885,651 euros that he defrauded
- A year to recover the honor of Jordi Pujol
- The Parliament unanimously condemns "the illegal and corrupt conduct" of Jordi Pujol
The text rejects all the accusations against the family and requests the file of the case. One of the points to which he dedicates the greatest argumentative effort is the crime of criminal organization. The defense denounces that the only tangible link between the family members is that the eldest son, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, "administered the joint assets" in Andorra between 1992 and 2004, when he made the final liquidation. The defense maintains that, by definition, this crime cannot exist with a single perpetrator. And he adds that the brothers and the mother showed a "perfectly passive behavior" regarding the handling of those funds. Among the Pujols, he concludes, there have been no "cooperation or collaboration" behaviors necessary to sustain the crime of criminal organization.
The family has defended, since the beginning of the investigation - almost eight years ago - that the fortune that it kept hidden in Andorra for more than 30 years comes from a legacy that the father of the former identity , Florenci Pujol, left to his daughter-in-law and grandchildren . The investigation has never given credence to this version and suspects that the funds come from businessmen payments to the first-born -which then reverted to the whole family- in exchange for "the influence exercised by the family before the authorities." The brief denounces that, in reality, the origin of the funds is "unknown", even though the judge attributes them (without evidence, in his opinion) to "illegal payments."
The defense of the Pujols is a direct attack against the judicial work. There is no "hint of evidence", but only a "shocking adjective" that makes it "worthy of glossy newspaper headlines." "Descriptive bombast sails under the flag of inconcretion," he adds. And he reproaches the judge for not mentioning a single suspicious authority, official or resolution. Nor does it specify which individuals in the Pujol family mediated or influenced public awards.
The letter contains a specific mention of the man who was president of the Generalitat for 23 years (from 1980 to 2003). The "long investigation" of the case "has not shown" that Pujol had done his children's clients any favors (some of them, businessmen who usually contract with the regional administration). Neither did "the slightest management, invitation or influence" and asks for the file of the case.
Account 63810
In the car, Pujol is mentioned as the owner of account 63810 in the Andorran entity Andbank. The judge attributes a crime of falsehood to both him and his eldest son. The defense recalls that the account was opened by the eldest son in 2000 and closed ten years later. The rogatory commission sent to Andorra discovered two letters, one from the father and the other from the son, in which both assumed that the account holder was actually the former Catalan president. In their statements in court, both stated that they were untrue and that the letters were registered "in the context of marital separation" of the eldest son with his partner, Mercè Gironés.
The judge has not given credibility to that version and attributes the ownership of the account to the former president. Regardless of which version is true, the defense maintains that in any case the crime is more than prescribed. And he points out a paradox: if according to the car and the inspection, Jordi Pujol is the account holder, then the letters "far from documenting a mendacity would express the truth of things."
The writing analyzes and rejects all the crimes attributed to the Pujols: against the Public Treasury, money laundering, criminal organization and falsehood. The defense remarks that there is no causal link between the first-born's business and the payments to the family in the accounts in Andorra, it denies that in Jordi Pujol Ferrusola's businesses (up to 32 operations are under suspicion) no other family member intervened and rejects with special vehemence the crime of money laundering. "Under loud and bombastic expressions, nothingness takes cover."
