The judge attributes to the expresident Pujol the money of his first-born in Andorra

Marta Ferrusola” width=”679″ height=”382″ />The surprise registration of the two residences of the couple Jordi Pujol Soley and Marta Ferrusola in Barcelona and Queralbs ordered yesterday by Judge José de la Mata implies a shift in the magistrate’s vision of the so-called Pujol case . If until now it seemed clear that the family’s firstborn, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola , was attributed to the ownership and control of the majority of the capital, and to the rest of the children what was declared at the time by each of them, the judge’s order in which he orders the records of yesterday, which is available to this newspaper and which is part of a separate piece declared secret, defines the former president of the Generalitat and his wife as titular owners of the main account in Andorra of his son in the year 2000.

To do this, the judge relies on two letters included in the Andorran rogatory commission arrived in the distant June 2015 and contributed by the bank Andbank, successor of banking Reig. Following the arguments of the Office of the Prosecutor, the judge reports that in relation to account 63810 of the mentioned bank and whose holder is Pujol son , in which 307 million pesetas are paid in the year 2000, there are two documents: “One of them signed by Jordi Pujol Ferrusola in which he explains that he does not own those funds that are paid and that the real holder “is his father. “A second document, manuscript of Jordi Pujol Soley, dated May 2001, in which he claims to be the owner of the account (…) and declares that in the case of his death, everything in that account must be pass to Marta Ferrusola Lladós. The document is signed by Pujol Soley (…) “.

On this basis, the magistrate assumes the thesis of the Prosecutor’s Office that the former president of the Generalitat acted “as the common factor of all of them (the Pujol family considered as a clan)”. And, referring to the mother, Marta Ferrusola, assures that she can be attributed “the disposition of funds of the family until the date in which each and every one of them was proceeded to the opening of the accounts”, at least until 2004

In relation to the episode of the account in Banca Reig, the Pujol family explained at the time that the two letters intended to hide in the eyes of the then wife of Jordi, Mercè Gironès, who was the owner of that money. And for this, he agreed with the manager of the account, a picturesque Andorran manager who acted as a boy for everything from Pujol Ferrusola, Josep Maria Pallerola, implicated, by the way, in several shady financial matters, who would show both letters to the unsuspecting spouse. . Also, that after interpreting the comedy, the two documents should be destroyed and a third letter sent to Pallerola in which the father and then president of the Generalitat in exercise would affirm “having signed the recognition of ownership by express request of his son to deactivate a “conjugal conflict” but “warning not to be the beneficiary of that account”, according to the complaint filed by Jordi junior in Andorra in June 2015, after the arrival of the rogatory commission to the National Court, against Pallerola .

Pujol defense sources, who yesterday expressed their surprise at the fact that now resuscitated facts that were incorporated almost two years ago, have pointed out that in the Spanish case Pallerola statements confirm ratifying the insured by Pujol júnior.

On the other hand, the defense of Pujol Ferrusola has provided the court with a calligraphic expert opinion signed by Juan Francisco Orellana de Castro in which it is concluded that the documents were written and initialed by the son and not by the father.

The defense of Pujol father brings a calligraphic opinion that concludes that he did not write the letter

The other link of Marta Ferrusola has to do with the Kopeland foundation, based in Panama. Since, according to the judge, was assigned one of the four accounts of that foundation of his son Jordi, becoming completely opaque. Pujol’s defense argues that it was a product of the BPA bank itself, where they had the accounts, offered to prevent anyone else, apart from the bank’s general manager and the account manager, from knowing who the owner was.