Back to home
Business·

Andorran businessman appeals suspended sentence for child support non-payment

Former 'Cas Pujol' probe suspect claims financial collapse prevented €450 monthly payments, while prosecutors cite his luxury lifestyle as evidence against insolvency.

Key Points

  • Andorran businessman appeals five-month suspended sentence for not paying €450 monthly child support.
  • Claims financial collapse post-2017 left him with €600/month income and €22,000 debts.
  • Prosecutors highlight €593,000 mortgage and luxury car lease contradicting insolvency claims.
  • Previously linked to 'Cas Pujol' probe; appeal ruling pending.

**Andorran businessman appeals five-month suspended sentence for repeated child support non-payment**

Andorra's Tribunal Superior de Justícia heard an appeal on Wednesday from a convicted former resident sentenced by the Tribunal de Corts to five months' suspended prison time and court costs for failing to pay child maintenance to his ex-wife.

The man, previously accused in the 'Cas Pujol' probe, insists a severe financial downturn prevented him from meeting the €450 monthly obligation set in July 2017 for his daughter, now studying in Barcelona. His lawyer argued before the higher court that the original ruling misjudged his economic timeline: high pre-2017 income exceeding €5,000 monthly dropped sharply afterward, leaving him with around €600 monthly and €22,000 in debts. Property and luxury car commitments dated back to 2015, before the payments were mandated, the defence stressed. They also claimed bias, noting one Corts judge had served as prosecutor earlier in the case, and sought to overturn the verdict.

Prosecutors defended the Corts decision, pointing to the man's failure to make any payments despite a lifestyle—including a €593,000 mortgage and high-end vehicle lease—that contradicted claims of insolvency. No civil liability was imposed after the ex-couple agreed he would cover the daughter's university costs, which he has done.

In closing remarks, the appellant described 13 years of hardship and maintained he could not afford the sums.

The Corts case stemmed from repeated non-payments, with the ex-partner arguing he never lowered his living standards. A ruling on the appeal is pending.

Share the article via