Andorra Court Acquits Family in Restaurant Debt Evasion Case

The Tribunal de Corts acquitted a 73-year-old man and his two daughters of charges related to frustrating executive debt collection proceedings from the collapse of two family restaurants in Escaldes-Engordany.

Judges ruled on Monday that prosecutors failed to prove deliberate intent to hide assets or block creditor repayments. The case centred on the movement of furniture, tables, chairs, kitchen equipment, and refrigerators from the first restaurant—which closed in 2015 owing more than €60,000 mainly in unpaid rent since 2010—to a second outlet opened shortly afterwards by one of the daughters.

Prosecutors had portrayed the transfer, which took place after closure but before any seizure order, as a calculated effort to empty the premises and prevent landlords and suppliers from recovering funds. They accused the family of effectively sustaining the first business under a different guise while evading debts, seeking 14 months' suspended prison sentences for the father and elder daughter, plus a joint €65,000 fine covering creditor claims. The second daughter, who formally ran the new venue, faced no main charge and denied knowing the equipment's origins.

During the May trial, the father—a well-known local figure—repeatedly denied owning or managing either restaurant, insisting he only provided occasional help to his daughters as they started out. He said the landlord had considered the items worthless and permitted their storage, and he never ordered any transfer to dodge seizure. The daughters attributed the first outlet's failure, which operated from 2007 under the elder daughter's name with parental support, to economic hardship. They maintained the second business aimed to start afresh, using some purchased items and others moved before any embargo threat. "We were just trying to salvage what we could," they summarised in court, denying any aim to harm creditors.

Defence arguments highlighted the lack of concrete evidence for fraud, noting that moving assets alone did not prove intent to obstruct execution if no such will was shown. The court agreed no essential elements for conviction existed, fully clearing the trio and ending the criminal proceedings sparked by the outlets' failures.

The defendants expressed visible relief at the ruling. Prosecutors and private accusers retain the option to appeal.