Back to home
Business·

Andorra Court Hears Appeal of Company President Convicted of Death Threats

Andorra's Superior Court reviewed an appeal by a 76-year-old company president over his conviction for death threats made during a board dispute with his niece's ex-husband, the firm's secretary. Tensions escalated from personal and financial rifts.

Key Points

  • 76-year-old company president appeals 3-month suspended sentence for alleged death threats against business partner.
  • Dispute arose from romantic breakup, family ties, and dividend clashes leading to boardroom scuffle.
  • Defense claims no evidence, questions 3-month complaint delay post-dismissal and lack of minutes.
  • Prosecutors defend conviction; Superior Court to rule on closely watched case.

Andorra's Superior Court has held a hearing on the appeal of a 76-year-old company president convicted of making death threats against his business partner, the former husband of his niece, during a heated dispute.

The case stems from tensions between the board president and the company's general secretary, who had maintained a friendly, indirectly familial tie until a romantic breakup and clashes over dividend payouts escalated into a stormy board meeting. Insults flew, a scuffle broke out, and the secretary accused the president of death threats, leading to a three-month suspended prison sentence from the lower court.

The defendant's lawyer has challenged the ruling, insisting no credible evidence supports the threats. The president has consistently denied them, admitting only to mutual insults and a brief physical altercation amid the business and family rift. "The threats were not proven," the lawyer argued at the hearing, questioning the complainant's account and noting procedural issues. The defence highlighted the three-month delay in filing the complaint, which aligned with the secretary's dismissal, and the absence of any mention in official minutes despite lawyers being present.

Prosecutors defended the original conviction, maintaining that trial questioning followed due process despite conflicting testimonies. They urged the Superior Court to uphold the sentence.

The court must now rule on the appeal in the closely watched clash between the two former partners.

Share the article via