Six acquitted in BPA trial left definitively cleared as others appeal convictions

The six defendants acquitted by the Court of Corts on 15 July in the main BPA proceeding are now definitively cleared: neither the Public Prosecutor’s Office nor the Government filed appeals against that ruling. Prosecutors and the government reportedly asked for additional time to reply to other appeals, but ultimately declined to challenge the acquittals. The Andorran Deposit Guarantee and Resolution Authority’s (AREB) legal representatives also took no action, since the judgment did not convict the bank itself but only certain former executives and employees.

Other convicted defendants have lodged detailed appeals with the criminal chamber of the High Court (Tribunal Superior), contesting both procedural and substantive aspects of the first-instance judgment. The appeals allege multiple constitutional violations and challenge key factual findings, particularly the existence of the underlying predicate offences required for money‑laundering convictions. Defence teams point out that many of the suspected underlying crimes were previously shelved, and they argue that the remaining allegations rely on weak police inquiries or on documentary evidence in Chinese that has not been translated, limiting its probative value.

The original Court of Corts sentence, delivered after a trial that began on 15 January 2018, imposed heavy aggregate penalties: custodial terms totaling 84 years across the convicted individuals (not all of which would necessarily be served in practice) and fines amounting to roughly €66 million. In the most prominent case, former CEO Joan Pau Miquel was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, a €30 million fine and ten years’ disqualification from the financial sector for money laundering, according to the first-instance ruling. Defenders argue that the funds at issue derived from legitimate commercial activity — principally import‑export operations — and stress that, for much of the period under investigation (2008–2011), certain conduct such as tax fraud was not criminalised under Andorran law in a way that would support a laundering conviction.

Defence briefs submitted on 3 October (after an agreed extension of 15 days) are reported to be voluminous and meticulously prepared, tailored to each defendant’s circumstances while also raising broader objections to the trial process. Alleged infringements invoked in the appeals include breaches of the presumption of innocence, denial of adequate guarantees, and measures that, defendants say, undermined the right to contradict the prosecution’s case. Lawyers contend the Court of Corts incorporated many of the prosecution’s assertions without sufficient independent scrutiny.

The handling of the appeals has encountered logistical complications. Some filings were so extensive that they could not be submitted electronically without risking system overload, and judicial sources describe the procedure as sui generis. The Prosecutor’s Office has sought extra time to prepare its responses. Court staffing issues may also delay proceedings: magistrate Yves Picot has announced his retirement in June and will not be available to increase his commitment to the Tribunal Superior, while magistrate Fàtima Ramírez is due to move to full-time dedication only next year; Anna Estragués remains the chamber’s full-time president.

Those convicted maintain that, absent proof of a prior criminal act linked to the funds, a money‑laundering conviction cannot stand under criminal law. Defences emphasise that business operations associated with the Chinese entrepreneur Gao Ping — at the centre of the investigation — involved lawful trade, such as leather goods and low‑cost retail sales, and that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the monies introduced into Andorra derived from a specific criminal enterprise.

The High Court will now consider these appeals, which are expected to result in lengthy hearings given the complexity and volume of the filings. Parties on all sides have expressed caution after the shock of the July sentence, and the court’s eventual decisions will determine whether parts of the first-instance ruling are upheld, reduced or overturned.