Andorra Tribunal Upholds Detention of 'Watch Entrepreneur' in Smuggling Case

Andorra's Constitutional Tribunal has rejected a constitutional appeal from the defence of a 33-year-old Valencian resident dubbed the "watch entrepreneur," upholding his provisional detention on charges of luxury watch smuggling and money laundering.

The man, arrested in mid-October 2024, has now been held for more than two months. His lawyers challenged the order in a writ of habeas corpus filed against a November 6 ruling by the Corts Tribunal, which had confirmed the investigating judge's decision. They argued the imprisonment violated rights to liberty, due process, and family life under the Andorran Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights, calling it disproportionate for what they described as a mere administrative infraction with no harm to the public treasury or victims.

The defence insisted authorities possess complete accounting records, seized assets and documents, and that the money laundering charge—punishable by up to eight years—was an illogical overreach to justify custody. They stressed his rooted life in Andorra, including employment there, a three-year-old daughter with Andorran nationality, and a wife three months pregnant who faces her own national arrest warrant if she returns. Her absence during the police operation, they said, was coincidental and did not indicate flight risk.

The Constitutional Tribunal dismissed the appeal as inadmissible, ruling that lower courts—the investigating judge and Corts Tribunal—provided sufficient legal grounding. It highlighted the charges' severity, potential eight-year sentences, flight risk, and potential to obstruct the investigation. Detention remained proportionate under Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given its brevity relative to maximum penalties; the suspect had served far less than half the possible term.

The court noted his business mainly operated outside Andorra, undermining claims of a vital centre of interests here, alongside evidence of a high-end lifestyle including luxury cars and over €220,000 seized from a bank safe. On family ties, it recognised inevitable disruptions from imprisonment but found no proof that prison conditions blocked reasonable contact, as visits were feasible. The measure, it concluded, met standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality at this stage.