Constitutional Court reopens laundering case, upholds drug convictions

Andorra’s Constitutional Court has admitted a new amparo in a long‑running money‑laundering prosecution, dismissed two amparo appeals in a high‑profile drug case, and ordered a re‑examination of civil liability in a corporate insolvency.

The Court accepted a fresh amparo in the prosecution of a Zaragoza property developer and two former partners convicted of laundering proceeds allegedly linked to drug trafficking. The central legal question is which Penal Code applies: the 1990 code, which the defence says defines laundering more narrowly and could exclude criminal liability for the contested facts, or the 2005 code, which ordinary courts have applied on the basis that its lower penalties are more favourable. This is the second time the matter has reached the Constitutional Court. On the earlier occasion the Court found in favour of the accused and ordered the Superior Court to redraft its sentence; the Superior Court corrected material errors but left the sentence substantively unchanged. The principal defendant received a three‑year suspended sentence, is reportedly around 80 years old, and has been under investigation in Andorra since 2004. Fines on the three convicted total roughly €2 million and several real‑estate units have been under state control for more than two decades. With the new amparo admitted, the Constitutional Court may again be called on to clarify which penal regime governs the convictions and whether the Superior Court’s reasoning requires further legal guidance.

In a separate ruling the Constitutional Court dismissed the amparo appeals of two men convicted in the so‑called “drug maid” case, concerning cocaine and hashish trafficking linked to activity at El Pas de la Casa. The defendants had challenged a Superior Court decision that, after correcting material errors at the Constitutional Court’s order, upheld initial custodial sentences of five and three years. One appellant argued the original judgment failed to account for his age at the time of the offences (he was under 21) and misstated quantities, alleging confusion between 400 grams of hashish and a €400 valuation the defence said corresponded to roughly 100 grams; the other contested the evidentiary appraisal and the legal approach that grouped separate minor offences into a single continuing offence. The Constitutional Court found that ordinary courts acted within their remit, that the Superior Court’s corrections did not breach fundamental rights, and that classifying the conduct as a continuing offence was not arbitrary or illogical. It also held the appellants did not substantiate claims of unequal treatment or inconsistent jurisprudence, and accordingly dismissed both appeals.

Separately, the Superior Court recently rejected an appeal seeking a reduced sentence for a man convicted of drug trafficking who had cooperated with investigators. The defence sought to lower a 9‑year‑and‑5‑month custodial term to 7 years and 3 months, arguing the defendant supplied decisive information that helped dismantle a network involved in drug distribution and sexual exploitation and that his cooperation exposed him to threats while imprisoned. The court confirmed the original sentence, ordered the defendant to pay legal costs, and declined to reduce the penalty. Authorities reported substantial seizures in the operation linked to the case — including 810 grams of cocaine, 520 ecstasy tablets and 300 grams of marijuana — and the prosecution argued those volumes justified a stern sentence. The prosecution also questioned elements of the defendant’s cooperation, saying his statements were not always consistent and did not fully name other suspects. The Superior Court concluded the initial penalty and its assessment of aggravating factors should stand.

The Constitutional Court also granted amparo to a woman who had been treated as a shareholder of Montmantell and held jointly liable for debts arising from the insolvency of bus operator La Hispano‑Andorrana. Crédit Andorrà sought joint repayment of €216,921.23 from three individuals, including the petitioner, and from Montmantell after the company collapsed. The petitioner had signed a personal guarantee for a €225,000 credit line at her husband’s request and maintained she lacked knowledge of the company’s financial situation. The Constitutional Court found that the civil chamber’s reasoning rested on an incorrect factual premise — that the petitioner had been a shareholder of La Hispano‑Andorrana — whereas company‑registry records and the case file show she never held that status (she held a ten‑share stake in Montmantell, a different entity). The Court concluded this factual error produced a logically flawed argument and violated her constitutional right to obtain a decision grounded in law, and it granted amparo on that basis. It stressed, however, that this does not automatically relieve her of the personal guarantee: the civil chamber must re‑examine joint liability and whether she qualifies as a consumer, removing the factual error from its analysis.