Former BPA executive seeks annulment of conviction over alleged judicial bias

A former senior executive convicted in the first BPA trial, sentenced to six years in prison and fined €12 million, has filed an appeal with the Superior Court requesting annulment of the trial and a retrial before a new tribunal. The appeal argues that fundamental rights, particularly the right to an impartial tribunal, were breached and asks that none of the magistrates who participated in the original proceedings take part in the renewed review.

Central to the appeal are allegations of extraprocedural links between the investigating judge, members of the tribunal and the prosecution. The document states that investigating judge Canòlic Mingorance travelled with the Attorney General, Alfons Alberca, to several countries — including Panama, Peru, Madrid and Vigo — while the trial was still ongoing. It says both attended forums on money laundering, which the defence argues compromises the appearance of impartiality.

The appeal also highlights professional collaborations. It states Mingorance worked with prosecutor Borja Aguado on a technical guide on anti‑money‑laundering prosecution produced for a European initiative (I‑Crime); the defence includes this document among materials it says show “institutional connivance” between investigators and prosecutors. The appeal notes that Mingorance has acted as an expert for Moneyval — an organisation that has repeatedly urged Andorra to increase money‑laundering convictions — and that this connection is referenced in her doctoral thesis. The defence contends that such ties create a conflict of interest and undermine a judge’s neutrality.

The filing further alleges that several members of the sentencing panel had prior involvement in the case or had been previously challenged. It notes that magistrate Josep Maria Pijuan was eventually removed for lack of impartiality, but criticises that the tribunal continued deliberating under his presidency for weeks. The defence also asserts there were not enough magistrates unconnected to the case to constitute a fully renewed chamber, which it says should have prevented the trial from proceeding.

On evidentiary grounds, the appeal alleges the investigation against BPA originated from a FinCEN alert that was produced using information manipulated by Spanish authorities. The claim relies in part on testimony by former commissioner José Manuel Villarejo, who told the court that Spanish state actors pressured BPA’s management for data on Catalan politicians and, failing that, fabricated reports to prompt a US reaction. The defence argues this FinCEN note constitutes the “notitia criminis” that launched the inquiry; if its origin was irregular, the appeal contends, all derivative evidence is tainted. The filing invokes the “fruit of the poisoned tree” principle to argue that evidence obtained from an unlawful source cannot be valid.

Regarding the executive’s personal culpability, the appeal says there was no demonstration that he actively took part in any money‑laundering operation and that his conviction rests on inferences tied to his hierarchical position. The prosecution argued he acted in tandem with the head of compliance and ignored warning signs; the defence rejects that such inferences amount to criminal conduct. The appeal also challenges the tribunal’s use of the “willful blindness” doctrine, arguing the court imposed criminal responsibility despite acknowledging a lack of direct knowledge.

The defence asks that the judgment be annulled and the case reheard by an entirely new panel, asserting that the right to a fair trial was violated and that the sentence was rendered amid clear contamination of the judicial organ.