hastily and hurriedly in July 2014, then verified a year later
En los pasillos de la Audiencia Nacional, donde el peso de la historia política catalana se hace sentir, el asesor fiscal de la familia Pujol reconoció ante el tribunal que las regularizaciones de una fortuna oculta en Andorra se realizaron con precipitación, apenas un día después de que el expresidente Jordi Pujol confesara públicamente su existencia. Durante casi cuatro décadas, Joan Antón Sánchez Carreté gestionó en silencio los asuntos tributarios de una de las familias más influyentes de Cataluña; ahora, su testimonio revela que la urgencia por cumplir con Hacienda dejó más sombras que certezas. La ausencia de contratos que acrediten millones en servicios prestados y la improvisación documentada plantean una pregunta que el juicio deberá responder: ¿fue aquella prisa una señal de culpa o simplemente el reflejo de una familia atrapada por sus propias omisiones?
- El día después de la confesión pública de Pujol en julio de 2014, su asesor fiscal ya se reunía con los abogados de la familia para diseñar una estrategia de regularización a contrarreloj.
- Las declaraciones complementarias ante Hacienda se presentaron, según las propias palabras del testigo, 'de forma apresurada y atropellada', sin tiempo para verificar su exactitud.
- Casi un año más tarde, la familia envió dos memorias USB con datos de cuentas andorranas para que el asesor comprobara si aquellas declaraciones precipitadas eran siquiera correctas.
- No existe ningún contrato que documente los millones de euros en servicios que la firma del asesor habría prestado durante décadas a las empresas de Jordi Pujol Ferrusola.
- Los documentos incautados en el despacho del asesor siguen siendo pieza clave para la acusación, mientras el juicio avanza sobre un terreno donde la improvisación y el silencio documental se convierten en pruebas ambiguas.
El lunes, Joan Antón Sánchez Carreté ocupó el estrado de la Audiencia Nacional cargando con casi cuatro décadas de relación profesional con Jordi Pujol Soley y su esposa Marta Ferrusola. Su primera maniobra fue trazar distancias: los Pujol eran clientes de su firma, Consultores de Economía y Tributos, pero no clientes suyos en lo personal. Sin embargo, los hechos contaban otra historia.
El 7 de julio de 2014, apenas veinticuatro horas después de que el expresidente catalán confesara públicamente haber ocultado una fortuna en Andorra —atribuida a una herencia paterna—, Sánchez Carreté se reunió con los abogados de la familia para diseñar una estrategia de regularización fiscal. La familia le había entregado extractos bancarios andorranos desde 2010; él conservaba registros desde 2008. Lo que siguió fue, según sus propias palabras, una regularización hecha 'de forma apresurada y atropellada'.
La improvisación no terminó ahí. En 2015, ya con una inspección de Hacienda en marcha desde agosto del año anterior, la familia le remitió dos memorias USB con información sobre sus cuentas en Andorra para que verificara si las declaraciones complementarias presentadas con tanta prisa eran realmente correctas. El asesor las revisó, pero admitió no haber podido rastrear el movimiento de bonos a través de las cuentas familiares, recomendando contratar a un auditor externo para cubrir ese vacío.
Un detalle resultó especialmente revelador: no existe ningún contrato que acredite los millones de euros en servicios que su firma habría prestado durante décadas a las empresas de Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, el hijo mayor del expresidente. A lo largo de todo su testimonio, Sánchez Carreté mantuvo que su firma gestionaba el papeleo —ingresos, gastos deducibles, documentación contable— sin indagar nunca el origen del dinero. Mientras el juicio continúa, la pregunta que flota en el aire es si esa prisa y esa ausencia documental refuerzan o debilitan la acusación contra la familia más prominente de la política catalana reciente.
The courtroom at Spain's National Court filled with anticipation on Monday as Joan Antón Sánchez Carreté took the stand. For nearly four decades, he had been the tax advisor to Jordi Pujol Soley, the former president of Catalonia, and his wife Marta Ferrusola. Now he was testifying in the trial that would determine whether the Pujol family had systematically hidden wealth in Andorra and evaded taxes on a massive scale.
Sánchez Carreté's opening move was to distance himself from the facts being judged. Yes, the Pujols were clients of his firm, Consultores de Economía y Tributos in central Barcelona, but they were not his personal clients. Yet the record showed something more complicated. In July 2014, after Jordi Pujol publicly confessed to holding a hidden fortune in Andorra—wealth he attributed to an inheritance from his father—the family had come to Sánchez Carreté asking how to regularize their tax situation. They handed over bank statements from Andorra dating back to 2010, and he had records going back to 2008. On July 7, 2014, the day after the former president's confession, Sánchez Carreté met with the family's lawyers to design a strategy for bringing the hidden funds into compliance with Spanish tax authorities.
What emerged from his testimony was a portrait of improvisation under pressure. The regularizations submitted in July 2014 were done, in his own words, "hastily and hurriedly." Nearly a year later, in 2015, after the tax authority had opened an inspection in August 2014, the family sent him two USB drives containing data on their Andorra accounts. They wanted him to verify whether the hastily prepared supplementary tax filings were actually correct. He reviewed them. He also found himself unable to trace the movement of bonds through the family's accounts—a critical piece of documentation—and recommended they hire an auditor instead.
The prosecution had seized documents from his office that they considered essential to their case. Sánchez Carreté was also alleged to have knowledge of the offshore structures that Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, the former president's eldest son, had allegedly used to conceal his income. Yet throughout his testimony, Sánchez Carreté maintained a consistent refrain: his firm handled the paperwork, but he personally did not. They received accounting documents from the companies, reviewed income and deductible expenses, but never investigated where the money came from.
One detail hung in the air: there were no contracts documenting the millions of euros in services his firm allegedly provided to Jordi Pujol Ferrusola's companies over the decades. The advisor's testimony suggested that the family's attempt to regularize their tax position had been rushed, incomplete, and dependent on outside help to fill the gaps. As the trial continues, the question remains whether that hastiness—and the absence of proper documentation—strengthens or weakens the prosecution's case against one of Catalonia's most prominent political families.
Notable Quotes
The regularizations were completed hastily and hurriedly in July 2014, then verified a year later after the tax authority opened an inspection.— Joan Antón Sánchez Carreté, tax advisor
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that the regularizations were done hastily? Couldn't they still be legally correct?
The speed matters because it suggests they weren't carefully constructed. If you're trying to legitimately explain where millions came from, you'd expect thorough documentation. Instead, a year later, they're still trying to verify whether the filings were even accurate.
The advisor says he didn't personally do the work—his firm did. Is that a meaningful distinction?
It's a legal one, maybe. But it also sounds like someone trying to reduce his own exposure. He was there from the beginning, in that July meeting designing the strategy. He just keeps saying "the office did it, not me."
What about those USB drives sent a year later? What does that tell us?
That they knew something was wrong. If the July filings had been solid, why would they need to send him raw data to verify them? It suggests the original work was incomplete or unreliable.
He couldn't trace the bonds. Is that suspicious?
It's a red flag. Bonds are traceable. If you can't show where they came from or how they moved, it's hard to prove the money was legitimate. That's why they needed an auditor—to do the work he couldn't or wouldn't do.
Does his testimony help or hurt the prosecution?
Both. It shows the family was scrambling and the regularization was sloppy. But it also means the key evidence—those seized documents—becomes even more important. Without them, you're relying on an advisor who keeps saying he wasn't really involved.