Former BPA executives appeal after landmark money‑laundering convictions
Defendants in the first BPA trial have appealed to the Superior Court, contesting evidence and alleged rights violations; review could take about.
Key Points
- Joan Pau Miquel Prats: 7 years’ prison, €30,000,000 fine, 10‑year ban from banking posts.
- 13 defendants convicted of major money laundering with habitual conduct and bank‑related aggravators.
- Five others convicted specifically for acting within a banking establishment; six defendants acquitted of the main charge.
- Appeals filed seeking review; Superior Court could hear the case in about six months; ~20 related cases still pending.
The convicted defendants in the first BPA case have appealed to the Superior Court, arguing that the Court of Corts violated their fundamental rights. In their appeal they reiterate their innocence and say there was insufficient evidence to justify the heavy sentences. The most prominent defendant, former CEO Joan Pau Miquel, was sentenced to seven years in prison and fined €30 million for money laundering. RTVA reports that, if the appeals are admitted, the Superior Court could review the case in about six months. The trial, which lasted seven years, ended late in 2023; around twenty related cases remain pending trial.
Of the 18 defendants, 13 were found guilty of major money laundering with the aggravating circumstances of habitual conduct and acting within the framework of a banking institution: Joan Pau Miquel Prats, Santiago de Rosselló Piera, Isabel Camino Sarmiento Fuertes, Amaya de Santiago Bullich, Sergi Fernández Genés, Josep Lluís Rivero Carrizo, Francesc Xavier Domingo Roigé, Antoni Calvente Gutiérrez, Ignacio Cardiel Lavilla, Francisco Javier Filoso Fernández, José González Frías, Esteve García García and Ana María Bermejo Camps. Five others—Juan Cejudo Peña, Josep Antoni Rivero Carrizo, Josep Elfa Farré, Luis Pablo Laplana Moraes and Mauricio Escribano Sánchez—were convicted of major money laundering with the specific circumstance of acting within a banking establishment.
The Court of Corts acquitted Xavier Mayol González, Enrique Rafael Gracià Cerdà, Francisco Miguel Martínez Bort, Jaume Sansa Matamoros, Joana Reolid Castillo and Amélie Andrée Monique Pérez of the major money laundering charge.
Penalties imposed included both custodial and conditional sentences, fines and professional disqualifications. Notable penalties reported by the court are:
- Joan Pau Miquel Prats: seven years’ imprisonment, fine of €30,000,000, and disqualification from holding office or a position in a banking or financial institution for 10 years. - Santiago de Rosselló Piera: six years’ imprisonment, fine of €12,000,000, and 10-year disqualification from banking/financial office. - Isabel Camino Sarmiento Fuertes: five years’ imprisonment, fine of €5,000,000, and 10-year disqualification. - Amaya de Santiago Bullich: five years’ imprisonment, fine of €5,000,000, and 10-year disqualification. - Sergi Fernández Genés: five years’ imprisonment, fine of €5,000,000, and 10-year disqualification. - Francesc Xavier Domingo Roigé: four years’ imprisonment, of which one year is custodial and the remainder suspended with a four-year suspension period; fine of €500,000, and 10-year disqualification.
Several defendants received conditional prison sentences with suspension periods and fines: Josep Lluís Rivero Carrizo (five years conditional, suspension term of four years, fine €2,100,000 and five-year disqualification), Juan Cejudo Peña (five years conditional, suspension term of four years, fine €2,000,000 and five-year disqualification), Josep Elfa Farré (five years conditional, suspension term of four years, fine €1,000,000 and five-year disqualification), and Luis Pablo Laplana Moraes (five years conditional, suspension term of four years, fine €500,000, five-year disqualification and expulsion from the Principality for 10 years). Antoni Calvente Gutiérrez received a four-year conditional sentence with a four-year suspension period and a €200,000 fine.
The appeals filed seek review of those convictions and penalties; the defendants maintain there was no proof to justify the sentences imposed.
Original Sources
This article was aggregated from the following Catalan-language sources: