Francis Puig and Adell Bover to Face Trial for Fraud and Document Forgery

The Provincial Court of Valencia dismisses appeals and ratifies the prosecution for subsidies to companies linked to the promotion of Valencian.

Generic image of a judge's gavel on a wooden desk in a courtroom.
IA

Generic image of a judge's gavel on a wooden desk in a courtroom.

The Provincial Court of Valencia has dismissed the appeals filed by Francis Puig, brother of former president Ximo Puig, and by Juan Enrique Adell Bover, confirming that both must stand trial for alleged fraud and document forgery.

The judicial procedure originated from a complaint filed by the Partido Popular in March 2019. This initial complaint also pointed to Rubén Trenzano, then director general of Linguistic Policy.
The complaint focused on subsidies granted by the Generalitat to companies linked to Francis PuigComunicació dels Ports and Mas Mut Producciones— during 2015 and 2016, intended for the promotion of the Valencian language. Subsequently, the complaint was expanded to include Adell Bover, considering that companies in his sphere would have participated in the alleged fraud through practices such as invoice duplication.
The indictment, now ratified by the Court, maintains that the accused allegedly issued false invoices through shell companies, with fictitious addresses or for services unrelated to the aid, with the aim of obtaining the subsidies. Both the Prosecutor's Office and the Legal Department of the Generalitat consider that the facts could constitute crimes of forgery of commercial documents, aggravated fraud, and misappropriation.
The Public Prosecutor's Office requests a sentence of 4 years and 10 months in prison for Puig, while the Legal Department of the Generalitat requests 4 years. In the case of Adell Bover, both accusations demand 3 years in prison. Additionally, the investigating judge set bail at 147,589.29 euros for Puig and 99,614.33 euros for the second accused.
The defenses appealed the indictment alleging, among other issues, that the judge who issued the order was not the one who instructed the case and that the resolution was “almost a copy and paste of the Public Prosecutor's Office's brief.” They also argued that exculpatory proceedings had been omitted and questioned the classification of the facts as fraud, as the amount initially considered for a subsidy fraud crime was not reached.
The Court rejects these arguments and considers that the facts described during the investigation provisionally allow their classification as a crime of fraud, without prejudice to what is determined in the oral trial. Likewise, the magistrates emphasize that the indictment contains a “very descriptive and detailed” account of the investigated facts and the allegedly involved persons.