A high-profile case in Barcelona centers on judge Jose Antonio Cruz de Pablo, who has ordered the prosecution of 17 individuals linked to a broad network of lawyers, notaries, and other professionals accused of defrauding 128 victims. The alleged scheme involved seizing homes and preying on the elderly and financially vulnerable. Media coverage in some circles has described it as a major real estate fraud operation, sometimes labeled as Operation Cocoon. Among the defendants is Francisco Committee San Martin, a lawyer and former model, for whom prosecutors seek a sentence of 20 years and 9 months. He is also facing separate proceedings at the Barcelona Court over alleged involvement in a drug trafficking and money-laundering network, which led to a 16-year sentence in Badalona.
The investigating magistrate’s order, obtained by EL PERIÓDICO from the Prensa Ibérica group, formalizes indictments for multiple offenses including aggravated fraud, money laundering, criminal organization, and professional disloyalty. The judge explains why the fraud is deemed aggravated, focusing on the extent of harm, the economic conditions of the victims, the total value of the fraud, and the exploitation of professional credibility in the acts.
The defendant’s so-called Solidarity civil bond amounting to 15 million euros stands as the basis for final compensation if a conviction occurs, though a trial date at the Barcelona Court has not yet been announced. If this bond is not deposited, the judge will seize the defendant’s assets. In a later ruling, the judge also treated the civil suit against three insurers as direct civil liability, implying the insurers could be obligated to cover the compensation if the court decides accordingly.
Beyond the named individual, the notary has emerged as a central figure among the leaders of this alleged fraud network. Enrique Pick and Artur Segarra, who fled to Thailand to escape justice, are tied to the case for alleged roles in extortion and murder, including the killing and dismemberment of a Lleida businessman named David Bernat who was targeted in what appeared to be a bid to steal from him. Segarra is serving a prison sentence in Bangkok for crimes committed between 2009 and 2015. The operation is said to have involved luring financially distressed clients with limited financial knowledge into arrangements that silently transferred ownership of homes and other assets.
The defendants are accused of misleading clients into believing they would sign life pension or personal loan contracts, while in reality the documents purported to sell homes or other property. The scheme allegedly relied on questionable notarial duties and forged or misrepresented power of attorney agreements to push the deals forward.
In one illustrative case from April 2014, a couple aged 84 and her husband faced financial hardship after responding to an advertisement offering liquidity through financial products. They contacted the company run by Cómitre and Segarra and were drawn into an agreement that required them to sell their home while retaining the right to live in it for a monthly rent of 2,000 euros, plus a compensation arrangement. Prosecutors argue that the defendants’ true aim was to seize full ownership of the home without fair compensation, leaving the elderly couple with no meaningful security.
property allowance
The case outlines how the defendants allegedly forced the woman to juggle two notary-related tasks on the same day, with the aim of triggering termination clauses while knowing the actions would not be fulfilled. The plan was to let her sell her house at a deferred price without transferring another asset, stripping her of any real guarantee should the debt not be repaid.
Following this maneuver, the conspirators allegedly attempted to sell the residence to another defendant, then evicted the woman from her home in Vilanova. The association ultimately paid the victim only 4,000 euros, and she lost her home. The conspiracy is described as having repeated this tactic in different forms, with some defendants adapting their approach in other cases.
Simulations and credits are another strand of the case. In a separate scenario, a different victim who refused to sell her home was offered no collateral for a financial transaction. The same instrument company and one of the defendants used a supposed straw man to simulate the sale of the property, but they did not retain control of the deal. The woman later recognized the scheme when the conspirators urged her to sign an oral power of attorney that never existed.
In other instances, victims were promised a personal loan secured by their home, but what they signed was a sale of the property to a company that then transferred it to another entity without paying sums or settling existing mortgages. The details reveal a pattern of deceptive promises and asset transfers designed to strip homeowners of their property.