A 32-year-old single mother of Hispanic descent with two dependent children, including a one-year-old, faced unemployment and scarce resources. This profile belongs to Ana, a fictional name used to protect privacy. She became the first potential donor linked to an organ trafficking case that prosecutors described as closed in 2014. The case involved the National Police Homicide unit and revolved around a plan to transport a liver piece to a wealthy Lebanese mayor with liver disease, with an offered sum of 40,000 euros.
“That was a large amount of money. I was doing it for my children and to help save a life,” explained the woman, speaking to reporters from the Prensa Ibérica group after giving testimony at the trial against five defendants. The Beirut-based millionaire, who was supposed to receive the organ, was said to have been aware of his son, who ultimately donated to him after unsuccessful transplantation attempts at hospitals in Pamplona and Barcelona. This was presented as a major example of this type of surgery in the country, according to the prosecutor’s office.
In court, the witness suggested that the offer of money for a liver piece had been downplayed, claiming she could not recall whether the amount discussed was 30,000 or 40,000 euros. While acknowledging that her financial situation was dire, she asserted that without money she would not have joined the plan. She added that if donating could save someone’s life, people should be tested before donation and that the process should not cause harm. She further stated that she would donate a kidney free of charge if called to do so for another person.
Associated with the case was the so-called self-sacrifice initiative. The woman attributed her mother’s struggle with a hereditary vascular disease requiring regular transfusions as a reason for considering donation. She suggested that in the future she would donate a kidney to a stranger without compensation if needed.
After rejecting the donor, the plan shifted to arranging a comfortable marriage with another individual described as a Lebanese associate.
During the trial, the witness confirmed key elements of the case against the defendants, who faced charges for aiding in illegal organ transplants of foreign origin and related offenses. The potential sentence ranged from seven to three years in prison.
At a Valencia cafeteria on Avenida Francia, researchers met with unidentified individuals who claimed substantial monetary compensation and claimed that the liver piece belonged to a senior Lebanese president whom the participants had never met. They described private clinic tests in Valencia as part of the operation.
Initially, the witness explained that she did not know whether a whole liver could be donated, since a person cannot live with a whole liver but can receive a partial liver that regenerates. She noted that the operation would take place in a hospital with health guarantees and preoperative checks.
She admitted she knew money involvement made the plan illegal. The millionaire, who would have received the organ in a favorable setting, stated that she and others were not pursuing the arrangement for personal gain but to assist a life. She described the donor process as something she would avoid if it involved children in her care, arguing that the operation would be delicate and require time for recovery. If someone had money and was dying or had a child in danger, she said, they would look for a fast solution.
After the donor was rejected, a second illegal arrangement was proposed, offering 10,000 euros for a genuine marriage with another individual connected to the Lebanese circle. Ana admitted meeting the man several times, sharing meals and attending social events, but the pressure intensified as the plan unfolded. She stated she wanted the marriage to be real and living together, and she ultimately rejected the proposal.
Another prospective donor testified that he had been driven to Pamplona and Barcelona for the transplant transport.
A different witness, who was involved in the planned transport, testified that offers of work in Lebanon and a role within the donor family led to the car journey to Pamplona and then to Barcelona for surgery. In both cities, preliminary checks indicated that any altruistic donation in Spain required court oversight, which hindered the transplant. Later, one donor’s son was tested, and after reviewing options, he donated a portion of his liver to his father in August 2013.
The National Police officer who testified described the operation that led to the defendants’ arrest, confirming that eight potential donors were tested for compatibility. He clarified that payments were handled through a Novelda marble company owned by relatives of the Lebanese politician, and noted the donor’s preference to avoid exposing his son to the risks and possible sequelae of the procedure. It was suggested that the lives of impoverished people were valued less in the scheme.