Legal cases surrounding Oltra and Puig’s brother intensify as the Valencian government faces scrutiny
At the Generalitat Valenciana, the president Ximo Puig acknowledged recent courtroom testimony from Francis Puig, the president’s brother, who faced allegations tied to subsidy fraud and forged documents related to public aid. Puig stressed that if any irregularities harming the Valencian Administration were detected, the Generalitat would seek appropriate redress or compensation. He added that every company within the Group should promptly address any problems with a clear, responsible statement about ongoing work and accountability.
The lawsuit targeting one of Francis Puig’s affiliated companies received support from the People’s Party, which used the case to apply pressure on Botànic and Puig personally. In response to inquiries about a relative’s involvement, the regional leadership insisted that the Generalitat remains uninvolved in the matter.
“The PP attempted to pull the Generalitat into this,” Francis Puig’s lawyer contended during a public hearing in Valencia City of Justice, organized by the PSPV leader. He indicated readiness to explain the doubts and the numerous errors found in the Central Operations Unit (UCO) report that underpins much of the investigation. In that setting, Francis Puig opened a press conference to questions from the media.
In this context, the Consell chairman sought to make a distinction: while criticizing the PP’s approach, the issue was clearly defined as a matter for the Generalitat and its governance practices, not a partisan dispute.
Puig reaffirmed the government’s commitment to upholding judicial decisions and to ensuring that any company within the Community bears equal duties and rights. He stated that regardless of who operates a business, it must provide the necessary explanations. He asserted that the Generalitat would demand compensation or any other remedy if irregularities were found at any point.
Puig reiterated a recurring message he has emphasized since Botànic took office in 2015, namely a commitment to building the Valencian Community’s reputation and delivering on promises, regardless of who is affected.
The 4th Administrative Court of Valencia is examining whether subsidies awarded between 2015 and 2018 to several companies—Comunicacions dels Ports, Mas Mut, Canal Maestrat, Nova CB, and Kriol Productions—were granted with irregularities. Investigations focus on funding provided by the Generalitat Valenciana, the Generalitat de Catalunya, and the Government of Aragon during that period.
Francis Puig’s case is set to proceed with Valencia Order Court No. 4 announcing proceedings on Monday, which will examine alleged subsidy fraud and documents that may have been falsified. Juan Enrique Adell Bovell, partner and director of Canal Maestrat, is also scheduled to testify on Wednesday. In addition to Puig and Adell, Rubén Trenzano, the director general for Language Policy at the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, is reportedly under investigation.
The court requested information on the accounting records of several companies spanning Valencia, Catalonia, and Aragon, as well as Treasury data, to assess subsidies received between 2015 and 2018. Specific subsidies under scrutiny include language promotion in the Valencian Community, youth employment initiatives, digital publications in Catalan or Aranese, and Leader program support for local development.
Earlier in the year, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office sought to determine the total aid received by Francis Puig’s companies if it exceeded 120,000 euros, since surpassing that threshold could place the matter in the category of subsidy offense and create grounds for possible punishment. The absence of extradition during the investigation could lead to fines ranging from five to six times the amount involved, depending on the jurisdiction and applicable laws.
Reports indicate that Commissió dels Ports, Mas Mut Production, and Canal Maestrat had received compliant subsidies from the Valencian Community and Catalonia, provided the disbursements did not exceed the incurred costs. Civil Guard documents describe four categories of irregularities in subsidy justification, including cross-billing, invoices for ineligible expenditures, double accounting of the same costs across administrations, and misreporting of costs to justify subsidies for the same projects.
Subsequent to the subpoena, Commissió dels Ports issued a statement noting that the investigators’ concerns were limited to a small number of invoices and would be addressed through a forthcoming court order. The company asserted that these suspicions did not imply criminal activity and cautioned that the police report could be misinterpreted where double attribution of subsidies was discussed. It emphasized that the same invoices could appear under different administrations without affecting objective data on actual expenditures. In closing, the firm highlighted that the Anti-Fraud Agency’s 2020 controls produced a favorable outcome, with no obligation for the administration to initiate a restitution procedure. EFE