The testimony stretched to over four hours as Francesc Puig, identified as the Director of Comunicacions dels Ports SL and Mas Mut Producciones SL, along with Ximo Puig, the president referenced for the Generalitat, faced questioning before the Valencia Teaching Court and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor. The session featured a clear stance: the defense reported that the PP attorney offered questions and asserted data that was deemed inaccurate, arguing that the case should not have started in the first place.
Francis Puig’s attorney, Javier Falomir, spoke to reporters after the hearing, noting that the client answered all inquiries tied to the Civil Guard report. The lawyer emphasized that the next steps would involve clarifying which questions triggered the presentation of certain documents by the prosecution and confirming details about expenses, payments, invoices, whether services were rendered, and how future actions would address these points. The defense conveyed a sense of cautious relief that the questions had been answered and that the process would move forward with a focus on the truth of the transactions.
According to Falomir, the Civil Guard report raised issues suitable for verification, such as housing documents, which Puig allegedly did not address previously. The defense urged the Treasury to release documents and records for the cited addresses, as well as records from Avalem. Although substantial information has been provided, some segments of the report appear to lack substance, especially where payments could be offset from an accounting perspective in partnerships with suppliers and clients. In other instances, the absence of payment records was noted.
The media entrepreneur and representative from Els Ports expressed a desire to close the matter promptly. He asked that the Generalitat’s report be delivered soon so that the prosecutor could request any documents. He stated that the statements had been made and that the necessary documents would be supplied. The defense described a pattern of invoices being kept at addresses that had not been formally touched, stressing that everything must be justified. In several cases there was no direct evidence of payments, and some transactions occurred via bank transfers or as forms of compensation.
When asked about duplicated invoices, attorney Falomir explained that civil guards may not fully understand how subsidies are managed across different regions. In Valencia, subsidies might be requested and approved one way, while in Catalonia the process follows a distinct path. He argued that duplication does not automatically mean double spending; instead, it reflects how subsidies are allocated by management and what is deemed eligible. The defense highlighted that Valencia’s subsidy processes and Catalonia’s different approaches could yield seemingly identical bills, yet not imply identical expenditures. Details of subsidies and their allocation were described as the responsibility of management, with an emphasis on what expenses qualify for each subsidy, including payroll, operating costs, and social security obligations. The client’s filings were presented as an explanatory matter, with the defense noting that questions about Valencia’s subsidies and Catalonia’s were not essentially conflicts but divergent administrative practices. Substantive subsidy approvals, the defense argued, involved ongoing control measures that did not imply improper payments. It was also noted that the case did not require disclosure of every subsidy amount in Catalonia or Valencia, given the separate accounting and oversight frameworks.
The defense reiterated that the expression of possible irregularities in the reports from the Valencian Civil Guard is not definitive. Therefore, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office should request a review by the Generalitat of Catalonia and Valencia. The defense suggested that witnesses, including service heads, be questioned to illustrate how Valencia operates and how the system functions. The goal remains to seek dismissal of the case once the intervention reports are reviewed, according to the lawyer.
Puig’s attorney characterized the proceedings as unfortunate, arguing that a fundamental procedural step needs to be revisited: the criminal subsidy fraud accusation had to be clarified after the Civil Guard produced an initial €120,000 report. The defense stated that the focus should shift away from subsidy fraud toward verifying invoices, with the Civil Guard’s analysis seen as flawed, particularly regarding what constitutes the relevant monetary threshold. Any subsequent filings would be based on the amounts deemed irregular, up to and beyond the €120,000 figure, depending on what the inspection revealed.
In an additional development, the court summoned Canal Maestrat SL manager Juan Enrique Adell Bovell to testify on Wednesday as part of the probe into alleged subsidy irregularities involving Francis Puig’s affiliated companies.
Generalitat “don’t worry”
Puig, speaking publicly on Monday, stated that the Generalitat is not worried about the ongoing inquiries. Reports from Agencia Efe indicated that his brother Francis Puig and the associated company would be required to provide disclosures regardless of personnel changes. He asserted that the PP attempted to involve the Generalitat, but the justice system closed that door, and the Consell chair criticized the style of conduct surrounding the case, insisting the issue had a clear basis from the outset. He added that the PP’s complaints would not alter the Generalitat’s stance.
Puig affirmed that the Valencian government would comply with judicial decisions and that all companies in the Valencian Community must follow the same duties and rights. He stressed that any company will be obliged to report what it must, regardless of who is involved. He also underscored that if irregularities are detected at any point, the Generalitat would pursue redress or whatever is appropriate.
He concluded by noting that since 2015 the Generalitat has worked to safeguard the Valencian Community’s reputation and will continue to do so, irrespective of who may be affected. In essence, the administration vowed to maintain transparency and accountability as the situation unfolds, with a focus on upholding public trust during the scrutiny.
Related posts:
Legal cases around Oltra and Francis Puig intensify scrutiny of subsidies in the Valencian administration Debate in Courts: High-stakes case on subsidies and family ties in Valencia Duplicate bills and the hiring of Ximo Puig’s son in the spotlight La Vega Baja rallies behind Ximo Puig’s bid for continued presidency Puig’s Growth-First Tax Debate in Valencia: A Centre-Left Strategy for Inflation, Jobs, and Energy Unemployment Benefit Reform: What Changes Mean for Claimants in Spain Puig and the Rise of Family-Run Groups in the Ibex: A Global Fashion and Fragrance Powerhouse Unique Meta Title 10 {“title”:””} Valencian Parliament Watch: Puig Absence, Oltra Case, and Renewable Energy Debate Puig defends Valencia amid Azud probe and political shifts Ximo Puig and the Shifting Horizon of Valencian Politics