The legal struggle over the death of Isak Andic, founder of Mango, has reached a decisive phase. His son Jonathan Andic remains under investigation in Martorell. Isak died on 14 December 2024 after falling down a ravine while hiking in Montserrat, Catalonia, with Jonathan. Judge Raquel Nieto of Martorell Court of Instruction No. 5 is overseeing the inquiry into whether the death was accidental or involved a third party. Jonathan denies responsibility and remains under investigation for alleged homicide; he has not been convicted. On 19 May 2026, he was arrested, and the judge ordered provisional imprisonment, which could be avoided by posting €1 million bail. The bail was paid, allowing him to remain at liberty while the investigation continues.
Audio recordings of Jonathan’s emergency calls to 112, made public this week, capture his distressed plea for help after he reported that his father had fallen down a ravine. Defense representative and detective Paco Estructura has questioned whether someone capable of expressing such anguish could also be guilty of murder. The defense maintains that the fall was accidental and challenges the evidentiary basis of the homicide theory. It argues that investigators have shown “confirmation bias,” giving greater weight to evidence supporting homicide than to material pointing the other way.
Prosecutors point to messages between father and son that they say suggest a strained relationship and possible financial motives. One message from Jonathan to Isak, “I’m not surprised you thought I was capable of killing you,” has been cited as evidence of deep conflict. The prosecution argues that disputes over inheritance and family assets may have played a role in the events leading up to Isak’s death. The defense counters that the messages emerged from a directive form of psychoanalytic therapy involving the family and two psychologists, intended to provoke confrontation as a path to personal growth. The role of the therapists, particularly Julia L., is under judicial review, with questions about their influence on family dynamics and decisions.
Investigators have also focused on Jonathan’s behavior before and after the incident, citing alleged contradictions in his account of the fall. They have also questioned the timing of his emergency calls and the loss of his mobile phone during a trip to Quito, Ecuador. Police have highlighted the deactivation of the Health app on Jonathan’s iPhone the night before his departure. The defense says the phone was stolen and that Jonathan provided a full call log from Ecuador, challenging the thoroughness of the police inquiry.
Two hikers who assisted Jonathan shortly after the fall are among the witnesses still to be heard. The defense says it located them before police did and has criticized authorities for not pursuing potentially exculpatory evidence diligently enough. Testimony from family members has largely supported Jonathan: his sisters and uncle, along with Mango’s CEO, have denied serious disputes between father and son. Isak’s partner at the time, Estefanía Knuth, has referred to past tensions, particularly an unsuccessful attempt in 2015 to transfer control of Mango to Jonathan.
The court has scheduled testimony from 33 witnesses across nine sessions between 26 October and 23 November 2026. The list includes witnesses requested by both the prosecution and the defense, among them Isak’s executors, trainer, brother and notary, as well as others connected with the family and estate. Prosecutor Teresa Yoldi is participating in the investigation, while Jonathan is represented by lawyers Cristóbal Martell and Sebastián de Juan. The hearings are intended to help reconstruct the circumstances of the fall and examine family relationships alongside estate decisions that investigators consider relevant to the alleged motive.
The court has also summoned Johannes Beckmann, a physician specializing in family constellations and co-founder of the Instituto Antares in Palma de Mallorca. His testimony concerns the therapeutic context surrounding the family and forms part of the judge’s examination of therapists and psychological practices involving family members. The court has postponed the planned appearances of Paco Estructura and Miquel Roca amid scheduling conflicts and the coordination required for more than 30 witnesses. The changes reorganize the hearing timetable; they do not amount to a ruling on Jonathan’s guilt or innocence. Nor does being summoned as a witness mean that a person is accused of a crime.
The prosecution’s case also includes Jonathan’s alleged inconsistent statements and multiple visits to the hiking route before the incident. It cites the timing of his call for help, the absence of injuries to Isak’s hands described in the autopsy, and the loss of Jonathan’s phone. These elements are considered alongside the alleged financial motive and digital evidence of a troubled relationship. The defense disputes that interpretation, saying the inquiry has been shaped by confirmation bias and a pursuit of a “social conviction” without solid proof. It maintains that the relationship between father and son had improved and that the inheritance dispute had been resolved.
Two officers from the Mossos d’Esquadra Mountain Unit prepared a technical report on the fall. Information from reporting by Crónica Global, the report did not conclusively establish that third parties were involved. It does not, on that account, definitively settle whether the fall was accidental or a homicide. The officers are expected to testify alongside the Mossos sergeant who led the investigation. The defense is also relying on a reconstruction that it says supports the accidental-fall explanation. Jonathan’s lawyers are preparing medical reports on Isak’s bilateral osteoarthritis, including the condition affecting his right knee, to support their account of the physical circumstances of the hike. The defense argues that the medical records should be considered alongside the other evidence, not treated as establishing a conclusion on their own.
The proceedings remain at the investigative stage. The court is gathering testimony and technical evidence before deciding whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to advance. Spain’s judicial system allows cases to proceed on circumstantial evidence, including in high-profile investigations involving prominent families. The Unidad Central de Personas Desaparecidas, a specialized police unit, is involved, reflecting the complexity and sensitivity of the inquiry. Its outcome may shape public debate over evidentiary standards and the handling of family disputes in Spanish courts.
