Céltica de Cobros and its employee Alberto Pugilato are under scrutiny after a series of complaints for threats and violence against debtors. The company’s methods and staff backgrounds have sparked legal and political action in Castilla y León.
Legal and political pressure is mounting on Céltica de Cobros, a debt collection company operating in Castilla y León, after a series of complaints and court rulings highlighted aggressive and allegedly unlawful tactics used against debtors. The controversy centers on Alberto Gonzalo de Juan, known as Alberto Pugilato, a well-known figure with a history of hate crime convictions, who has been repeatedly accused of threats, coercion, and physical aggression while working for the firm.
The latest incident that brought national attention occurred in Villamuñío (León), where a confrontation between Pugilato and local farmer Epifanio Fernández escalated dramatically. After a heated exchange, Fernández used his tractor to overturn and damage the company’s yellow-liveried car, an act he later justified by citing ongoing harassment and intimidation directed at his family. Fernández also claimed that Pugilato, who is also associated with an ultra-right music group, had targeted his wife and children, and displayed Nazi propaganda allegedly found at the scene.
According to EL PAÍS, several of Pugilato’s convictions stem directly from his activities with Céltica de Cobros. The company itself has faced repeated legal scrutiny, with more than a dozen public court decisions in recent years condemning its staff for offenses ranging from threats and harassment to outright assault. In one case, a debtor was struck in the face and ear, resulting in lasting hearing damage. Other documented incidents include public intimidation, repeated visits to homes and workplaces, and physical altercations involving both property damage and personal injury.
Political parties have responded to the growing list of complaints. Izquierda Unida (IU) in León has filed a formal complaint against both Pugilato and Céltica de Cobros, alleging the existence of a criminal organization that systematically employs intimidation and violence to recover debts. The complaint also points to a legal loophole: Spanish law does not currently allow for criminal liability for minor coercion offenses committed by legal entities, a gap IU argues is being exploited by companies like Céltica.
The company’s leadership has also come under scrutiny. Eduardo Núñez, who previously held power of attorney for Céltica de Cobros, was listed as a candidate for Falange in Valladolid’s 2023 elections. Céltica’s management, however, insists that the firm operates within the law and that the number of complaints is minimal compared to the 70,000 cases they handle. They also distance themselves from Pugilato’s personal ideology, emphasizing that staff come from diverse backgrounds and that his conduct, while energetic, is not considered violent by the company.
Despite these assurances, court records reviewed by EL PAÍS confirm that Pugilato is the subject of multiple convictions for actions carried out in the course of his work, particularly in Castilla y León. The documented behaviors include public threats, persistent harassment, and physical violence. In one instance, a debtor was followed and physically assaulted; in another, a vehicle was used to block a debtor’s home, accompanied by loud demands for payment. Victims have reported being followed, shouted at, and even physically grabbed and shaken, resulting in injuries.
The issue has also drawn attention to the broader risks posed by aggressive debt collection practices in Spain. IU warns that many victims may not report such incidents due to fear of retaliation or lack of awareness about their rights. The party argues that these methods undermine the rule of law and threaten fundamental rights. The debate over Céltica’s conduct echoes other recent controversies involving political and legal accountability, such as the scrutiny of public figures in high-profile court cases, including the ongoing judicial review of Begoña Gómez’s trial in Madrid.
Contextually, Spain’s legal framework for debt collection has faced criticism for not adequately protecting individuals from intimidation and abuse. While companies are required to operate within legal boundaries, enforcement and oversight remain inconsistent. The Céltica case highlights the challenges in balancing the rights of creditors with the protection of debtors, especially when aggressive tactics cross into criminal behavior. As legal proceedings continue, the outcome may influence future regulation and enforcement in the debt recovery sector across Spain.
