Legal and political pressure is mounting on Céltica de Cobros, a debt-collection company operating in Castilla y León, amid complaints alleging aggressive and unlawful tactics against debtors. The controversy centers on Alberto Gonzalo de Juan, known as Alberto Pugilato, who has been accused of threats and coercion, as well as physical aggression connected with his work for the firm. EL PAÍS has reported convictions relating to his conduct. The allegations and legal proceedings have drawn attention to the distinction between a debt collector’s demand and a court-enforceable claim.
A recent incident that attracted national attention occurred in Villamuñío, León, where a confrontation involving Pugilato and local farmer Epifanio Fernández escalated. Fernández used a tractor to overturn and damage the company’s yellow car. He later said he acted after ongoing harassment and intimidation directed at his family. Fernández also alleged that Pugilato had targeted his wife and children and that Nazi propaganda was displayed at the scene. Those claims are part of the reported account of the confrontation.
EL PAÍS has reported more than a dozen public court decisions in recent years concerning Céltica staff, involving alleged offenses ranging from threats and harassment to assault. The coverage describes a case in which a debtor was struck in the face and ear, suffering lasting hearing damage. It also reports incidents involving intimidation in public, repeated visits to homes and workplaces, and physical altercations that allegedly caused injury or property damage. The reported tally and individual cases have become part of the public dispute over the firm’s methods.
Izquierda Unida (IU) in León has filed a complaint against Pugilato and Céltica de Cobros, alleging that a criminal organization systematically used intimidation and violence to recover debts. The complaint also raises the question of corporate criminal liability for minor coercion offenses. Spanish criminal law distinguishes liability for individuals from liability for legal entities. The scope of corporate liability depends on the offense and the applicable statutory provisions.
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 Falange candidate in Valladolid’s 2023 elections. Céltica’s management says the firm operates within the law and that complaints are few compared with the 70,000 cases it handles. It has also distanced itself from Pugilato’s personal ideology, saying its staff come from diverse backgrounds and describing his conduct as energetic rather than violent.
EL PAÍS has reported that court records include multiple convictions involving Pugilato for conduct connected with his work, particularly in Castilla y León. The coverage describes public threats and persistent harassment, along with physical violence. In one reported incident, a debtor was followed and assaulted; in another, a vehicle was used to block a debtor’s home while payment demands were shouted. People cited in the coverage said they had been followed, shouted at, grabbed and shaken, and that they suffered injuries.
The dispute has also sharpened attention on the legal limits governing debt recovery in Spain. A collection agency cannot itself seize assets or freeze a bank account: compulsory enforcement requires judicial authorization and a formal process. Personal debt claims generally concern the debtor, not relatives, friends or colleagues, and conduct directed at third parties may raise separate legal issues. Any assessment depends on the facts and evidence, including messages exchanged and visits made, as well as the identities of those contacted and records preserved.
For many personal claims, Article 1964 of Spain’s Civil Code sets a five-year limitation period. Its application depends on the origin of the debt and the relevant dates, as well as whether the limitation period was interrupted. A collection demand alone does not establish that a claim remains enforceable. This distinction matters particularly when debts are old or disputed: a demand from a collection firm is not itself a court order. IU has warned that some people may not report alleged intimidation because they fear retaliation or do not know their rights. The party argues that such practices threaten fundamental rights and the rule of law. The debate over Céltica’s conduct echoes other controversies involving political and legal accountability, including the ongoing judicial review of Begoña Gómez’s trial in Madrid.
The Céltica case has brought the balance between creditors’ rights and debtors’ protections into focus. Creditors may pursue lawful claims, but collection demands do not give private firms enforcement powers. Alleged threats or violence raise separate issues from the underlying debt. The complaints and reported court proceedings have made the company’s practices a subject of continuing legal and political debate in Castilla y León.
