Mango heir who is accused of killing his billionaire father was ‘obsessed with money’ and ‘wanted his inheritance’, judge says

The son of the billionaire founder of fashion giant Mango was obsessed with money and wanted his inheritance, according to the judge who declared him a suspect in his father’s murder case.

Jonathan Andic, 45, was arrested on suspicion of murder on Tuesday and formally interrogated 18 months after his father, Isak Andic, 71, died after falling nearly 150 meters down a cliff while hiking in the Monserrat mountain range near Barcelona.

Jonathan has always maintained his innocence and insisted his father died as a result of an accident, but Spanish police reopened the case in October and are treating the incident as a possible murder.

And judge Raquel Nieto Galvan said she declared him a suspect because of contradictions between his statements in court and what he said following his father’s death.

He also said he had a ‘bad relationship’ with his father and was ‘obsessed’ with money, resulting in the father being ‘forced’ to agree to financial demands ‘in order to maintain his relationship with his son’.

The judge also cited police evidence suggesting that the marks where Isak fell to his death did not correspond to a trip or slip.

In a 17-page legal document made public after the €1 million (£865,000) bail was paid, the 45-year-old claimed Jonathan had observed the mountain range before the hike.

The judge who authorized the surprise arrest Tuesday morning also revealed that the son claimed that the old phone he used when his father died was stolen during a trip to Ecuador and that he erased its contents when he switched terminals.

Isak Andic (left) with Jonathan at Barcelona Fashion Week in 2012

In a lengthy statement about what led her to put Jonathan under investigation, Ms Nieto Galvan said: ‘From the investigative procedures carried out it was concluded that there was sufficient evidence to consider that the death of Mr IA could have been a non-accidental death with active and deliberate involvement by Mr JA in the death of his father.’

Referring to Jonathan’s previous statements under oath, he continued: ‘First of all, the statements given by the investigated party contain contradictions with what he said on December 14 and 31, 2024, in light of the statements he gave in court today.

‘In his first statement on December 14, 2024, he stated that his father was moving about 4-5 meters ahead of him, that his father stopped to take photos with his mobile phone and did not see him, that he heard a stone sound while walking, that he turned around and only saw a body rolling in the bushes, that he heard a big blow and a painful moan from his father.

In his second statement on December 31, 2025, he stated that they acquired the habit of talking while walking together. He had chosen this route about two weeks before the accident. She said the father used the phone at the beginning of the trip, but she never saw him use a cell phone.

‘In this second statement, he declared that his relationship with his father was very good and that there were no disagreements.

‘He stated that he took on more responsibilities in the company in 2015, and that his father continued to manage the company thereafter, but this did not cause any professional, personal or family problems.

‘From the data obtained from Mr IA’s mobile phone, it appears that he only used the phone at the beginning of the route, when taking some photos and videos.

‘In addition, according to the results of the autopsy performed on the deceased, his mobile phone was found in the front pocket of his trousers, therefore he did not use the phone at the scene.

‘Given that he couldn’t see clearly and saw a shape, it was unlikely he wouldn’t have seen her fall if they had been walking together.

Helicopters are trying to recover the businessman’s body after the incident in December 2024

Photo of Isak, who died after falling off a cliff in 2024, with Kate Moss and Terry Richardson

‘He stated that he made the same journey about two weeks ago, and it was determined that Mr. JA went to the scene on 12 December 2024, 8 December 2024 and 10 December 2024, contradicting his statement that he went fifteen days earlier from the location data of the vehicle belonging to Mr. JA.’

The judge also said that police experts, who photographed and made simulations of the spot near the Collbato Caves where Mr Andic fell to his death on December 14, 2024, concluded that the “scrubbing action” left on the ground by the soles of the dead man’s shoes “had to be done at least four times in both directions” to obtain a similar footprint.

He said the route the two men walked on the day Mr Andic died was not difficult, explaining: ‘The mountain police stated that the act had to be carried out by deliberately applying pressure to the ground and said the mark could not have been made by accident.’

He added: ‘The mountain unit report explains that after four repetitions of the act of creating a footprint by rubbing vigorously with the sole of the trainers, performing a single forward rubbing movement simulating sliding, it was concluded that it was not possible to create a footprint like the day of the events.’

Other ‘contradictions’ in Jonathan’s version of events were also highlighted in the court document, which is always formulated by a judge in Spain to explain imprisonment or bail decisions.

These documents are rarely put together in such detail or officially made available to the press in Spain.

The judge said of the 999 calls Jonathan made: ‘Two calls were recorded, one at 12.36pm, the other at 1.13pm, the suspect told the operator that his father had fallen, he believed he had fallen down a valley in Montserrat.

‘Then he got a call from the emergency nurse, he changed his version and stated that he was walking ahead, suddenly he heard the sound of stones and when he turned around he saw his father screaming and falling.

‘This differs from the statement given to the regional Mossos d’Esquadra police, which said, ‘I was walking in front of my father when I saw a body rolling in the bushes and within seconds I heard a loud blow and a groan of pain from my father.’

Jonathan has always maintained his innocence and insisted his father died as a result of an accident, but Spanish police reopened the case in October and are treating the case as a possible murder.

The judge compared Isak’s death to the actions of someone throwing himself down a slide and said that all the injuries he received were on his right side and that there were no injuries on his palms.

He also said WhatsApp messages between father and son showed the relationship was ‘bad’ due to Jonathan’s obsession with money.

He continued: ‘Given this accumulation of evidence, Mr JA. may have been involved in the death of his father, Mr IA.’

In Spain, murder can be punished with a prison sentence of 10 to 15 years.

Jonathan has not yet been formally charged but is under formal investigation

In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, the Catalan Supreme Court of Justice said: ‘The judge of the Martorell Court of First Instance and Investigation Section 5 today admitted a detainee in connection with the death of his father, the founder of a fashion company.

‘The judge ordered temporary detention, which can be avoided by paying the bail set at 1 million euros. Bail has already been paid.

‘He also ordered that his passport be surrendered as a precautionary measure, that he be banned from leaving the country and that he be brought to court on a weekly basis.

‘The incident, which is no longer a judicial secret, is being investigated within the scope of murder.

‘The man being investigated answered his lawyer’s questions.’

Mr. Andic always insisted that his father’s death was an accident.

Shortly after his arrest at his home this morning, more than a year after the court inquiry into the Mango founder’s death was reopened after it was first archived, his family issued a statement saying: ‘Jonathan Andic is currently giving evidence as part of the trial into the crash on 14 December 2024.

‘We cannot add more at this time because the case is under judicial secrecy. Cooperation within the framework of these transactions has been and will continue to be at the maximum level.’