Son’s Shocking Arrest in Fashion CEO Dad’s Cliff Death

A high-fashion billionaire CEO. >> [music]. >> dies after falling off a cliff in the. Spanish mountains, and mystery has. loomed over this case [music] for more. than a year until now. New photos. apparently show a suspect in custody, [music]. and who that person is might shock you. It may lead to more [music] questions. than answers. Was the CEO's death truly. an accident, or was this actually. >> [music]. >> a fatal business move? Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm.

Jesse Weber. Mango. Have you heard of Mango? It's. huge. It's Spain's second largest, globally recognized fashion retailer. next to Zara. Has a $2.1 billion value. That's according to kantar.com. The. company itself says it has over 2,900. stores in over 120 markets worldwide. This is huge. By the way, you might even. know the store. Maybe you've shopped. there at some point in time. But what.

you might not have known is that the. founder and the CEO with a reported $4.5. billion net worth died not too long ago. And it was in a way that was so tragic. According to a report from outlet El. Mundo, on December 14th, 2024, 71-year-old Isak Andic embarked on a. hike on the Les Feixes path. It's located in the Montserrat mountains.

of Catalonia, Spain. Apologies if I. mispronounce anything here, but the. mountain board for this area says that. the 5.5 km trail is a trek of, quote, medium difficulty. So not a super hard. trail. And it seems like this wasn't the. CEO's first hike. It's important to. consider that. Because at some point. during this journey, Isak reportedly. slipped and fell 320 ft, prompted a. large-scale emergency operation, helicopter, and search and rescue teams,

and unfortunately, Isaac died at the scene. Suffered. multiple injuries from that fall. Now, officials, they conducted an. investigation. This included analyzing. the scene of the fall, conducting. witness interviews of others on the. hiking trail, and the most important of. those interviewees. was his son, Jonathan, who apparently. accompanied him on the hike that day. According to El Mundo, he told police. that he heard the sound of stones. falling and saw his father tumble down.

the mountain when he turned around. Here's the issue. His statements to police reportedly. started to become inconsistent. And that. was initially attributed to Jonathan's. state of shock. It's also reported that. he called his then partner before. calling authorities when his father. allegedly fell. Following month, officials concluded. that Isaac's death was an accident, and. the case stayed that way for nearly 3. months. But then you go to March of 2025, and a. Spanish court ordered the case to be. reopened because police allegedly didn't.

complete their official report. And. according to El Mundo, the court was. seeking additional information from. their visit to the scene, phone data. analysis, and the witness statements. they took. So, police also reportedly. re-interviewed Isaac's son, Jonathan. May 2025, El Mundo reported that police. officially maintained their theory of. Isaac's fall being an accident, and this. was after reviewing their entire. investigation and reportedly. interviewing Jonathan multiple times. By the way, a little bit more for you on. Jonathan. So, because he worked closely.

with his father at Mango throughout its. development, 2007, Jonathan was a. pioneer of Mango Man. This was the. company's first men's wear line. By. 2012, he was serving as a member of. Mango's board of directors. He later. became vice chairman, and according to. El Mundo, by 2014, Isaac had delegated. broader operational management to. Jonathan. But apparently, after two. consecutive years of losses, Isaac. decided to remove his son from his. operational role and take back control. And that decision reportedly strained. the relationship. Now again, this is.

reported, we don't know for sure. You. fast forward to June of 2025, 6 months. after his father's death, Jonathan had. reportedly stepped down as head of Mango. Man, remained in his position as vice. president of Mango's board of directors, focusing more of his attention on the. family's holding companies. This. includes Punta Na Holding, it's a real. estate company, and MNG Mango Holding, also apparently managed by by Jonathan's. two sisters. And according to Mango, this was part of a continued plan of.

separation between ownership and. management that was initiated in 2020 by. Isaac himself when he appointed a new. CEO that was not part of the family. But it was clear that Jonathan, Isaac's. elder son, allegedly still has a big. stake in his father's empire. And amidst. the tragedy, things, by all accounts, appear to be. business as usual. But then you fast forward again to. October of 2025. El Mundo reports that. the investigation into Isaac's death is.

reopened a second time, police. reanalyzing Jonathan's phone because he. reportedly gave investigators a. different phone than what he used on the. day of the hike. Now, police also. reportedly analyzed Jonathan's. inconsistent statements connected to his. father's death. We don't know if they're. inconsistent, that seems to be the. reporting, that seems to be the. allegation. And I'm going to get into. what that means and what it could not. mean in a second, but. another Spanish outlet, El País, reported that at the time that. investigators had, quote, come across a. series of clues which when taken.

together had led them to move away from. the idea of a mere accident and toward. the possibility of a homicide. The. Spanish court also reportedly said the. case is being considered as a possible. homicide, though they didn't officially. announce any suspects. And at the time, the Andic family spokesperson released. the following statement to El Mundo, "The Andic family has not made nor will. they make any comments in all these. months regarding the death of Isaac. Andic. However, they wish to express. their respect for the proceedings that. have been carried out and will continue.

to cooperate as they have done until now. with the competent authorities. They are. also confident that this process will. end as soon as possible and that. Jonathan Andic's innocence will be. proven." And as all of this is going on, by fall of 2025, El Mundo reported that. Jonathan continued consolidating. influence within Mango MNG Holding. through his role as chairman. Now, keep. in mind, the Andic family controls 95%. of Mango through its holding companies, which make up the inheritance that was. left behind by Isaac. The following.

month, December 2025, Isaac's three. children paid tribute to him in a letter. on the one-year anniversary of his. death. A portion of that letter that was. published in the news source ARA reads. the following or Ara reads the. following. "For us, his family, his. greatest legacy is personal. Isaac was a. close and loving father, a serene, attentive, and wise man. He was someone. who truly listened, who celebrated the. triumphs of others, and who always found. time to be there for those he loved, no. matter how demanding they were." Keep in. mind, the investigation was still.

reportedly ongoing into their father's. death and it might be a homicide, right? So, now we jump ahead five months to. today, Tuesday, May 19th, and Jonathan. is reportedly officially arrested by. police. Catalan police to be more. specific, and on suspicion of homicide. in connection with Isaac's death. However, there's been no formal charges. that have been confirmed at the time of. this recording. According to the BBC, Jonathan later appeared before a judge.

in Martorell, it's in the Barcelona. province of Catalonia, Spain. Catalonia, Spain. The judge ordered a 1 million. euro bail, made him give up his. passport, and will require him to report. to the court weekly. This is according. to El Mundo and and according to El. Mundo Jonathan was able to post his. bail. The Andic family, their. spokesperson responded to the arrest in. a statement. This was reported by the. publication El Periodico. It reads in. part, "Quote, Jonathan is currently. giving a statement as part of the. investigation into the accident of.

December 14th, 2024. At this time, we. cannot add much more because the. investigation is under seal. Our. cooperation has been and will continue. to be absolute throughout this process.". Special guest to join me to break this. down. I'm joined once again by Jack. Rice, criminal defense attorney, former. prosecutor, former CIA officer. Thank. you so much for taking the time, sir. Really appreciate it. What's the change. here? How do you go from accident to now. an arrest? Yeah, this is fascinating, isn't it?

Let's look back at the timeline. So, we. go back and we see that the this took. place back in December of 2024. And they. had the investigation open for a couple. of weeks. But then in March of 2025, then what they did, they had closed the. investigation. And then in March of. 2025, they opened it back up. Which is telling you something changed. between when they closed it and when. they opened it. And they sat back on. this. What it seems to me is that it has.

to be something about statements made by. Jonathan. Multiple sets of statements. And that's what we're hearing. Remember, this is a sealed investigation. So, it's. hard to determine exactly what they. have. But what we do know is there were. multiple statements made because even. the family has acknowledged that they. have been open and they have had. multiple conversations with authorities. So, that tells me he must have said one. thing and then said another. And that's. where we sit. I I guess the. counterargument would be, and again I. don't have all the details, this is.

arguably an incredibly traumatic event. And how do you distinguish between oh my. goodness there's inconsistent statements. it looks suspicious versus if it's a. traumatic event you might misremember. certain things. You might not get. certain details right. You might say one. thing at one time under the threat or. under the. you know you're panicked or stressed not. because you're hiding something but. because you know if if the account was.

watches his father fall down versus you. know there might be a crime here. I. guess that's a struggle what I see. initially. Oh yeah I I mean I see the weakness in. this this case myself because we know. how the human mind works and we've also. seen this in terms of those who are. victims who have a perception of. something that happened and then they. start to reconsider what it actually. means. And we have seen inconsistencies. and that doesn't mean that you have some. sort of. conspiracy. Rather what this could be is.

a misunderstanding or the trauma that. happens when your father. drops from the side of a mountain. I mean the reality of what we're facing. is exactly that. The idea that Jonathan. sees his father fall from the side of a. mountain. and thinks a certain thing that's based. upon a ton of information most of which. you don't have and maybe some of which. you're guessing and that could be the. the case in the in this situation too. I. read about forensics here. I mean not. the specifics of it but I remember.

reading that there might be an issue in. terms of forensic the forensics of this. scene and maybe the statements don't. line up with the forensics. What would. that mean? Well I was thinking the same thing in. terms of potential injuries. Was there. something else? Was there something in. the father's system that may have. changed this? Was there something in. terms of the injuries? But we have to. remember one of the difficulties with. that approach is that this goes we we. have to think about the incident itself.

He fell more than 300 ft. And so, the. amount of injuries we're talking about. could be based upon so many different. things. And the problem also is that. this was a very popular path. So, in. other words, it's not as if you have. some pristine path and what happens. there were two people who stepped on the. path and then nobody stepped on the path. after the fact. So, from a forensic. standpoint, I'm thinking internal. forensics, meaning the type what's. what's going on inside of Jonathan's.

body and in terms of what's going on. inside of his father's body in terms of. toxicology. But then, in terms of. injuries itself, let's let's be honest. The injuries are could be quite. catastrophic and there's no way to say. before or after. And just to be clear, making assumptions here, but I have to. do it. It's different if you have a case. where you say somebody, you know, fired. a weapon at this point or they were. acting in self-defense and you could. look at the trajectory of the bullets, where they were shot, and say that that.

doesn't match for a self-defense. argument. You're talking about somebody. who falls off a cliff. There's really. And just again, I'm saying for. argument's sake. I I want to be clear. I. am not alleging that Jonathan did this, but for argument's sake, isn't it. impossible to know whether somebody was. pushed off or somebody fell and what. direction their body's in? I mean, that's I Unless you have some sort of. text messages or witness statement or. video, I I I guess that's the challenge.

and what I'm struggling with. understanding here. Yeah, I'm I'm. struggling too because what I'm looking. for is motive, right? If you're looking. for that digital signature, is there. something that was said before, some. reason why this would happen? You might. be looking at that, but of course, you. don't see it. Frankly, I think about. this in the context of forensics in. thousands of cases I've handled and one. of the things I might be looking at are. are there defensive wounds? So, in other. words, I open my hands up wide and you. start seeing scratches or cuts or. something else that shows that I'm.

actually holding my hands up. But here's. our problem again, 320 ft down the side. of a mountain. Everything that the father's body. touches on the way down could be. perceived if those hands hit something. that you could get injuries that could. be perceived to be defensive. Except for. they're absolutely not defensive in that. sense. So. it's it's a struggle when we think of it. like this. And remember in Spanish law. there is a presumption of innocence. This is put into the constitution.

There's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard. is that the the state has the burden to. prove that this happened and the. presumption is he absolutely is innocent. of it. And so in other words, this is. and if I want to reverse the analogy, a. very tall mountain that the state must. must climb in order to prove Jonathan's. guilt here. By the way, you've semi. familiar with Spanish law. The idea is. and again, this is the current reporting. at the time of this. recording at the time of this broadcast. Well, at the time of recording this I.

should say. So Jonathan was arrested on. suspicion of homicide, but I don't. believe there's any been formal charges. that have been confirmed. Is that. common? How do should we be thinking. about this investigation in Spain? Well, Spanish authorities handle this. much differently just like the French. handle it in the again, this is one of. those interesting aspects of even. European laws. You realize there almost. is no such thing as European law, right? It really isn't. There's the EU and and. how they connect at financially, but.

when it comes to their laws, their laws. can be frequently much different. They. have standards just like ours, but in. this particular case, what they did is. they opened that investigation up and. then they sealed it. And so our problem is is that we just. don't know enough. I mean, one of the. things about about American. jurisprudence is that we have a tendency. as much as possible, to be as. transparent as we can. Spanish. authorities frequently don't do that, especially when it comes to high-profile. cases. I mean, let's let's be honest.

You're talking about a family that's. worth their sales last year for Mango. was $4.4 billion. So, so they've. actually gone up in terms of the the the. value of that company. And and the. problem is it's very high-profile. This. is a father-son question. The son was. actually running the company now. All of. those issues impact this potential. So, that's one of the reasons I think they. made a decision to seal it. We just. don't have enough information to know. that. What about the 1 million euro.

bail? He had to give up his passport. He's required to report to the court. weekly. He was able to post his bail. Is. that. um I guess you know, I guess that's the. way it works there. What do you think. about it? You know, it's it's interesting. I'm. torn, right? Because when I look at. something like this, is there really any. true claim that Jonathan Jonathan's. going to flee the country? Or that he's. going to. flee Europe or he's going to flee. someplace else? Yes, he has the. resources to do so, but if we have. nothing, literally nothing, that says.

that he was going to do so, my question. would be, why would you even require. bail? If there's if you don't need to. set it any higher than is absolutely. necessary to ensure that he's going to. appear and ensure that he's not a danger. to somebody else, what would be the. requirement? What we see it all the. time. We see it in the states. I mean, there is that recent case out of Texas. where that guy fled to Canada and. actually ended up in Italy. And in fact, they set bail in excess of a million. dollars in that case, too. She had no. priors. There was nothing that told us.

he was going to flee. And yet, he fled. So, it can happen. The I read it before, but just going. back to it, the Andic family. spokesperson statement that he's. Jonathan's currently giving a statement. as part of the investigation. They say. into the accident of December 14th, 2024. Into the accident, not incident, accident. Uh And they just said we can't. add much more because the investi-. investigation's under seal. Our. cooperation has been and will continue. to be absolute throughout this process. What does that tell you between the. lines?

Transparency. They he has talked a lot. And what's going on is it tells me that. I don't think the state has a lot, but I. think what it does have is it has lots. of statements. And so if you've been transparent. throughout this whole process and you've. talked a lot throughout this process, they're looking at what did he say on. the day of? What did he say a week. later? What did he say after? What we do. know is he said he was walking in front. of his father and he turned and saw his. father. falling off the cliff and he heard a.

rocks dropping or something along those. lines. That's what he said the first. time. The question is is did he somehow make. some dramatic story shift over time, which seems unlikely to me oddly. Uh but it's possible. We just don't. know. Here's the thing from a. prosecutorial point of view. They have. to realize the fame of this guy. They. have to understand. what it means to make an announcement. that he's being detained or being. arrested. This is Mango, okay?

If they don't have sufficient evidence, and let's say he's released, there's no. charges, that's uh. that's what it's it's different than. arresting anybody. I have to feel they. have some sort of sufficient evidence at. this point. Otherwise, they have to know. the ramifications of doing something. like this. Even if there's no charges or. this investigation drops, his reputation. can be there's an argument it it was. tarnished. I mean, him being in the news. for potential homicide of his father.

So, from a prosecutorial point of view, you don't go forward with this unless. you have something significant, right? I want to say yes, but I also want to. say there's there's a belief, there's a. hope. Let's start with that. There's a. hope that we're all sort of the same. before the eyes of the law. But that's not always true. I mean, you and I have seen this over. years where there are some people who. are famous who actually get more. scrutiny. We have seen that. We've seen instances.

where actually there are famous people. who seem to be able to get less scrutiny. and walk away because of their fame. It. almost seems to depend upon the. prosecutorial authority in in that space. to say, "What is it that I'm going to. do?". And and yet at the same time, if you're. going to go after one of the richest. families in Spain, this is one of the richest families, if. not the richest family in Spain. They're. worth billions upon billions of dollars. And the idea that you're going to pull a.

trigger on something like this based. upon little to no forensics, at least. that we're seeing, and based upon some. statements, those better be pretty good. statements. Those better be something. because otherwise, I mean, the. ramifications of a family who's decided. to to turn their focus to Spanish. authorities and say, "Who made this. call?" Because I got a feeling they're. not going to let go if this case is. dismissed. They're going to go way up. the chain of authority to see who. actually said, "Yes.".

What do you make of the reporting? Just. a couple more parts about this from. curiosity perspective. What do you make. of the reporting that he called his then. partner before calling authorities about. when his father allegedly fell. Now, some would say, "Hmm, suspicious.". Others would say, "Oh my gosh, you're in. a state of panic. You're not thinking. clearly. Of course you're going to call. your family first." I mean, I've seen. this in other cases before how it's used. against criminal defendants, and I'm. sometimes torn by it. Where do you. stand? Yeah, I'm actually torn by it myself, too. And in fact, my thought is if my.

father just fell 300 ft, fell down the. chasm of a mountain, and he lands in the. boulders at the bottom. I'm going to call authorities and what? What is it What is it authorities are. going to do here, really? Especially. when I'm freaking out and I'm saying, "Who do I call?" I just call some random. person on 911, essentially, you know, emergency authorities in in Spain, outside of Barcelona. That's what I'm going to do. Or or do I. call my partner? Or do I call my mother? Or do I call my sister? Or do I call the.

people who I love and who I care about. and say, "Oh my god, look at what has. happened in our lives.". I I think to me, that strikes me as not. an unreasonable thing for anybody who. said, "I have an emergency in front of. me. Am I going to call some random. stranger through. my phone and call 911 and say, 'Let me. tell you about this thing that I can't. fix and you can't fix.'" Or am I going. to call the people I care about most to. say, "What do we do?".

Yeah, I mean, that's a good point. Um and we also have this idea that he. reportedly gave investigators a. different phone than what he used on the. day of the hike. So, this is in October. of 2025 when the investigation was. reopened a second time. I don't know if. there's anything nefarious about that or. whether or not he just had a different. phone, he bought a new phone. And I'm. also trying to understand a little bit. more about the company. Like, how much. do they get into the company um and the. company dynamics and his leadership. role. I mentioned this before that Isaac.

in 20 by 2014, Isaac uh had delegated. broader management authority to. Jonathan, but then there are these years. of losses and he decides to remove his. son from an operational role, but that's. 10 years before, right? It's like if it. was 2 months before or 2 weeks before, I. I wonder how much the company is going. to be under scrutiny right now. Yeah, I I think that it would make sense. to me and there is going to be a. relevance question here, right? And you. think about it legally speaking, a a.

question to it. If what you could do is. you could turn around and say. there is some somehow a connection. regarding this company, maybe it's it's. it's management, maybe in terms of how. Jonathan was running the company or. failing to run the company or what was. happening that would say, "Ah, based. upon this, then I can see why Jonathan. did this." Right. >> But, if you can't make that nexus, if. you can't make that link, then then the. state can have a hard time saying, "This.

is irrelevant." And and dare I say it, that since the incident, this company's. growth has been about 11 and 1/2% 12%. It's actually increasing in value. And. so, we think about what that means. Is. that relevant? Probably not. But but maybe it is if you can find a. way, but I think. if you're the prosecutor in this case, the prosecutorial authority, and you're. having to reach this deep. to tie this together, this is this is a.

weak case, which tells me they've got to. have a statement. They've got to have. something else. Now, as to the phone, that's that's an interesting question. You know, I have a lot of friends of. mine who are European who have multiple. sets of phones anyway, and they have. multiple sets of cards anyway, and. they're pulling cards in and out of. their phones based upon where they are. And so, sometimes the idea that somebody. who has a personal phone is also running. a multi-billion dollar company, the idea. that he has one or two or three phones.

doesn't particularly shock me. I mean, I have multiple phones that I. use for personal use and for business. use, and I'll have those and I know a. lot of people who do, and that's not. surprising in the States. It's certainly. even less surprising when it comes to. Europe, whether I'm in Germany or France. or Spain or Italy or anywhere else. Jack Rice, you gave me a lot to think. about. I want to wait and see, see what. develops, see See happens, but thank you. so much for taking the time. Excellent. expertise, excellent analysis as always.

Thank you so much, my friend. Thank you, my friend. It's all we have. for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining. us, and as always, please subscribe on. YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. You can. also check us out on NBC's Peacock. [music] as well. If you want to follow. me, X, Instagram, my NewsNation show, Jesse Weber live, Monday [music] through. Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you. next time, everybody.