Collaborators AreaMobile phone sale
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Criminal liability in aggravated recidivist fraud offense
An individualbought a high-end mobile phone using a second-hand buying and selling app, Wallapop, and paid the seller bybank transfer. Unfortunately,they never received the phone nor were able to contact that person again. After investigation, it was discovered that theholder of the bank account already had a record for fraud. This account holder, in their defense, claimed that theiridentity had been stolen when the account was opened, but failed to prove it with evidence.The case went to a criminal court, which convicted the accused
of aggravated fraud, as they already hadprevious convictions for the same offense. They were sentenced to prison and ordered to refund the money to the buyer. The convicted individual appealed to the Provincial Court, but the conviction was upheld.background for the same offense. He was sentenced to jail and ordered to return the money to the buyer. The convicted person did not agree and appealed to the Provincial Court, but the sentence was upheld.
The defendant then filed acassation appeal before the Supreme Court (SC). His argument was that there had been anerror in the assessment of evidence and that there was not enough evidence to consider him guilty, also stating that his right topresumption of innocence had been violated. However, the SC recalls that in these cases, appeals are only admitted if acriminal law violation is alleged (due to an error in the application of the law), not based on how the evidence was assessed, which had already been settled in previous instances.
The SC reviewed the case, theaccount to which the money was sent wasin the defendant's name, and he did not providesolid evidence to prove that he had been a victim of identity theft. It was clear that there was anintent to deceive, a profit motive, and that the buyer was the one harmed, thus meeting all the requirements for the crime of fraud.
Finally, the SC dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence imposed at first instance, making it clear that in these cases,there is no room to discuss the evidence again and the presumption of innocence, as the convicted person intended.
Our lawyers can provide you with the appropriate advice and exercise the defense of your interests in proceedings arising from acts that constitute or may constitute a crimeCONTENIDO RELACIONADO
-
Crimes of misappropriation and fraud
Misappropriation of amounts delivered to complete a housing promotion The case revolves around a real estate promotion in Riogordo (Málaga), consisting of 20 homes, managed by a promoting company. In the first stage, two people were listed as joint administrators (although one of them handled the daily management). Between 2008 and 2009, several homes were sold and buyers delivered amounts on account. Some were even given the keys, despite the fact that the work was not actually finished (it was said to be 90% complete), no deed was granted, and the construction company ended up abandoning due to non-payments. The result was that buyers found themselves living in houses without deeds and without a clear situation in the Registry. Some time later, those administrators sold their shares and a third person entered as the sole administrator. This new administrator was aware of the previous problem, but still asked some buyers for additional money (for example, 8,000 euros) on the argument that it was to complete the promotion. The relevant point is that this money was not used for what was promised nor was it returned. Furthermore, between 2010 and 2011, new sales of homes occurred under similar conditions, and later the entire set of 20 homes was sold to another company, generating a serious conflict between those who had bought earlier and those who appeared later as titleholders. The Provincial Court acquitted the first two administrators (it was not proven that they had diverted the money), but convicted the last one for aggravated misappropriation and fraud. The Supreme Court (TS) confirmed the conviction and rejected the appeal as it did not accept reopening the evaluation of the evidence and considered the denial of new documentation correct because it referred to subsequent facts and was not relevant to what was judged.
-
Union law
The CJEU supports the Amnesty Law for normalizing the situation in Catalonia
-
Gender violence
Illegal detention and attempted homicide
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.