Collaborators AreaCrime against the Public Treasury
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Improper supply of subsidized diesel
Selling " cheap diesel " to those who could not afford it can be a crime , even if the seller claims that there were only "paperwork errors." The case involves a company authorized as a fiscal warehouse (meaning, an entity that can handle certain fuels under a special tax regime) whose sole administrator supplied subsidized diesel to two road transport companies that, according to the proven facts, were not authorized to be recipients of that product. To make it possible, documentation was used to simulate that the deliveries were made to authorized recipients. The economic result of this operation was a damage to the Public Treasury , because a reduced rate of the Special Hydrocarbons Tax was improperly applied when, based on the actual use, the general rate should have been applied. In addition, the defrauded amount exceeded the required legal threshold for the conduct to go from being an administrative offense to a crime.
The defenses denied that there was intent to defraud , and argued that, at most, it was about formal breaches. They also claimed , among other things, nullity of the procedure, very qualified undue delays, violation of fundamental rights, and lack of evidence to convict. The Public Prosecutor , on the other hand, requested conviction for a crime against the Public Treasury and argued that the criminal offense was correctly applied and that there was sufficient evidence .
The Supreme Court (TS) dismissed the appeals and confirmed the conviction . Essentially, for the TS, it was not just a formal failure, since the obligation to sell subsidized diesel only to authorized persons is a “substantive” rule to prevent fraud. If it is knowingly supplied to someone who cannot receive it, the correct tax is being avoided , fitting into the offense of art. 305. 1 of the Criminal Code. The TS adds that the intent can be inferred from a concerted and repeated action , and that it does not matter if the seller claims that they “passed on the tax” or did not keep all the profit because what is decisive is the economic harm to the Treasury caused by incorrectly applying the reduced rate.
In proceedings arising from acts that could constitute a criminal offense, our lawyers are at your disposal for the defense of your rightsCONTENIDO 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.