Supreme Court (TS) sentenced to one and a half years in prisonas well as a fine of 2,700 euros for discovering and revealing secrets to a fraudulent man your ex-spouse’s bank details to sue him for this purpose claim sums from gifts on the marriage list. According to Europa Press, the defendant pretended to be the owner of a checking account that was no longer authorized.
The Criminal Chamber upheld the woman’s appeal against the Alicante Provincial Court’s decision acquitting the man of the crime of revealing and disclosing the secrets he accused. a court Elche He was sentenced to the sentence now upheld by the Supreme Court.
According to the Second Circuit, after the divorce proceedings, the man brought civil action against his ex-wife, adding to the case the bank statements that his wife had given when she had ceased to be a joint owner three years ago.
Sentencing by magistrate Manuel Marchena sees a crime in it Discovery and disclosure of secretsHe walked away from the state court, which exonerated the man on the grounds that the bank details given to the civil case did not provide confidential information about the woman, reflecting only a few, such as where, how, and with whom he spent the money. provisions by withdrawal of cash.
The Supreme Court clarifies that “everyone has the right to be protected from their ex-spouse by being informed about current account movements for more than one year”.
“The information contained in these excerpts responds to the concept of confidential data of a personal nature, the seizure of which in itself constitutes the offense under Article 197.2 of the Criminal Code,” he says.
The supreme court stresses that “the privacy attached to this information – where the money is spent – or, of a subjective nature – with whom that money is spent – does not need supplemental location references”.
Privacy
“Taken into its final implications, this reasoning could mean that the criminal protection of privacy linked to bank details is waived only at the time of spending, or that the husband has the right to control the ownership and amount of assets held by his ex-wife and is simply forbidden to know with whom and where they were spent”, he discloses.
However, the Second Chamber concluded that the man had committed the offense in question as follows: treat the bank like you have an account the current, for which it is no longer authorized, thus inflicts “harm that need not be defined by economic damage to its owner”.
The Supreme Court notes that the damage arose from the proven fact that a marital relationship was described, which is the best example of the existence of a judicial procedure to claim sums from gifts on the marriage list.
“Understanding that the seizure of this data does not provide a strategic benefit to the accused (ex-spouse), with relative harm, means giving up the purpose that motivated the fraudulent acquisition of bank actions,” ditch.