It’s a technical question 3 out of 4 perpetrators were released from prison fraud Total value of 280,000 to Austrian citizen They made him believe he won a huge lottery jackpot in Spain. The Regional Court of Madrid sentenced them to three and a half years in prison, but Supreme Court now reduces penalties Since they have to respond individually to their frauds, they do not consider it appropriate to apply an aggravated rate as party to the crime.
The sentence dated December 12, available to El Periódico de España of the Prensa Ibérica group, modifies the original sentence handed down by the court. Madrid Provincial Court to four small businessmen whose companies are located in Malaga and Majadahonda (Madrid).
The infidelity was confirmed in a phone call in mid-September 2013 by a woman who had not been convicted in the procedure. He introduced himself as a “Spanish lawyer” Anna Beck’s name. She said that she won a lottery prize in Spain and in order to get this money, she first had to transfer eighty thousand euros to pay taxes and then two hundred thousand euros for the same concept.
The victim took the bait and carried out different transfers on behalf of the companies of which the defendants were managers, in line with the instructions of the alleged professional. Although the Supreme Court of Appeals Criminal Chamber rejected almost all of the reasons put forward by the defense, the sentences were no connection between different defendantsthis would exclude both joint participation and criminal continuity.
No reason other than fraud
“To complete the fraud, specifying the current accounts and companies to be transferred to the injured party and receiving the amounts without proving reasons other than fraud that will justify the transfers, the evidence is “an agreement between the material responsible for the fraud and each of the beneficiaries” provision, Judge Eduardo de Porres.
Thus, each of the defendants is considered the perpetrator of the crime of fraud committed together with the unidentified woman who had financial communication with the victim. However, the high court found no evidence that the four defendants acted together. “No evidence was presented and The simple fact that there is a temporary coincidence“It is suggested that there was definitely a concert between different publications, but it does not constitute sufficient evidence of this,” he adds.
It cannot be ignored that the perpetrator requested cooperation by informing each beneficiary that the amount defrauded was only the amount each received and that the absence of evidence was decisive for the final classification of the facts. There can be no joint participation and therefore not all facts can be attributed to each defendant. Everyone must respond to their own requests individually. fake, This justifies the exclusion of the criminal continuum and the application of the aggravated subtype, depending on the situation.
The reason was partially guessed, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 903 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the effects of the guess should be extended to all defendants. new crime detection The crimes committed by each defendant and the corresponding penalties for committing them.
Three of those involved were eventually given light sentences. -six months and one year imprisonment- Therefore, it can be predicted that people who do not have a criminal record or uncountable records will not go to prison. The fourth person who committed fraud for the highest amount (200 thousand euros) continues to receive the first sentence.