Acquittal in Chia Import Case in Alicante Offers Insight into Fraud Allegations
The Alicante court delivered a verdict in a case involving a businessman accused of fraud related to the importation of seventy tons of chia seeds into the Alicante region. The Tenth Division judges determined there was no proven crime and found no evidence of deception by the defendant to withhold goods. In defending the accused, lawyer Moisés Candela argued that the matter should be resolved within the appropriate legal jurisdiction. The defendant contended that a substantial portion of the funds was allocated to cover storage costs tied to the Novelda shipping operation.
The judgment notes that Argentine companies had offered the defendant responsibility for two shipments of chia seeds, yet the precise terms of that engagement were unclear. It questions whether the arrangement functioned as a sale with payment upon delivery or as a brokerage for sale. The court observed that the defendant disposed of some of the chia without collecting payment, yet there was no evidence of deliberate attempts to mislead the seed owners. In fact, the seeds arrived in Spain before the defendant became aware of the export plan. He accepted responsibility upon arrival and faced a lack of a clear buyer or qualified intermediary who could secure access to the European market.
The Supreme Court magistrates noted that the case record lacks evidence of a breach of payment commitments or other indicators of wrongdoing. The judgment emphasizes that the circumstances could produce a financial advantage for the accused that may not align with criminal fraud or embezzlement elements until such elements are proven according to the law. This distinction is central to the court’s reasoning in assessing criminal liability.
Part of the seed stock was not intended for human consumption but for pet food. The defendant asserted involvement in the import and export of Argentina-origin edible products and described a job offer to market the seeds in Spain. He stated that he warned Argentine partners that he did not hold authorization to import that line of food products. Because of this, he sought another company with warehouse capacity to store the seeds. The original intent reported was to use the seeds in various food products such as cookies, yogurt, and butter. Subsequent information revealed that many seeds were unsuitable for human consumption, effectively limiting potential sales primarily to animal feed markets.
Overall, the court’s decision reframes the events as a dispute over commercial arrangements and storage costs rather than a straightforward fraud case. The acquittal reflects a judicial determination that the facts presented did not establish all elements required for criminal fraud or embezzlement under the applicable statute. This outcome underscores the importance of clear contracts and documented buyer-seller relationships in international seed shipments, especially when crossing borders into Europe. The case illustrates how importers can face complex questions about responsibility, payment timing, and regulatory compliance in cross-border commerce. The ruling may influence similar commercial disputes involving agricultural commodities and the role of brokers and intermediaries in international markets. The decision also highlights the need for transparent communication with partners and the necessity of precise terms when accepting responsibility for shipments in foreign jurisdictions. Citations: Court records referenced by press coverage and legal observers.