Crisp as a verdict ready to be announced, the Alicante businessman Javier Reina left the courtroom this Wednesday, accompanied by his partner Francisco Javier Llobregat. They faced three days of trial on charges including swindling, misappropriation, falsification of a mercantile document, mismanagement, and corporate wrongdoing. The prosecution sought eight years in prison, while the private accusation pushed for twelve.
It is a penal case that began nearly a decade ago after a complaint from a partner, Ignacio Torregrosa, a businessman from Novelda. He accused the two men of deceit and of pocketing the 100,000 euros he allegedly invested for a sunflower oil venture that never materialized.
Late this morning, the matter was sent to a verdict in the seventh section of the Provincial Court, based in Elche, following the concise and forceful report from prosecutor Marta Lacasa. She maintained the accusation but questioned the possibility that the defendants truly swindled the plaintiff, a doubt that undermines much of the prosecution’s case.
Testimony of the plaintiff
In a calm yet focused tone, the public prosecutor centered on the heart of the case: whether the former president of Terciario Avanzado and his partner used the money the plaintiff supplied for a purpose other than the oil venture. The prosecutor leaned on Torregrosa’s own statements to cast doubt on the plaintiff’s version of events.
The prosecutor found it hard to believe that a seasoned entrepreneur, the financial director of the company that received the 100,000 euros and where bank operations were communicated and signed, could be misled as he claims.
Moreover, there is no documentary trace of the supposed oil venture with the Philippines, and the evidence shows the 100,000 euros as a participative loan, as the defendants and most witnesses asserted during the trial.
Reina had stated that the contribution identified Torregrosa from the outset as the “investor partner” in Ociex Internacional S.L.
“Questionable accounts, but not criminal”
“He knew what he signed, he was advised, and he chose to make that contribution. The accounts may be imperfect, but they are not criminal. There were repayment offers that the plaintiff rejected,” argued Lacasa, who believed this dispute belongs in civil, not criminal, territory.
Defenders of Reina and Llobregat, Carlos Peñarrubia and Antonio Guiu, and Sebastián Crespo for Ociex España S.L. expressed similar views. Peñarrubia noted there is not a single email discussing an oil venture, stressed that the plaintiff was kept informed about every step with the money, and described the loan as participative.
“A Catalan lawsuit”
“Later, this gentleman tried to recover his funds and, lacking evidence, he built his case,” asserted Reina’s advocate, who accused Torregrosa of filing “a Catalan-style lawsuit: throwing everything at the wall and calling the press. He aimed to force a bench trial and the two recent lawsuits for perjury and against another ex-partner, a witness, and Reina himself are proof,” the lawyer claimed. Those two accusations were added to the case, though not accepted as documentary evidence.
Guiu, representing Llobregat, emphasized the civil nature of the proceedings, noting that even Torregrosa testified that his client always indicated a desire to return the funds and even accused the plaintiff of manipulating documents.
Crespo, representing the party sued, argued that while the debt exists, it does not imply criminal conduct. There were no swindles, falsified documents, or fake invoices tied to services rendered. The Penal Code is not a tool to chase debts or shield a businessman in his investments. The lawyers urged the court to condemn the opposing party to cover legal costs, describing the accusation as reckless and in bad faith.
During the session, all three lawyers called for explicit cost condemnation against the plaintiff’s claims as they viewed the allegations as groundless and made in bad faith.
Expert testimony
The private prosecution, led by attorney Julio Murcia, maintained its demand for a prison sentence and the classification of the facts with the support of an expert report presented by Jorge Albentosa.
Concerning Ociex Internacional, the expert argued that at the close of 2014 the company was technically insolvent and on the brink of dissolution, citing inconsistencies and accounting irregularities. He claimed there was no one-to-one correspondence between expenses (93,817.52 euros) and actual revenues (7,135.82 euros) for that period, resulting in a net accounting loss of 86,681.70 euros at the end of the examined year.
The report concluded that the 100,000 euros transferred by partner Ignacio Torregrosa to Ociex Internacional S.L. were at least 70% directed to payments to Ociex España S.L., Ociex Business Travel S.L., and the company’s partners.
Also present was José Antonio Muñoz Zafrilla, whose involvement accused by the defenses of steering the complaint claimed that he had only learned of the matter from Torregrosa.
When asked by the tribunal president, Joaquín Orellana, Muñoz Zafrilla added that he had merely advised the plaintiff against investing the 100,000 euros in the oil venture. He noted that he has some business knowledge but not accounting expertise.
At the close of the session, Reina addressed the court, remarking that the last nine years had been painful and that everything had been said.