Javier Reina, a businessman from Alicante, faced a court in a state proceeding where charges include fraud, embezzlement, falsification of business documents, unfair management, and corporate crimes. The case centers on a demand for 100,000 euros by a former partner who testified alongside the prosecutor. Ignacio Torregrosa, a Novelda-based businessman, did not contribute to the sunflower oil venture as claimed by the plaintiff. Instead, the money was described as a participation loan. Ociex International SL and flow Business Alicante SL are linked to Reina, who serves as the CEO, while the plaintiff is his partner in the venture.
The hearings concern incidents dating back more than a decade. The defendants faced possible penalties up to 12 years in prison, with prosecutors seeking up to eight years. The proceedings began in the Seventh Criminal Court of Peace, under Judge Joaquín Orellana, who outlined the framework to the parties before the session opened.
The complainant seeks the return of the 100,000 euros, plus interest and costs. Neither Reina nor his partner accepted the demand, instead pointing the finger at Francisco Javier Llobregat and denying the charges.
investment partner
The individual who also heads the Advanced Tertiary Association described his first dealings with Torregrosa as founded on trust and friendship, insisting that he viewed Torregrosa as an investment partner from the start. Documentation from Ociex International contains records of all contracts tied to the Romandanse-owned company, including references to a chief financial officer.
During testimony from most parties, excluding the special prosecutor, Reina claimed there was an agreement to engage in trading activities with sunflower oil. He argued that this arrangement did not tie him to the 100,000 euros in question. The company had repeatedly offered to buy back the shares or refund the money with interest, but the complainant allegedly refused. Llobregat noted that there were many discussions, yet no evidence of a check ever emerged.
Reina described an arrangement in which oil trading was discussed, but he asserted the 100,000 euros were not meant to secure a loan for a joint venture. He also stated that Ociex had offered to buy his shares and reimburse the funds, but the complainant consistently declined.
Account transfer
As a witness, Reina said he could not understand why the 100,000 euros moved from the account where the funds were deposited to another account held by Ociex International but at a different banking institution. From there, funds moved to Ociex Spain in a manner described as paying expenses. He remarked to his wife at the time that he suspected deceit. Torregrosa offered a similar recollection of the statement, emphasizing what he viewed as a misunderstanding rather than a betrayal.
Llobregat explained that Ociex Internacional did not own a fixed headquarters or a large staff, relying on the Ociex Spain team to manage operations and reduce costs. He indicated that the oil business had started before Torregrosa joined, with Novelda noting that the 100,000 euros were contributed to enter the company. He admitted not understanding why the funding would later be withdrawn.
Isidro Lopez, another former partner in Ociex Internacional along with Reina, Llobregat, Torregrosa, and Ociex España, testified that the concept of a participation loan existed to cover a 20% stake change and to provide liquidity for the company.
Lopez admitted that he occasionally lacked clarity about his own finances and said that funds may have been moved between companies so that the complainant’s money supported other Reina enterprises.
Complainant: “I just want to take back what’s mine”
With personal ties and family connections shaping the business relationship, the dispute between Javier Reina and Ignacio Torregrosa unfolded in a courtroom setting. In his testimony, Torregrosa rejected the notion that the 100,000 euros was a genuine participation loan. He stated that explaining the transfer as a loan was a choice made to avoid suggesting a joint signature, which he claimed did not exist.
The complainant reiterated that his aim was not to harm anyone, merely to recover his investment. He explained that returns were never realized and insisted that the sum of 100,000 euros should have been recovered as the money invested in a sunflower oil venture that did not succeed.
Torregrosa emphasized that he trusted Reina and the other partners at the time, recalling that he signed documents as they asked. He added that if it had been a genuine participatory loan, the terms would have involved a bank and notary provisions that did not apply in his case. The witnesses had suggested that the money should be deposited gradually, but he claims he followed Javi’s guidance to bring in the oil that never materialized.