This case out of Alicante centers on the acquittal of a real estate manager and a lawyer in a dispute framed as procedural fraud. The accusations began with a complaint from the community involved in the building project. The decision, which remains subject to appeal and has not yet become final, indicates that the Supreme Court of the Community did not find proof that the two defendants—who were married—engaged in a scheme to hinder neighbors from turning to the municipality with concerns about the minutes or the amount recorded in those minutes, which totaled 25,000 euros and was deemed disproportionate. As a result, they were cleared of the crimes for which they were charged at trial. This is the essence of the court’s ruling as reported to the press, though the matter remains unsettled in higher review (citation: local court records).
The prosecution, joined by a special accusation from the community, alleged crimes of concealment and improper handling of documents. The attorney was accused of claiming fees from a prior case tied to a construction defects claim. The defense argued that by withholding access to the document, the neighbors were deprived of a timely opportunity to challenge the minutes, potentially enabling the lawyer to seek seizure of accounts. The prosecutor sought a lengthy sentence: three and a half years for the lawyer, with the special accusation asking for four years for both defendants. The court’s analysis focused on whether the notification had reached the proper recipient and whether the ten-day window to challenge the payment was communicated effectively (citation: trial court records).
The court concluded that notification occurred on 12 May 2014. The person described as the property manager, while the head of the congregation was not present, faced the case. The document stated that the community had ten days to object to the requested payment. The defense claimed that the papers were left in the president’s mailbox after a process that involved offering to manage the documents personally. The court did not fully credit this depiction, noting that professional diligence appeared lacking in terms of personally delivering the notice and ensuring the recipient could reasonably review the content within the short period available to decide. The sealed envelope raised questions about whether the defendant understood the content, and there were implications that he knew of the allegations made by his wife against the congregation (citation: courtroom notes).
The court also examined the credibility of the main witness against the defendant, who was the head of the community. While the testimony was a primary piece of evidence, the court stressed that a single witness is not enough to erase the presumption of innocence. It highlighted contradictions across the witness’s statements, including inconsistencies with dates found in documents that emerged five years after the events (citation: case transcripts).
There’s someone living here
Even so, the judges underscored that although the accused deliberately withheld the document, the evidence did not prove that the wife had knowledge of this act. While it is tempting to infer from the couple’s marriage that the wife might have been aware, certainty did not exist. The court emphasized that the chosen procedure and the request for payment appear to have been legitimate steps, and it was not demonstrated that the wife could predict whether her husband would choose to collect the documents. The fundamental question—who handles the documents in such cases?—was treated as significant because procedural fraud requires involvement by parties to the legal transaction, not by unrelated third parties (citation: court reasoning).
Furthermore, the judgment notes that none of the charges allege unfairness in the bill itself. It was stated that the amount recorded in the minute was less than the documented costs. The court also observed that the case against the other defendants followed the same framework, meaning the rules for calculating the minutes were anticipated. The community, which initiated the action, did not use ordinary channels to file the suit; it simply sought payment for a debt held by the lawyer. This context helped frame the court’s final assessment (citation: appellate records).
Withdrawal of the prosecutor at the trial’s close
In the final trial report, the Public Prosecutor had indicated that the evidence against the lawyer did not meet the required threshold. The department continued to pursue charges against the property manager, but expressed doubts about whether there was enough evidence to claim collusion with his wife in demanding payment of the minutes. For official purposes, charges remained, yet the door was left open for acquittal in practice. The court’s deliberations and conclusions are reflected in the acquittal reasoning, which points to several key arguments that supported the final outcome (citation: trial court summary).
Related posts:
Courtroom Clash in Cáceres: Defense and Prosecution over Atrio Robbery Case Badajoz Drug Trafficking Case: Defense Arguments and Procedural Debates The Madrid Trinitarios Trial: A Moment of Tension in the Court Former Italian Prime Minister Acquitted in the Ruby Case Atrio Hotel Wine Heist: Court Conviction and Evidence Summary {“title”:” Palma Fraud Case: Sentencing of Three in Online Marketplace Scam”} Reassessing a Murder Case: Constitutional Court Balances Trial Irregularities and Rights {“rewritten_html”:”An Algerian citizen, tried alongside a Moroccan-origin defendant yesterday, faced questions about a confrontation on Levante beach in Benidorm. Allegations centered on robbery and a stabbing that occurred after the victim’s cell phone rang. The two defendants denied both charges, while the victim affirmed the accusations, and the Prosecution urged the Court to convict them, seeking a substantial prison sentence for violent robbery and attempted murder, totaling nine years and nine months. [Source: Local court records]nnIn addition, the prosecutor asked for compensation to the victim amounting to 19,480 euros for damages and consequences. The defense teams argued for acquittal on the charge of injury or, at minimum, a conviction that did not include that element. [Source: Local court records]nnThe two men were in pre-trial detention after their dawn arrest on May 21, 2022. They maintained their innocence and, in turn, claimed that the victim had assaulted them earlier. The Algerian defendant, asserting that he did not steal the phone, described the scene as the victim lounging in a hammock on Levante beach and approaching him with an iron bar. He claimed that, after being struck, he attempted to flee and that his companion tried to intervene. According to his account, the victim then escalated the situation and a group of the victim’s associates, employed in portering or hospitality, arrived on a scooter and joined the assault. He further stated that intoxication affected both men and that he himself went to the police to seek help, a claim the officers dismissed as inaccurate at the hearing. [Source: Local court records]nndrug problemsnThe other defendant likewise denied the robbery, arguing instead that the victim and his associate were entangled in a drug-related dispute. He said the two men began arguing and that he stepped in to separate them, noting that his friend started to run but did not attempt to take the phone. When the victim called companions who arrived at the scene with a baseball bat, the accused said they were met with blows in return. He claimed he avoided a head injury with a stick and did not know how the victim had been wounded with a knife. [Source: Local court records]nnThe victim’s testimony at trial differed markedly from the defendants’ accounts. He described lying in a hammock on Levante beach at dawn, speaking with his mother back in Algeria, and being assaulted after the phone was forcibly removed from his chest while he was on a call. He said he reacted by leaving in a vehicle, which led to a confrontation with the alleged robber. He asserted that the other defendant also stabbed him, and he sustained multiple stab wounds to the abdomen, arm, forehead, and neck. After the stabbing, the attackers fled, and the victim pursued them despite the injuries. [Source: Local court records]nnThe National Police received a call reporting a fight between men in the Rincón de Loix area, and the initial patrol encountered a bloody man in the roadway who requested assistance and pointed out the perpetrators as they attempted to leave. Officers confirmed during the hearing that the two suspects had fled and had largely ignored the stop warnings. Authorities also noted that the blade used in the attack had not been recovered at the scene. A medical examiner later observed that the wounds did not appear to be life-threatening and did not compromise vital organs. [Source: Local court records]nnThe proceedings thus centered on diverging narratives: the defendants’ assertion of self-defense and drug-related tensions versus the victim’s account of an unprovoked assault and a stolen phone. The court weighed the credibility of testimonies, the timing of events on the Levante beach, and the physical evidence, or lack thereof, to determine accountability for the alleged violent robbery and stabbing. [Source: Local court records]”} Xabi Alonso acquittal affirmed by Spain’s Supreme Court in image rights tax case Provincial Court Acquittal in Private Prosecution Involving Alleged Sexual Assault Barcelona acquittal in Rosell tax case reframes corporate activity scrutiny Wine Theft Trial in Cáceres: Key Facts and Court Proceedings