The Alicante businessmen Javier Reina and Francisco José Llobregat did not deceive their partner Ignacio Torregrosa with a sunflower oil venture. The 100,000 euros Torregrosa contributed to the company in which all three were partners were made as a participatory loan rather than a debt tied to deceitful intent.
A conclusion reached by the VII Section of the Provincial Court based in Elche led to a ruling in a case that stretches back nearly a decade. The two men were facing up to nine years in prison for charges including fraud, falsification, misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and an official capacity within the company, yet were ultimately acquitted.
In a judgment written by Judge Joaquín Orellana, the court noted that the defendant, due to his professional activity as an entrepreneur and his friendship with the plaintiffs, provided a participatory loan of 100,000 euros to a newly created company. The loan was meant to support the management of a business whose scope included the potential purchase of sunflower oil abroad.
Based on this finding, the tribunal affirmed that the plaintiff’s negotiating intent was not tainted by any deceit, trick, or fraudulent strategy. While the plaintiff’s business expectations may not have been fulfilled, there were no objective elements to sustain criminalization. The court stated that the non-repayment of the loan, in itself, could not carry punitive relevance, which led to the acquittal.
Delving into the social dynamics, the decision, which remains subject to appeal, recounts how personal relations shaped the financial transactions that sparked the case. The judges described how the accused and the plaintiff met through a mutual friend, and how paddle tennis matches and home meals—sometimes attended by family members—built a closer trust between the parties.
It was in this setting that Ociex Internacional S.L. was formed, a consulting and corporate advisory firm founded by Reina and Llobregat. The arrangement included Torregrosa contributing the 100,000 euros and taking on the role of financial director for his expertise.
The court’s reasoning underscores that the venture to acquire sunflower oil for resale in Spain was discussed within the broader goal of business expansion. The decision notes that while the project existed as a genuine opportunity and the company even explored refining partners, the alleged motive for the 100,000-euro contribution did not hinge exclusively on Ociex Internacional. The firm was described as a vehicle for diversification into multiple sectors, including ventures in other areas like chicken wings and small extinguishers, signaling a broader business plan rather than a single commodity play.
The judges added that the plaintiff could have argued a lack of familiarity with the term “participatory loan,” given his long career spanning about 30 years with numerous ventures. However, his own statements and the emails in which he described his contribution as a loan, and even specified the conditions governing it, were taken into account. The tribunal also noted that the defendants acknowledged the loan’s existence in the company’s accounting and that the plaintiff repeatedly rejected offers to recover it.
The acquittal extended to the allegations of fake invoices, which Torregrosa had claimed existed to support a supposed misappropriation of funds for starting the business. The court explained that the invoices in question related to ordinary startup expenses needed to bring the new company into operation. As supporting evidence, it cited Reina’s testimony that, years after the company’s creation, its current assets amounted to approximately 3.5 million euros.
On the matter of costs, the court ordered the plaintiff to cover expenses due to alleged frivolity and bad faith. Although the plaintiff’s petition initially drew attention from both the private prosecutor and the state prosecutor, the court concluded that the private accusation far outweighed the formal and substantive grounds of the public accusation.
This perspective, conveyed through the court’s record, also reflected doubts raised by the Prosecutor’s Office in the accompanying report about the likelihood of delivering a guilty verdict given the substantial defense evidence. Nevertheless, the plaintiff maintained the assertion against the defendants, despite the weight of exculpatory evidence presented in their favor.
—