Proven facts and verdict in the Atrio hotel wine heist
Four years in prison and a total of 753,454 euros. That is the sentence handed down by the Cáceres County Court to two defendants for a high-value wine robbery at a public hotel. The court found Priscila Lara Guevara and Constantin Dumitru guilty, with the distinctive weight of the stolen bottles driving the penalties higher. Each was sentenced to four years and four and a half years in prison, respectively, with the defendants also ordered to compensate more than 750,000 euros for the wine’s value.
The verdict aligns with the prosecution’s request for a strict penalty, and the court categorized the crimes among its most serious. The defendants will remain in custody while the conviction is upheld, and the insurer will receive reimbursement for the loss. The defense signaled a possible appeal after the recent trial, with a related challenge pending at the Supreme Court of Justice of Extremadura (TSJEx).
The ruling was made public just days after a two-day trial, which drew intense public and media attention in the city. Security measures tightened as the case unfolded, and authorities maintained tight control over the proceedings. DNA analysis performed on the second day provided decisive evidence, corroborating the identity of the suspects. The defense maintained that the evidence did not conclusively prove guilt.
The State Court gave full weight to the testimonies and physical evidence presented at trial. Seven witnesses, including hotel staff and management, along with nine national police officers who conducted the investigation, joined in the assessment, supported by five expert opinions and documentary materials that could not be reproduced orally. The court stated there was no reasonable doubt about the authorship and noted the defendants did not answer questions posed during proceedings.
One key point reinforcing the court’s view was the recognition of the accused as credible by multiple witnesses. An identification during the hearing and corroboration by a police inspector who retrieved the pair from Barajas airport reinforced the link to the case. Surveillance footage that captured them entering and leaving rooms, as well as other hotel areas, further anchored the charges.
The court highlighted the DNA results as proof of their presence in room 107 of the hotel on the night of October 26-27. Additional evidence included camera footage and other materials linking the defendants to the crime. The compilation of these elements, viewed in concert, led to the finding that the defendants were the perpetrators, while the defense argued that the evidence did not exclude alternate explanations that would preserve the presumption of innocence.
Among the items addressed was the value of the wines, described by the court as items of historic value that deserve broad protection. The court noted that the assessment of value extended beyond ordinary valuables and included bibliographic collections, volumes, books, engravings, and other historical objects from centuries past. The wines themselves were valued at more than 50,000 euros, a figure considered high-value for the case, with the overall loss exceeding three-quarters of a million euros.
Proven facts
The court documented that Constantin Dumitru has prior convictions, including multiple theft charges and domestic violence, illustrating a pattern that the tribunal weighed when assessing culpability. The proceedings established that the two defendants traveled with the intention of conspiring to obtain illicit gains. The hotel booking reportedly involved a woman using a forged Swiss passport, carrying a light backpack, and the pair allegedly arranged their stay under false pretenses. They reportedly avoided formal registration and moved through the hotel with a plan that unfolded over the night.
After dinner at the hotel restaurant, the defendants toured the winery with a guide before going to room 107 around 12:20 a.m. on October 27. The following early morning, a staged request for service from the reception was used as a pretext to access restricted areas. A planned sequence led to the manipulation of the service staff, the use of a master key, and access to the cellar. In that room, wine bottles valued at approximately 1.65 million euros were found, including items such as a Château d’Yquem from 1806. The defendants reportedly escaped with the wine in a backpack and large bags, loading towels from the bathroom to obstruct pursuit. A red Mercedes, seen on traffic cameras, was identified as their getaway vehicle, in use since before the incident and tracked by authorities.
By the time the investigation closed, the defendants were observed leaving the hotel around 5 a.m. and being recorded on highway cameras en route to Madrid. The case’s narrative emphasized the rapid sequence of events and the deliberate nature of the plan, as well as the measures taken to minimize detection.
The real unknown: Where are the wines?
Despite the conviction, a central question remains unanswered: the current whereabouts of the stolen wines. The trial touched on this issue during proceedings, but the resolution of where the bottles ended up has not been fully clarified. The insurers had sought restitution, and questions persisted about the final disposition of the wine. The defense maintained that the defendants could not be held responsible for the bottles if an alternate explanation existed, while the prosecution argued that the chain of evidence and witnesses left little room for doubt about guilt.
Only one hotel owner, Jose Polo, publicly weighed in, suggesting that the theft could have been negotiated or settled in a way that would recover the wine, though that prospect did not alter the court’s verdict. The case thus ends with a clear judicial determination of culpability, even as the fate of the physical wines remains a matter of ongoing curiosity and concern for the parties involved.