The Alicante court heard serious claims from a judge about a local network that allegedly carried out insurance fraud totaling around 135,000 euros. The scheme reportedly depended on manufactured traffic collisions to justify compensation. Prosecutors allege that roughly 35 fake cases were filed over eight years. Five people were initially charged, but the courtroom ultimately saw two defendants sentenced to six and four years in prison respectively, with the possibility of an appeal. A third defendant appeared but his rights were deemed exhausted on the matter, while a fourth was tried in absentia and a fifth had passed away. Two others asserted they did not participate and argued they genuinely experienced the accidents in question. Court records attribution
The alleged activity spans roughly from 2007 to 2015. The investigation began as a local inquiry into a string of traffic incidents involving the same individuals or their relatives, drawing attention from several insurers. Some claims reportedly started when the accused couple lived in Galicia and continued after they moved to Alicante. Common elements cited include traffic crashes, vehicle falls, and rollovers through which funds from insurers were allegedly obtained. The prosecution framed these acts as procedure-based fraud within the insurance system. Court records attribution
Personal Insurers Involved
Nearly twenty lawyers represented the insurers in this case. The court, pressed by the large number of participants, held hearings in the Pardo Gimeno courts’ assembly hall, the only venue powerful enough to manage the proceedings. Division One anticipated a lengthy trial that would extend over four days. Most witnesses testified on behalf of the insurers, reinforcing the financial claims. Given the scale of involvement, the Prosecutor’s Office noted that testimony would narrow the field to a single key witness, helping the overall narrative become clearer as the days progressed. The sentence was anticipated for Friday after two sessions; observers suggested the trial could conclude quickly on the following Tuesday. Court records attribution
The trial began by questioning three defendants, but the proceedings paused when the accusation concerning one defendant was opened. One participant faced a prescribed timeline, with involvement limited to earlier, unproven incidents and no charges filed until 2015. This individual still testified, detailing three traffic incidents allegedly identified by him — two were real, the third claimed to be fictitious. He described an injury that required physiotherapy and added that he would address the matter independently, having already contacted the insurer to report the incident. Court records attribution
The remaining two defendants, represented by attorney Jose Manuel Alamán, argued that the injuries and accidents they reported were genuine. They insisted their accuser was a representative of the insurer and did not wish to withdraw the claim in the misdemeanor case. At the next session, a company lawyer was summoned to testify. The defendants maintained they did not know why their former partner, now a witness, was giving testimony against them and suggested a prior, amicable relationship with him might have influenced decisions. Court records attribution
Similar Circumstances
The court is handling another major case in Part Two, involving defendants from a separate network dedicated to fraudulent car accidents and related insurance fraud. More than 18 defendants stand to receive compensation exceeding 50,000 euros in this separate matter. That case has faced multiple delays due to various events, with a new date still pending. In a separate chamber, one year ago, another result emerged: two police officers from Denia Police Station faced several charges for abusing their authority and staging traffic incidents using detours. Court records attribution