The investigation sought a four-year prison term for a lawyer in Alicante charged with document forgery in a scheme tied to crime and fraud aggravated by alleged cheating of a client during a legal proceeding. Despite the gravity of the accusations, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor pressed to keep the defendant detained for the duration of the trial. A compensation of 535,000 euros was requested, even though the victim resided in Switzerland and his heirs declined to pursue the claim.
The lawyer denied the charges, and defense attorney Rubén Pérez asked for clemency. The court acknowledged that the client’s statement during the investigation was incomplete due to the absence of the defense in that phase.
Prosecutors contend that the victim contacted the Alicante lawyer in October 2011 to address alleged embezzlement by some of the victim’s relatives, who were accused of siphoning funds from bank accounts. According to the public accusation, the lawyer allegedly deceived the victim by presenting the creation of a procedure to obtain money, deposits, and a form of surety.
As alleged, the lawyer managed to persuade the victim to surrender up to 226,000 euros, and is accused of issuing false judicial decisions, repeatedly summoning the victim to court proceedings. The victim was led to believe that a trial would proceed, that suspensions would occur, and that relatives were arrested and appealed to high courts such as the Constitutional Court.
The Public Prosecutor noted that the case involved the victim selling property in Switzerland to cover ongoing demands from the defendant. The defendant claimed entitlement to 535,000 euros for economic damages, travel expenses, and psychological harm suffered as a result of the actions.
In his defense, the lawyer denied sending certain emails and asserted that he had not acted on behalf of the client in question. He testified that he had worked for the client for eight years, had paid about 90,000 euros, and had been hired to manage the father’s assets after becoming his guardian following a disabling accident, with additional compensation reportedly reaching 800,000 euros.
Although the court did not accept the victim’s testimony, prosecutors pointed to the expert report which contained numerous documents suggesting deception, including a contract that the client did not sign.