Constantine Gabriel Dumitru, an individual accused in a string of high-value wine and spirit thefts, appeared before a Madrid court as the legal process unfolded across cases tied to luxury beverages and premium retail spaces. In one notable session, he was connected to an incident at a well-known store in the Salamanca district, where a bottle of premium whiskey valued at 5,250 euros disappeared. The event occurred in spring, with prosecutors outlining the alleged sequence of actions and their impact on the store involved.
At Madrid Criminal Court No. 8, the prosecutor laid out the case against the 48-year-old defendant, who holds Romanian and Dutch nationality. The court considered a possible sentence of about 18 months in prison, alongside financial restitution. Specifically, it contemplated a payment of 3,720 euros to the store company and 1,529 euros to the insurer, reflecting damages and coverage tied to the incident.
Separately, the proceedings touched on a broader investigation spanning July 2022, involving suspects who traveled from Montenegro and were reported near the Croatian border at Sutorina. The case also referenced another incident at a venue linked to the Atrio hotel-restaurant complex, where a different group faced accusations regarding the alleged theft of multiple high-value bottles valued at around 1.6 million euros.
The defendant, who resided near a central Madrid district, claimed regular visits to a Lavinia store on Calle de José Ortega y Gasset. He asserted that he never took a bottle without paying and disputed what the surveillance footage captured versus the store records. The prosecutor suggested that the theft was demonstrated through security videos, testimonies from a company representative and storekeeper, and corroborating statements from law enforcement. The timeline places the alleged offense on a spring afternoon in 2019, when a Balvenie bottle valued at 5,250 euros was reportedly taken from a designated area for premium drinks known as La Cava. The element of concealment within a restricted section of the store was highlighted by the prosecution.
The store’s legal representative described how the accused entered the La Cava area with a sales associate, noting that access required fingerprint verification and that the employee involved faced personal complications. The salesperson and store personnel reviewed security footage, which allegedly confirmed the act and led to subsequent actions. The store manager later identified the defendant in the footage as a customer who had returned to the premises, prompting police involvement following the August return and the official report filed with authorities.
National police were dispatched to the scene after the store report. Officers linked the suspect to the security camera records and proceeded with an apprehension based on the available footage, classifying the individual as a principal suspect in the theft. A defense attorney, Silvia Córdoba, questioned whether the bottle in question was delivered to the accused and whether the 5,250-euro item could be conclusively tied to her client via the recorded visuals. The attorney pressed for acquittal, arguing that the presented evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused received the bottle in the reported transaction.
In describing the case, the prosecutorial team emphasized the timing and location of the alleged theft, stressing that a bottle was taken from an area designated for premium products. The defense argued that there was no definitive proof of a retail delivery to the defendant and that the visuals might not directly prove ownership of the specific bottle. The court proceedings also explored potential mitigating factors that could influence sentencing, including delays in the judicial process and how those delays might affect outcomes for the defendant.
Observers noted a complex backdrop where several parties and incidents intersected within the luxury wine and spirits sector across multiple locations. The evolving case drew attention to surveillance practices, store security protocols, and retailer responsibilities when high-value items disappear. Experts suggested that cases of this magnitude often hinge on a combination of video evidence, employee testimony, and corroboration from security and law enforcement records. The outcome would depend on how convincingly the prosecution could tie the accused to the specific theft, and how the defense could challenge the interpretation of footage and other forms of proof. Legal representatives continued to advocate for their positions as proceedings progressed, with further hearings anticipated and potential verdicts that could clarify accountability in this high-stakes context.
Notes from investigators and observers indicated that the situation remained under close review as authorities sought to determine the extent of involvement by the named individuals and to assess the overall impact on stores and associated luxury brands. The case stands as a pointed reminder of the scrutiny applied to crimes involving valuable collectibles and the way retail security and legal processes interact to resolve such disputes. The legal process remains ongoing, with additional proceedings expected as the court weighs the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, in a landscape where luxury goods theft continues to pose challenges for retailers and law enforcement alike.