A set of messages from a messaging app surfaced during a case in Murcia, Spain, revealing explicit, lewd remarks. The language included phrases such as intimate comments about sexual acts and perceptions of the recipient, highlighting a pattern that went beyond casual banter. The exchanges occurred within a professional setting and were considered part of the conduct under review by the court. The content is cited here to reflect the nature of the remarks that were scrutinized in the judicial process. (Source: official court records from Murcia, translated summaries.)
The subject read: “No one can sue me for masturbating thinking about you.”
Judges examined the actions of a public official who challenged a prior ruling in November 2022. The County Court ultimately rejected the appeal, upholding a sentence that included five months in jail and a prohibition from holding public office. The decision also imposed a three-year restriction preventing the individual from approaching the woman involved and barred any form of contact. The court’s findings indicated the misconduct occurred over several years, with the case first coming to light after a victim reported the behavior. The individual, aged fifty-one at the time, held a public role in the Konsistory and worked near the town square, where he reportedly used his position to demean colleagues and exploit professional authority. (Source: Murcia County Court decision, appeal ruling, translated case summary.)
“These statements in the context of work, not leisure, no matter how much they make others laugh, are more than outlandish statements,” the court noted.
The court described that at times the accused would greet colleagues with unexpected kisses at the start of the workday, and a coworker who later reported the incidents shared that the defendant had sent a photo of himself in a bare state with an implicit gesture via WhatsApp. Other messages included remarks suggesting that some people would label him a pervert while still making requests of him. The record portrays a pattern of behavior that extended beyond private conversations and into professional interactions, reinforcing the finding of improper conduct within the workplace. (Source: judicial findings and witness testimony summarized in court documents.)
Express Request
In his appeal, the defense argued that the actions should be classified at most as mild harassment. They asserted there was no objective, seriously intimidating, hostile, or humiliating scenario created by the alleged sexual favors, and that there was no ongoing or formal employment relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that the behavior contained two elements of sexual requests: an implicit suggestion rather than a direct demand. The ruling emphasized that the sexual undertones in the communications constituted more than crude or jocular remarks, especially given the workplace context and the absence of a consensual, professional relationship. (Source: appellate court reasoning and judicial opinion.)
The court further highlighted that messaging including a bare-chested photo and comments such as “you showed me in your twenties” or “I used to sleep with someone with a clean image” progressively indicated a form of solicitation. Over time, these expressions formed an implied request, even if no explicit phrase was used. The judge noted that such expressions, when uttered in a work setting rather than in a casual or social context, amounted to unjustified harassment. The assertions, while eliciting laughter from others present, did not excuse the impact on the recipient and reinforced the decision to uphold the original penalties. (Source: appellate court summary of the case and final judgment.)