An important ruling from the Supreme Court (TS) confirms a one and a half year prison term along with a fine of 2,700 euros for a case involving the discovery and disclosure of bank details by a former spouse. The court held that these actions were intended to pursue a claim for money received as gifts during the marriage, and that the defendant pretended to own a checking account that was no longer authorized. This decision reflects the ongoing protection of personal financial information within divorce proceedings as it intersects with criminal law.
The Criminal Chamber affirmed the appeal of the defendant against the Alicante Provincial Court, which had acquitted the man of the crime of revealing and disclosing confidential information. The Elche court’s initial judgment is now overturned, establishing the sentence that the Supreme Court has upheld.
According to the Second Circuit, after the divorce, the man filed a civil action against his ex-wife and introduced bank statements that she had provided when she was no longer a joint owner, which became part of the civil case.
Magistrate Manuel Marchena’s sentencing centers on the crime of Discovery and Disclosure of Secrets. The state court earlier acquitted the man, but the Supreme Court has now clarified that the evidence around the bank details constitutes confidential information. The case shows how financial records can be treated as private data beyond what is visible in ordinary transactions.
The Supreme Court clarifies that everyone has the right to protection from a former spouse, including information about current account movements for more than a year.
The court states that the information in these records pertains to personal data of a confidential nature, the seizure of which can constitute the offense under Article 197.2 of the Criminal Code. This emphasis underlines the privacy protections surrounding financial details.
The Supreme Court stresses that the privacy attached to this data — where the money is spent — or with whom it is spent does not require additional location details to be considered confidential.
Privacy
In its broader implications, the court suggests that criminal protection for privacy related to bank details should not be waived at the moment of expenditure, and it argues that the former spouse does not automatically retain control over all assets and their movements. The ruling indicates that knowing who was involved in spending and where the funds were used remains sensitive information. It is not simply a matter of tracing transactions for potential economic damage.
The Second Chamber ultimately concluded that the man committed the offense by treating the account as current despite lacking authorized access, thereby causing harm to the privacy rights of the ex-spouse.
The Supreme Court notes that the harm arises from the existence of a marital relationship subjected to judicial scrutiny to seek sums from gifts listed within the marriage.
Understanding that the seizure of such data does not offer a strategic advantage to the accused, while still considering the privacy concerns, supports the decision to uphold the conviction and its underlying rationale.