Valencia County Court records recount a case involving a high-profile musician and a hotel on the Turia capital. The narrative centers on a theft of jewelry valued at over one million US dollars during a tour in August 2018, and the hotel’s perceived responsibility in safeguarding guests’ valuables. The case touched on damages paid to the performer and his collaborator, and how the hotel’s security measures were interpreted in court. The hotel company, Melia Valencia, faced scrutiny after the theft and eventually compensated Daddy Yankee’s associates as part of a settlement.
During the sentencing, a thief on security footage said that the burglary would not have been possible without the assistance of the defendant, who allegedly provided access that went unchallenged. Reports from the Prensa Ibérica group indicate that hotel staff allegedly gave copies of room keys to gang members who were never identified. The thief left behind two watches, multiple gold chains, a cross, bracelets, rings, and a pair of diamond earrings after entering the safe without requiring reliable identification.
appealed sentence
In the appeal, the defense argued that the hotel did not prove the prior existence of jewelry and money on the premises, and challenged the hotelier’s level of responsibility. The claim suggested that thefts involving commonly used traveler items, rather than jewels of extraordinary value with no report of entry to the hotel, should influence liability.
He was not warned at the establishment that it did not assume responsibility for valuables kept in the box.
The attorney Miguel Ángel Sampedro presented arguments that led the Eighth Chamber of the Provincial Court to reinterpret the Civil Code in light of contemporary social realities. The ruling acknowledged the duties of innkeepers and fundists in a modern context, noting that the landscape of lodging has expanded far beyond traditional accommodation roles.
Thus, the magistrate determined that the plaintiffs — Daddy Yankee, his spouse, and a relative — were staying in a contemporary four-star hotel where rooms included a safety deposit box and other security measures for guests’ belongings. The decision suggested that using the device to deposit jewelry and valuables could imply that guests themselves intended to keep those items secure, rather than leave them unsecured. The court asked to whom the existence of jewelry should be disclosed in such situations — the manager, the receptionist, or any employee.
There was no evidence that the singer reserved an entire floor of the hotel for herself and her entourage when checking in between August 5 and 8, 2018, during the Gandia stop of the tour. No warnings indicated the hotel would not be liable for items not entrusted to staff, nor were there notes on the safe about such limitations.
The value of what was stolen
The court did not dispute the existence or reported value of jewelry seen in photographs, noting that accessories worn during performances were often substantial. The judge highlighted that the general tendency of affluent couples to adorn themselves with eye-catching and valuable jewelry is well understood. Independent experts had evaluated the jewelry, but because the chain valued at 142,700 dollars could not be fully proven, compensation settled at 908,905 dollars.
The case also touched on the brother-in-law who refused the punishment and the singer’s claim that 10,000 dollars in gold cord and 42,000 dollars in cash were stolen. The hotel was deemed not responsible for such items left unattended on the floor of a room. The ruling criticized the level of care shown in securing such valuables.