The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has sentenced a man to one year in prison for being deemed responsible for a crime of disclosing secrets by accessing his wife’s computer to ascertain the financial status of her business, ultimately aiming to reduce his financial obligations during the divorce.
The judgement imposes a fine of nearly 2,200 euros and confirms that the 55-year-old individual accessed the device located in their shared residence in Las Galletas without permission, during their separation proceedings.
He then connected a USB drive and transferred “sensitive” information, including invoices, receipts, payment notifications, and billing documentation.
The firm is owned by his spouse, who acts as the sole administrator and additionally sought damages for the harm inflicted upon the company, which was denied.
During the court proceedings, the defendant claimed that it was never demonstrated that the data was shared or disclosed to any other parties, an argument that was neither upheld nor brought forward, and thus faced no repercussions in the initial ruling.
He also contended that the computer was not password-secured and that, although it was the private possession of the complainant and her partner, its contents were accessible to the family at all times.
The Court maintains that accessing protected personal or familial information stored on a computer device is an offence, and none of the criminal types necessitate that the system or device storing the information has any security measures to inhibit unauthorised access.
It is also not a prerequisite that the computer system housing the information belongs to the victim.
“The fact that third parties have permission to access a computer system does not grant them the right to access confidential files or replicate them without the owner’s consent,” the Court replied to dismiss the second argument. There is no obligation for the use of force; merely accessing a computer system without permission and copying its contents is sufficient to commit an offence, irrespective of whether force was employed.
The man also asserted that it had not been proven that he caused financial harm to his wife or her partner, which is likewise dismissed as the ruling does not specify any form of compensation.
The appellant put forth a series of claims regarding the functioning of the security camera and the home alarm system, which the Court finds unclear and uncertain regarding their intent.
In conclusion, it is noted that imposing a sentence for such crimes requires merely the awareness that confidential information, which is not readily accessible to others, is being accessed or copied without permission, thus violating the privacy of its owner.
