The Court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife has upheld the verdict requiring a fine of 900 euros for defrauding a woman who claimed to be an investor and cultural promoter associated with the La Laguna City Council to deceive and extract money.
The accused offered her victims a chance to invest in entertainment-related ventures, promising to return their initial investment along with profits potentially doubling their contributions, all within a very brief period.
Consequently, the accused managed to reach out to a woman, persuading her to part with 1,000 euros, assuring her that she would receive back 2,000 euros in just six days, “fully aware” that she had no intention of honouring this promise.
Nonetheless, captivated by the appealing offer, the complainant handed over 1,000 euros on September 11, 2020, with the accused never returning the amount received, despite numerous requests from the victim for reimbursement.
Following the lodging of the complaint and prior to the oral hearing, the defendant repaid the amount, and after the judgement was passed in the first instance, the woman appealed to the Provincial Court, which confirmed the ruling and dismissed claims regarding violation of the right to a presumption of innocence.
During the hearing, the woman exercised her right to remain silent but later offered explanations and justifications concerning the receipt of the funds and her intentions to repay, “which were never substantiated.”
The Court also noted that she failed to clarify the nature of her professional activities, despite it being a point of contention during the proceedings, while the complainant reaffirmed her testimony but exhibited hesitation to implicate her following the eventual repayment of the funds years later.
Another individual, who also appeared to be a victim of fraud, participated in the hearing, referring to the conduct of the accused, and messages exchanged between the two were presented where the defrauded party demanded the return of her money.
For all these reasons, the “irregular” conduct of the accused was established, who, driven by the desire for profit, represented herself as a cultural promoter affiliated with the aforementioned City Council, thereby enticing the victim to invest in an artistic project.
At no point was any documentation presented to substantiate her claimed role as a cultural promoter, which served as a facade to obtain funds, and she consistently refused to return both the promised returns and the amount received.
Ultimately, the defendant is accountable for the legal costs incurred in both the first and second instance.
