The Supreme Court (TS) has upheld the sentence imposed on a couple from Tenerife, who have been given a total of seven years in prison and ordered to pay 239,200 euros to an insurance company that the defendants misappropriated from. Another defendant, their daughter, has been acquitted of the same crime.
The two convicts were insurance brokers who set up a company in which the wife served as the sole administrator, and their daughter was also listed.
One of their clients was an insurer for whom they acted as exclusive insurance agents. Although the husband was not officially listed as a director, he was considered the “de facto administrator” as he had always been involved in this business and had the necessary contacts and clients for it to operate.
In 2012, they signed an exclusive contract with the insurance company to act as mediators in Tenerife, involving client acquisition, contract closure, premium collection, and the subsequent obligation to reimburse the received amounts minus the corresponding commission.
However, the couple, “with the aim of unlawfully enriching themselves,” misappropriated 239,200 euros between 2012 and 2016.
The sum resulted from the defendants keeping the full amount received from clients without settling or depositing it in favor of the company. Therefore, when the company tried to debit the agency’s account, the transactions were returned by the bank.
Upon discovering the wrongdoing, the insurer attempted to revoke their self-liquidation and direct payment authorizations. However, the defendants continued to operate in the same manner.
They continued to charge clients and input incorrect banking details into a platform inaccessible to the company but accessible to them.
Despite multiple requests, the company did not recover the sum. The two defendants signed a document acknowledging the debt, but failing to pay, legal action was taken, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
During the Supreme Court hearing, the convicts claimed there was no evidence of their involvement and that their company was solely established to enable payment through a corporate entity as the male defendant could not do so personally. They argued that he was the primary decision-maker in all activities.
While acknowledging their failure to meet obligations, the insurer allowed the commercial relationship to continue for years without terminating the contract.
The Supreme Court rebuked the appellants for merely reiterating arguments presented in lower courts and confirmed that the woman acted as an administrator, despite claiming to be a “homemaker” oblivious to the insurance companies’ business, with her involvement in the company being infrequent.
However, evidence showed she had her own office, and from email contents, it was evident that she was familiar with the agency’s operations and part of the organization. The defendants argued that any dispute would be a civil matter rather than criminal.
The Supreme Court dismissed claims of the insurer’s tolerance and instead presented evidence of their continuous efforts to prevent the defendants from withholding clients’ premiums and reaching an agreement before resorting to legal action.
