The Criminal Court number 3 of Arrecife has sentenced a couple of thieves who conspired in March 2015 to steal from the house of a neighbor in the capital of the island through "a love scam", which consisted of her luring the owner of the house away, giving him hope that they were going to have a relationship, while he ransacked his house, to prison terms of up to three years and nine months.
Specifically, Judge Aitziber Oleaga has imposed a sentence of three years and nine months in prison on the man as the perpetrator of a crime of robbery with force in inhabited housing with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, since he has several previous convictions, and two years and six months on the woman who acted as bait for the same crime. The ruling refers to the case as an "urban version" of "internet scams known as love scams."
The ruling states as proven that the two defendants, who had been in a relationship in the past, planned in the winter of 2015 to access the home of a neighbor in the capital of Lanzarote in order to ransack it, taking advantage of the fact that she had met the owner of the house and the house itself in March, having dealt with him to rent an apartment of his property.
With this purpose, they agreed that she "would be in charge of luring" the victim away from his home, as stated in the ruling. Thus, on the night of March 29, 2015, while the owner of the house was in the company of the now convicted woman, her accomplice entered the house "after forcing the shutter of a window" and seized objects worth 1,667 euros.
The 'courtship'
On the day of the robbery, according to the ruling, the woman who was acting as bait met with the victim "to discuss the issue of renting the apartment she wanted to rent." She first stopped by his house to "ask for a glass of water" and arranged to meet him to "go for coffee a few hours later."
The complainant picked up the woman at her house, and they both went to Costa Teguise. The coffee "was extended to dinner at a Chinese restaurant and shopping in Costa Teguise." After this journey, the ruling adds that the complainant took the woman to her house to change clothes "due to a problem with the zipper," and that he finally accompanied her "to buy some pizzas for her children, who called her to buy them."
The judge details that it was precisely while the complainant was waiting for the woman to buy the pizzas when his brother called him "informing him that his house had been broken into."
According to the ruling, when the victim rushed back to his house to find out what had happened, the woman "wanted to accompany him" and on the way "she kept asking him if they had stolen cash, which greatly surprised the complainant." Likewise, it seemed strange to him that she "wanted to enter his house at all costs," which the complainant's mother refused. The judge states that the complainant admitted throughout the process, albeit reluctantly, that he had thought "even to have a romantic relationship" with the one who would eventually be the co-author of the robbery of his house.
Although the defendants denied any involvement in the robbery at trial, the main direct evidence of their authorship was that the man left 10 fingerprints and two palm prints on the window that was forced to carry out the robbery. And, despite the fact that the defense challenged this evidence, the judicial decision gives it full validity. The ruling, however, is subject to appeal before the Provincial Court of Las Palmas.
