The First Section of the Provincial Court has ratified a two-year prison sentence that the Criminal Court number 3 of Arrecife imposed on a defendant accused of fraud after charging 4,000 euros to carry out works on a house in Arrecife that he did not execute.
According to the ruling, dated July 9, the defendant accepted an order from a citizen in March 2017 to carry out works on a home in the capital "without intending to execute them." However, "in order to cause deception" and "to get him to make a patrimonial transfer," the defendant gave him a budget of 8,950 euros on March 24."
Thus, on April 8, the victim paid the defendant 4,000 euros in cash "as an advance payment." Although "the works were never carried out" and the defendant "never" returned the money delivered, "despite the multiple requests made" by the affected party "directly or through a third party known to both."
Therefore, the Criminal Court number 3 of Arrecife, in addition to imposing a prison sentence on the defendant, sentenced him to compensate the victim in the amount of 4,000 euros. In addition, it agreed to deduct testimony from the proceedings against a witness for the alleged commission of a crime of false testimony.
WhatsApp messages
However, the defendant appealed the sentence, alleging an "error in the assessment of the evidence" and "denying in turn that there was fraud as there was no prior deception, nor intent or intentionality to deceive." A claim that, however, has been rejected by the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court, which considers that the conviction reached by the judge of first instance is "objective and impartial" and that "it is not only based on the evidence presented" but that "it is externalized sufficiently and reasonably."
In this regard, among other issues, the ruling refers to the content of some WhatsApp messages that were provided as evidence by the public prosecution and "admitted by the defendant," from "which it is inferred not only the existence of the order, the advance, but also the attitude of the appellant regarding the legitimate claim of the injured party to have the money returned to him."
