The Sixth Section of the Provincial Court has declared null the sentence of December 20, 2021, by which two people accused of defrauding their partner and keeping the workshop they shared in Lanzarote were acquitted and requires a new trial to be held.
The Public Prosecutor's Office had filed an appeal against the sentence issued by the Criminal Court number one of Arrecife in which a couple accused of corporate commercial crimes, document forgery and fraud were acquitted. Both were accused of appropriating the company Taller Clavijo Lanzarote SL.
At that time, the Criminal Court considered that "the evidence presented was not sufficient to invalidate the presumption of innocence."
The Prosecutor's Office appeal alluded to "an error in the assessment of the evidence." Likewise, the private prosecution requested a review of the sentence to the high court. Faced with this appeal, the Chamber stated that it could not rule by imposing a greater penalty than that dictated by the previous Court, but it did annul the sentence.
"As can be seen, the conviction in the second instance largely requires a new assessment of the personal evidence," stressed the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court, for the couple who were accused.
The Chamber considered that "the expert report was not carried out properly as the opportunity for ratification or clarification was not given, so this declaration of nullity must be extended to the trial itself." In this sense, the judicial ruling considers that this case must be judged by a magistrate different from the one who issued the acquittal.
According to the Public Prosecutor's Office's indictment presented in the now revoked trial, "since July 2013, he constantly prevented him from accessing all accounting information, even prohibiting him from entering the social business's own local workshop, which made it impossible for the other partner and joint administrator to legitimately exercise his rights to information and control of the social activity."
The Public Ministry then maintained that the complainant in the case refused to sign the promissory notes for the activity. At this time, the defendant allegedly falsified his signature.
