The Supreme Court has upheld a sentence of four and a half years in prison for a Banco Sabadell executive for the crimes of misappropriation and fraud against a client. In addition, he will have to return to the victim 528,574 euros that he took from his accounts, abusing the trust that had been placed in him to manage and make investments with his funds.
Although the events took place in Palma de Mallorca, where the complainant and the convicted person resided, part of the money that the executive swindled was used to buy a house in La Graciosa, which he put in his name.
"The Chamber understands that the accused bought the house for himself without the knowledge" of his client, "using funds from the latter's account without his consent," the ruling states. Although the accused, who was Director of Private Banking, denied the facts during the trial and assured that the house was actually bought in half, he could not provide a single proof of this.
In fact, the ruling emphasizes that the client was not present at the sale operation, that he did not grant a power of attorney to sign for him and that his name does not even appear in the deed of the house. In addition, the accused subsequently mortgaged the house, and also did so "alone and without the knowledge" of who was his client.
The house was paid with two bank checks, for a total amount of 120,000 euros, which the victim had signed, so that the money would be used for investments in the stock market. However, like so many other checks that the victim signed, they were not really intended for that.
A long relationship of trust
The relationship between the executive and his victim began in 2005, when the accused was director of a Banco Urquijo branch. The complainant made a deposit in that entity for the amount of 1,350,000 euros, "in order to invest in securities under the advice" of the executive, "due to the trust he had placed in his person".
A year and a half later, after a bank merger, the accused became Director of Private Banking at Banco Sabadell, and with him he took his client and his accounts. "Monthly he informed the plaintiff by presenting him with documents prepared exclusively by him, which in no case were accounting extracts provided by the bank," the ruling states. In fact, its content had nothing to do with reality.
"It reflected very satisfactory results and thereby contributed to consolidating the total confidence of the plaintiff and the absolute availability of his accounts, derived from a prolonged advisory relationship for years and based on the importance of the position that the accused held in the banking entity," the Court emphasizes.
In addition, he adds that to all this we must add "the climate of familiarity that was established during those years", since even the accused traveled monthly to the client's house "to inform him, give him advice and thus obtain the authorization and the necessary signatures to continue operating without the need for the client to travel to the bank".
Thus, between March 2005 and May 2007, in different operations, he managed to "strip" the victim of 528,574 euros, "which were not reinvested or returned in any way to the accounts of the injured party. Some of the extractions from his accounts even occurred without him signing.
The deception uncovered
Finally, one of the operations filled the glass and put an end to the deception. The executive directly deposited a promissory note and a bank check from his client into his personal account, who ended up finding out and filed a complaint, leading to the opening of an internal investigation by the bank.
At that time, the victim learned of many other operations in which the accused had appropriated money from his accounts, and also of the purchase of the house in La Graciosa. According to the ruling, when an investigation had already been opened, "the accused communicated to him by notarial means, dated July 27, 2007, that he was a co-owner of a house on the island of La Graciosa since a year before, which demonstrates the agonizing attempt to justify what lacks all justification, all logic and all reasonableness".
In addition to the prison sentence, the accused will have to return the money to the victim, and Banco Sabadell must respond subsidiarily, as it has also been convicted. The banking entity appealed the first conviction but the Supreme Court has also rejected its appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the bank tried on the one hand to deny that there had been such fraud by its employee, and on the other hand to disassociate itself from the facts alleging that the transactions with the victim's money were carried out in the afternoon, at his home and even on weekends and that the bank was unaware of these facts. However, the Supreme Court recalls that the Penal Code contemplates that natural or legal persons dedicated to any kind of industry or commerce will be civilly liable for a criminal offense "for the crimes or misdemeanors committed by their employees or dependents, representatives or managers in the performance of their obligations or services".
