Tenerife Businessman Cleared of Staging Robbery, Insurance Fraud
A Tenerife businessman has been acquitted of faking a robbery and insurance fraud after a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove the accusations.
A businessman from southern Tenerife has been cleared of faking a robbery and committing fraud. An insurance company and the prosecutor had accused him of these crimes, seeking a prison sentence of two years and eight months, plus around 27,000 euros in damages.
The businessman's lawyer, Antonio Naranjo, argued that his client was innocent because a real robbery had taken place and the clothing sale was legitimate.
A judge in Santa Cruz de Tenerife agreed, ruling there wasn't enough evidence to prove the businessman made up the robbery at his Adeje store to defraud his insurance company.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the insurance company in 2021. This ruling can be appealed.
The judge acknowledged the businessman reported a theft of merchandise from his store to the police in November 2021. The stolen goods, a large amount of clothing from a well-known brand, were valued at over 27,000 euros, which the businessman then claimed from his insurance.
The police report and an inspection of the store confirmed the back door had been forced, similar to other nearby businesses, initially supporting the businessman's claim.
However, after an anonymous tip suggested the robbery was staged and the invoice was fake, the insurance company launched its own investigation and accused the businessman of fraud, claiming he never even bought the stolen clothes.
During the trial, key testimonies weakened the insurance company and prosecutor's case. A partner from the company that sold the clothes to the businessman testified that the sale was real, he issued the invoice, and the businessman paid him around 27,000 euros in cash.
He also admitted that while his company was mostly inactive at the time, he was still selling off assets to repay debts to his partners. He stated the businessman had been a client for years and the sale was genuine.
Another partner confirmed the company had been inactive since 2014 but acknowledged the other administrator could have made individual sales, undermining a key argument of the accusation.
Regarding the anonymous tip, the judge found it "striking" that the caller knew so much detail but refused to provide any evidence. The judge suggested the call seemed motivated by personal revenge against either the company partners or the accused.
The judge noted the insurance company's investigation relied solely on statements from the clothing company's administrators and the "mysterious anonymous call" alleging fraud.
The judge emphasized that the evidence didn't definitively prove the robbery was fake or the invoice was false. Instead, the businessman's statements, witness testimonies, and the police report confirming the forced door suggested the reported crime did occur.
The court concluded that while the circumstances initially raised suspicion, a person cannot be convicted based on speculation or unsupported information.