Tenerife Court Acquits Defendant in Property Fraud Case Due to Insufficient Evidence
The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has acquitted a defendant in a property fraud case, citing insufficient evidence and conflicting handwriting analysis as grounds to apply the principle of in dubio pro reo.
The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has acquitted a defendant in a complex fraud and forgery case. The ruling underscores the difficulty of securing a conviction when prosecutors rely on private documents without banking records and handwriting analysis that fails to provide absolute certainty.
The case centered on the sale of a property in Llano del Moro, El Rosario. Prosecutors alleged that the defendant forged the deceased owner’s signature on a private contract and two receipts totaling 85,000 euros to cheat the owner’s minor child out of their inheritance. The prosecution sought a four-year prison sentence and a 7,200-euro fine, arguing the transaction was a fraudulent scheme orchestrated shortly before the owner’s death.
The defense argued the sale was legitimate, claiming the deceased sold the property to pay off debts related to addictions. They explained that the lack of a banking trail was due to the financial instability of both parties, which necessitated a cash payment. Two witnesses testified that they saw an envelope being handed over during the signing, though they could not confirm what was inside.
The court acquitted the defendant due to insufficient evidence. Three handwriting experts provided conflicting reports: one suggested a possible forgery, another defended the signatures as authentic, and the third provided an incomplete analysis. The court noted that because the original documents were unavailable for laboratory testing and there were few reliable samples of the deceased’s handwriting, the evidence did not meet the threshold for a criminal conviction.
This case highlights the risks of relying on private contracts for inheritance matters without a notary to verify the identities of those involved. Because the forgery could not be proven, the court applied the principle of in dubio pro reo (when in doubt, favor the accused), ruling that suspicion alone is not enough to justify a criminal conviction.