Tenerife Court Hears Fraud Trial Over Disputed Property Inheritance
The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife is presiding over a trial involving allegations of forgery and property fraud concerning the disputed transfer of a farm and house in El Rosario.
The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife is currently hearing a complex case regarding the disputed transfer of a property in El Rosario. According to El Día, the trial centers on whether a sales contract and several payment receipts were forged to cheat an heir out of a farm and a house in Llano del Moro.
The case hinges on conflicting expert testimony regarding the signatures on the documents. One expert suggested the deceased’s signature appeared manipulated, though she noted her analysis was based on a copy. Another expert, who examined the original documents during the investigation, argued the signature was authentic. A third expert focused solely on the defendant’s handwriting, as instructed by the court.
Beyond the handwriting dispute, the Public Prosecutor’s Office alleges the defendant orchestrated a scheme to fake the property purchase shortly before the owner died, ignoring the terms of his official will. Prosecutors have requested a four-year prison sentence and a 7,200-euro fine for forgery, noting it is highly unlikely the defendant—who lived on a disability pension—could have paid 85,000 euros in cash for the property.
The private prosecution is seeking a harsher nine-year sentence, adding charges of robbery, usurpation, and damages. They value the 2,000-square-meter farm and house at 346,000 euros and are seeking an additional 30,000 euros in moral damages, plus compensation for lost agricultural profits since 2022.
The defense has requested an acquittal, claiming their client was a sharecropper who funded the purchase through personal savings and family help. They have also questioned the heir’s relationship with the deceased. However, this contradicts testimony from the deceased’s ex-wife, who stated that the owner deeply valued his land and had no intention of selling it. The court must now decide how to weigh this conflicting evidence and determine the legitimacy of the documents, which the prosecution has described as irregular and poorly prepared.