Tenerife Judge Clears Businessman, Two Women of Benefit Fraud

A judge in Santa Cruz de Tenerife has cleared a businessman and two women he employed of fraud charges. They were accused of illegally claiming sick pay and maternity benefits. Social Security and the public prosecutor had argued that the women were hired just so they could register and claim these benefits.

The prosecution had asked for the businessman to be jailed for three years (one and a half years for each fraud charge). They also wanted him to lose access to government support, tax breaks, and Social Security incentives for three years, and pay an 8,654 euro fine. His company faced a 9,100 euro fine and a similar three-year ban from subsidies.

For the two women, who were five and seven months pregnant when hired, the prosecution sought one year and six months in prison, plus a three-year ban from benefits. They also asked that all three defendants jointly pay 6,314 euros back to Social Security.

The verdict was announced last Friday. The case started in 2017 after the Labor and Social Security Inspectorate received a complaint. They found potential issues at an agricultural services company in southern Tenerife. In early April that year, the company hired two women who were heavily pregnant. The Inspectorate suspected these hirings were fake, designed only to ensure the women qualified for benefits.

On April 28, both women went on sick leave and received payments from their insurance company. One employee gave birth on May 19. The same day, the second woman re-registered with Social Security. In early June, she went on sick leave again until her baby was born on July 21.

After their sick leave ended, the businessman arranged for both women to receive maternity benefits.

The defense lawyer, Alfonso Delgado, argued that the contracts were legitimate. However, at the start of the trial, he raised several procedural issues. He claimed Social Security had missed its deadline to file charges, that the case went beyond the scope of the initial investigation, and that the investigation itself took too long. The judge dismissed all these points, stating that "not every formal infringement implies defenselessness or nullity of proceedings."

Turning to the core of the case, the judge noted that what the Labor Inspectorate called "verified facts" were actually "merely indications." The accusations were built on these hints, but there was no solid proof that the hirings were fake or that benefits were claimed fraudulently.

The judge stressed that "administrative reports do not in themselves constitute sufficient criminal evidence." She also pointed out that the investigation failed to show that the women didn't actually work for the company.

The defense provided documents showing that the company had leased agricultural land since 2015 and 2016, along with contribution records confirming its business activities.

Finally, the judge noted that Social Security and the insurance company had already recovered all the money wrongly paid out by seizing funds from the beneficiaries' accounts. This meant the organizations suffered no financial loss.