The owner of a casino in Tenerife has lost another court case for threatening a former employee.
The owner of a casino, Miguel Cabrera Pérez-Camacho, lost an appeal against a fine of 720 euros for threatening a former employee, whom he threatened to "smash."
Miguel Cabrera Pérez-Camacho has lost another court case. The court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which found the lawyer and casino owner guilty of minor threats against a former employee. He threatened to "smash" him. Pérez-Camacho appealed, but it was rejected.
The court of first instance fined the casino president 720 euros (two months' salary at 12 euros per day) for threatening a former employee. The latter worked in a bar near Pérez-Camacho's office. The prosecutor's office demanded such a fine, and the victim wanted more – 2,700 euros (three months at 30 euros per day).
The incident occurred on July 25, 2024, at the Derby bar. Both the victim and Pérez-Camacho's daughter often went there for breakfast. That morning, Pérez-Camacho rushed into the bar after a call from his daughter and attacked the former employee with threats. Then he left with his daughter and her husband.
The initial verdict was delivered on October 21, 2024. Pérez-Camacho appealed, but the court did not grant it and left the verdict unchanged.
In court, the lawyer admitted that he threatened to "smash" the former employee, but said he meant "smash as a lawyer" so that he would not bother his daughter. The victim insisted that these were real threats. The defense asked to acquit Pérez-Camacho because he acted that way due to his daughter's call.
The judge decided that the word "smash" is still a threat, even if it concerns the professional sphere. In addition, the bartender confirmed that this was the case.
The court also did not believe that Pérez-Camacho was so angry because of his daughter's call. The verdict states that the daughter is already an adult and married, and there were many people in the bar, and her husband was with her, so she was not in danger.
The presiding judge, Félix Mota Bello, wrote that the appeal was rejected because the crime was qualified correctly and the punishment was fair.