In the year 2006, a Chiclana neighbor contacted a lawyer to acquire a farm on the Guadaira road, in the area known as Espartina, to build a new house. The lawyer, in his capacity as a collaborating agent with various banking entities, managed, with the collaboration of an architect and draftsman, that the man was granted a mortgage of 126.000 euros on a ‘ghost house’ that did not actually exist on those lands. This is the version of events that the Cádiz Prosecutor’s Office maintains to put on the bench, 15 years after what happened, to the four implicated in this case. He accuses them of a crime of swindle in competition with a crime of falsehood in official document and asks for each of them the penalty of four years in prison as well as the payment of a fine of 13.500 euros. Likewise, the prosecutor requests that the four defendants indemnify jointly and severally to the injured bank in the amount of 126,000 euros plus the corresponding legal interest.
The oral hearing will be held next week at the Cádiz Provincial Court and the prosecuted lawyer has already expressed his intention to defend yourself. In addition, this lawyer has another pending case for similar events that will also be tried in the Cadiz Palace of Justice before the end of the year.
Regarding the matter to be held next week, the Prosecutor’s Office considers that the four defendants were previously arranged with the intention of obtaining “an illicit patrimonial benefit”. To do this, JMC, a Chiclana neighbor, contacted IR lawyer in 2006 with the purpose of acquiring a farm on the Guadaira road, in the area known as Espartina, so that the lawyer, in his capacity as agent collaborator with various banking entities, carry out the necessary steps to obtain a mortgage loan that would allow the purchase of that property, since his income did not allow him to obtain said loan.
In order to obtain the loan, the prosecutor continues in his provisional conclusions, the lawyer delivered to the bank some payrolls in the name of JMC corresponding to the months of September, October and November 2006, which in their entirety they did not correspond to reality, since JMC was not working those months, since he obtained sick leave in March 2006 and in those months he received a benefit from the mutual 483 euros, an amount much lower than that reflected in the payroll delivered to the financial institution.
According to the provisional conclusions of the Prosecutor’s Office, the lawyer also gave the bank an appraisal report “knowingly made” by defendants JMM, the architect, and AOA, the draftsman. That report “did not correspond to reality, since it appraised a farm on which a 96-square-meter single-family house was built, when really the farm to be acquired was not built“.
As a consequence of the falsified documentation by the defendants outside of reality, the bank believed that all this was true and granted JMC a mortgage loan dated December 21, 2006 for 126,000 euros that it used to acquire the land and build a house.
– .
