The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has sentenced to two years in prison, for a Crime of fraud, to a man who posed as a friend of Alejandro Agag, son-in-law of the former president of the Government José María Aznar, to get 35,000 euros from a woman he met through a social network.
This is a recent ruling by the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJM that estimates an appeal filed by the Prosecutor’s Office to increase the sentence handed down in May 2021 by the Provincial Court against Antonio MBV, who was sentenced to one year and six months in jail for a crime of fraud in competition with a crime of falsification of a commercial document, in addition to delivering the 35,000 scammed the victim.
The Prosecutor’s Office proposed in its appeal that they take into account two convictions prior to prosecution for fraud and the court agrees to recognize it, since they are legally applicable, thus adding the aggravating factor of recidivism and increasing the jail sentence to two years in prison.
On the other hand, the Chamber rejects the appeal filed by the defendant in which he argued that the evidence was not well evaluated and that he suffered defenselessness.
Custody of your children
Thus the three magistrates that make up the court consider it proven that in May 2016 the defendant met a woman through the social network Meeting and both began a relationship that they resumed at the end of 2017, when she told him that she was in a judicial process for the custody of her children and he offered to help her “falsely attributing political influences that could favor her.”
Antonio told him that knew several influential people and specified that he had an acquaintance named Alejandro Agag, son-in-law of the former President of the Government José María Aznar, “who in exchange for 35,000 euros he could get the courts to give him custody of his children. “
The woman borrowed that money from her aunt and on January 2, 2018 she gave it to the defendant in a cafeteria in San Sebastián de los Reyes (Madrid), and he gave her a bank guarantee “that did not correspond to reality and that had been created by the accused”, says the sentence.
The woman told him that if in the end he was not successful in the judicial process, he would have to return the money, while the accused returned to ask for money later, to which she replied that she did not want to enter “a Persian market”.
The whistleblower put off until the endorsement expiration date approached and she went to the bank, where they told her it was false, so she reported the defendant.