Lawyers who are experts in the crime of fraud cleared up the doubts that weighed on our client.

After several years of judicial investigation, the proceedings against our client were closed and provisionally dismissed. She was accused of fraud.

The police investigations pointed her out as the author of a crime of swindling for requesting credits and financing of various objects in the name of third parties. According to police reports, she may have done this after stealing a colleague’s handbag some years ago at the school where she worked.

The investigation began when the victim began to receive claims for financial transactions that she had not carried out. Several loans, financing of a mobile phone, bank card debts… events that the investigators linked to the theft of her handbag. Her work colleague was identified as the perpetrator of both the crime of theft (for the purse) and fraud (for the subsequent financial transactions).

OUR DEFENCE AGAINST THE OFFENCE OF FRAUD

Our client denied the accusations against her. Our team of criminal lawyers, experts in the crime of fraud, therefore began a documentary phase to clarify the facts. A study from which we concluded that there was no reason to point the finger at our client. The police accusations did not point to her, but to her ex-husband.

THE KEYS TO THE DEFENCE

The victim herself «acknowledged that not only the defendant, but also any other teacher, could have stolen her handbag». And, although she did not say so, the same suspicion should also apply to pupils, cleaning staff, canteen or extracurricular activities staff, parents and even any other third party.

The telephone number through which the loans were requested was not our client’s, but that of her then husband.

The bank account designated to repay the requested loans was opened by the defrauded woman herself, and without knowing the reason, the defendant’s ex-husband made several transfers to this account.

Her ex-partner was summoned by the police to explain his involvement in this fraud. He evidently did not incriminate himself, but stated that he suspected that his ex-wife may have been the one who set up the telephone line in his name. And, to corroborate his version, he stated that he had previously denounced his ex-wife for similar acts.

The defence traced the aforementioned complaints. All of them had been closed as there was no indication that the defendant could have committed a crime.

And not least, none of the contracts where all of the above is set out involve the defendant.

It is important to note that all of this is involved in a complex investigation, which required several years of investigation.