The Supreme Court has upheld four-year prison sentences for a fake lawyer and an estate agent who defrauded a woman of €105,000 by selling her a property in Tenerife without the knowledge or permission of its real owner.

The final ruling orders the two defendants to jointly repay the full €105,000 stolen from the buyer. Each has also been ordered to pay a fine of €2,200.

The case centres on an apartment in Tegueste, in the north of Tenerife, which the victim believed she was legitimately purchasing. However, despite handing over substantial amounts of money, the sale was never completed because the actual owner had neither authorised the transaction nor received any of the payments.

Property originally put on sale for €200,000

The case dates back to February 2020, when the property owner contacted the estate agent and instructed her to sell her home for €200,000.

However, she subsequently discovered that the property was being advertised for €180,000 and decided to terminate her agreement with the estate agency, making her decision clear to those involved.

Despite this, the estate agent continued with the proposed sale after finding an interested buyer.

The buyer began transferring money into several different bank accounts and, with the involvement of a man posing as a lawyer, was persuaded to hand over a total of €105,000.

None of this money reached the property's owner.

Buyer became suspicious

As time passed and the purchase failed to progress, the buyer began demanding explanations.

She arranged to meet the man she believed was a lawyer, who reassured her that there was nothing to worry about and that her money would be returned if the property purchase did not go ahead.

Eventually, after the real owner failed to attend two previous appointments, the buyer arranged another date at a notary’s office to formally complete the purchase.

A burofax was sent warning the owner that if she failed to attend, she would be required to return twice the amount supposedly received.

It was at this point that the truth emerged.

The owner replied that she had never authorised the sale and had not received any money from the buyer or the estate agent. Realising that she had been deceived, the buyer reported the matter to the authorities.

Money transferred to several accounts

During the subsequent trial, prosecutors presented evidence including the property advertisement and details of transfers made into various bank accounts, none of which belonged to the property's legitimate owner.

The court also considered messaging conversations showing that an agreement had been made with the buyer and demonstrating the involvement of the fake lawyer.

The victim had spoken to him on several occasions believing he was a qualified lawyer, something he reportedly never corrected or denied.

The Supreme Court said there was no doubt over the involvement of the two defendants after considering the evidence presented at trial, despite both denying that they had deliberately deceived the buyer.

Appeal over legal representation rejected

Both defendants appealed their convictions, claiming that the legal assistance they received during the proceedings had been “very deficient”.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that any alleged shortcomings in their defence would have needed to be particularly serious and clearly demonstrated.

The judges noted that the defendants themselves had made little effort to establish contact with their appointed lawyers before the trial.

Their original lawyer had stopped practising part-way through the proceedings. The woman initially chose a court-appointed lawyer before later changing to a privately hired solicitor, while the man also appointed a lawyer of his choice.

The Supreme Court concluded that both defendants had received an adequate defence throughout the investigation and trial.

The victim also unsuccessfully appealed for another employee of the estate agency to be convicted. The estate agent had given this worker €35,000, which was deposited into her daughter's account, reportedly as a favour to avoid several embargoes affecting the convicted woman.

The Supreme Court's decision is now final, confirming the four-year prison sentences and the requirement for the defendants to repay the €105,000 taken from the buyer.