In a shocking real estate fraud case, the same apartment was allegedly sold to over 50 different people by a company operating out of a shopping centre in Los Cristianos in the south of Tenerife. The owner of the company has fled the country, and the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife started a trial yesterday (Monday) to address the accusations.
The scam involved selling auctioned properties to multiple buyers simultaneously, leading to significant financial losses for several people at the same time.
The prosecution is asking for a 4-year prison sentence and €78,000 in compensation from the only remaining representative of the company. This person claims he was merely a legal advisor and was the first to report the owner’s disappearance to authorities in late 2017.
The case in question centres on a couple who run a Chinese restaurant next to the estate agent’s office. They had paid €88,000 (€78,000 of which was in cash) as required by the company, to secure an apartment valued at €230,000, for a reduced price of €145,000.
However, after making this substantial payment, the owner of the real estate firm vanished, allegedly fleeing to Brazil, leaving the company bankrupt and with no assets.
The accused legal advisor maintains that he had no involvement in the sales and was convinced to purchase 40% of the company’s shares without knowing the fraudulent activities taking place.
He also stated that he never signed any contracts of sale, only providing legal advice. After the owner's disappearance, the accused suffered mental health issues, claiming he was on medical leave for a year and underwent psychological treatment.
During the trial, buyers testified that they met both the owner and the legal advisor at their restaurant, where they were offered the apartment at a discounted price because it had been auctioned. They also revealed that the owner had demanded cash payments, which were handed either to him or to an employee.
The administrative worker testified that only the company owner requested cash, collected the payments, and issued receipts, but he rarely saw the accused at the office.
The legal advisor concluded his defence by claiming that he too was a victim of the scam, having been deceived by his business partner. After the partner fled, he said he tried to resolve the situation for those who had been defrauded.
The court will now deliberate on the next steps in this complex case, while the search for the fugitive owner continues.
