that in 2011 he was disqualified by the Audiencia de Valladolid for the exercise of the profession for a period of two and a half years as the author of a crime of professional disloyalty committed between 2002 and 2004 for the advice given to a client, owner of a Transportation Agency, which required its services to know how to convert the real estate assets available to it to meet certain debts.
The ruling of the Fourth Criminal Section of the Audiencia Valladolid now revoked by the High Court, which has thus estimated the appeal of the convict, also imposed on the lawyer a fine of 5,760 euros although he acquitted him of the continued crime of fraud that also the Public Prosecutor accused him and for which he asked for five years in prison.
Now, the Supreme Court, according to Europa Press legal sources, justifies the acquittal of the condemned in the conviction that “the activity finally developed by him through his company and that was entrusted to him by his client has nothing to do with the functions specific to the legal profession “, which is why, as the ruling adds, an extra-legal activity and outside of that profession can not become criminal by the mere condition of lawyer of the person who performs it”, since this would betray the meaning of the article 467.2 of the Penal Code.
In this case, the Provincial Court understood that what happened was that the victim went to the attorney’s office, with 28 years of practice in the Valladolid Bar Association, and what he did was to refer him to his loan company in the secondary financial market, Multiform Investments, economically damaging it with practices more typical of usury.
“One thing is that such behavior is not a crime of fraud for not meeting the elements that configure such a crime, which is not constituting a crime of usury, which is not classified as such in our criminal law, and something else is that this behavior is lawful and correct, when it is carried out under the cover of a professional lawyer’s office, whose exercise must always be aimed at complying with the uses of professional deontology, “warned the then magistrate.
The facts investigated in the year 2007 by the Court of Instruction number 1
have their origin in the complaint filed by the transporter Miguel GM, who had hired the services of the lawyer now acquitted so that he intervened with respect to some debts that fell on your heritage. Specifically, the employer weighed four unpaid bills for an amount of 103,468 euros and in respect of them a mortgage had been built on the house of the client’s mother and some farms located in Navabuena.
The public prosecution argued that the complainant, faced with the anguished situation he was going through, followed the lawyer’s instructions at all times, believing that he intervened to paralyze the proceedings opened against him. Thus, it constituted an exchange mortgage on the house that the client owned in the La Vega urbanization, in Arroyo de la Encomienda.
Although the prosecutor understood it proved that the lawyer seized for his own benefit a total of 61,389 euros, amount left over from the liquidation of a house on Avenida José Luis Lasa de Arroyo (29,490 euros) and the one on Calle Cerrada (38,898 euros) ), property of the mother, the vallisoletano court did not give as proven this fact because, as it pointed out, “although there is no evidence that the defendant delivered such amounts to the client and his mother does not appear to be left.”