Leiria court sentences woman to suspended sentence for qualified fraud

The Leiria Judicial Court sentenced the woman to four years and nine months in prison for the crime of qualified fraud, a suspended sentence for execution and the payment of 25 thousand euros to two victims.

The sentence was suspended for five years with probation and payment of this amount.

The panel of judges also granted two of the four claims for civil compensation, ordering the 41-year-old defendant to pay €36,000 to one victim and €9,360 to another.

According to the ruling, dated Wednesday and to which the Lusa agency had access, the woman, living in the municipality of Leiria, met before March 2020 with a work colleague of her partner and “decided to take him in order to deliver him money.”

After the man told the defendant he had a debt, an “unknown woman went” to the man’s father’s house, identifying herself as a bailiff and saying she was there to “collect the debt.”

In the document, the panel of judges proved that the father, a “sick and fragile man”, fearing the continuation of the execution, authorized several withdrawals from his account totaling 48,960 euros.

In 2021, the defendant contacted a real estate agent who asked for help selling the apartment in which she lived, but which did not belong to her.

The intermediary contacted a potential buyer who agreed to buy the property for 70 thousand euros.

Then the defendant stated that “she did not have documents for the property, since her partner fled to Lisbon and took the documents with him,” the decision says.

The buyer initially refused to hand over 35 thousand euros, but eventually did so after the intervention of an alleged acquaintance.

Also, according to the collective court, when the defendant inspected the kindergarten, she met with the child’s father, noticing questions about the regulation of parental responsibilities.

“Taking advantage of this fact and in order to obtain money,” the defendant convinced the father that the minor “had become the object of cruel treatment by the mother, who offered her the services of a supposed lawyer.”

The accused asked for money several times, to which the minor’s father agreed, confident that it would be used to pay the fees, handing over a total of 10,460 euros.

According to the ruling, the woman knew that she was “using the appropriate process to mislead” the buyer of the apartment, causing him losses and receiving “profits to which she knew she was not entitled,” as well as misleading the child’s father.

The group of judges emphasized that at the trial “the accused admitted only a small part of the facts and in a very softened form, stating that she had already returned five thousand euros.”

For the court, “true remorse for committing crimes is not enough with its statement, it is manifested in actions,” firstly, in the admission of committed facts (which the defendant did not commit) and secondly, in compensation for harm. caused (which the defendant did not demonstrate).

“In short, general considerations of prevention are important because crimes against property always arouse strong social rejection and censure” and, “as far as special prevention is concerned, the penalties applied must adequately make the accused feel the reprehensibility of his behavior, which is an essential condition.” a condition for the defendant not to commit repeated crimes,” the judges defended when justifying the punishment.