The Prosecutor’s Office in Santa Cruz de Tenerife has sought a prison sentence of three and a half years for two men accused of fraud concerning the sale of shares in a kiosk-bar. They allegedly failed to inform the purchasers about existing debts owed to the City Council, among others.
Should they be found guilty, the defendants will be liable for civil damages amounting to nearly 13,000 euros, which includes approximately 3,500 euros owed to the buyers, 6,000 euros to a banking institution, and close to 3,800 euros to another creditor.
The accused were partners in the company that sold the shares, with the capital divided into 10,000 shares: 7,500 belonged to the first defendant while the second held 2,500.
Ultimately, they sold all their shares to a single company and its partner across three separate transactions, totalling 317,250 euros, of which 265,000 euros was to be received by one of the sellers and the remaining sum by the other.
The principal asset of the selling company, which was of genuine interest to the buyers, was an administrative concession to operate the kiosk.
Nonetheless, the accused, according to the Prosecutor’s Office, “by mutual agreement and with the intent of acquiring illicit financial gain, concealed the true economic circumstances confronting the business from the buyers.”
In particular, they failed to disclose certain charges or debts which, if acknowledged by the buyers, would have influenced or altered the sale price or potentially led to the transaction not proceeding at all.
Consequently, the Public Ministry believes it has established that the defendants “concealed” their failure to secure payment for the electricity supply linked to the municipal provision.
Furthermore, the accused did not inform about the necessity of undertaking work to regularise this service, which was crucial, and for which the sellers had already submitted a project estimated at nearly 30,000 euros.
However, this situation was not explicitly communicated prior to signing the contracts, resulting in harm to the defendants themselves which could amount to that figure and imposing further costs on the buyers who would need to initiate another new project.
