Efe Valencia

Valencia

Updated Friday, January 19, 2024-14:45

  • 2018 A white-collar thief poses as rapper Daddy Yankee and steals jewelry valued at 2 million

The Valencia Court has recognized the singer

Daddy Yankee

and his wife the right to be compensated with 908,950 dollars (835,097 euros) for the theft of some jewelry belonging to them in the room of the Valencian hotel where they were staying, in 2018, on the occasion of a musical performance at a festival.

The court thus partially upholds his appeal against the previous ruling of a Court of First Instance that dismissed the lawsuit filed

by the couple and a brother of the woman

, as made public this Friday by the Valencian Superior Court of Justice after the advance news. by the

Levante-EMV newspaper.

The Puerto Rican artist was in the Valencian capital to participate in the Latin Fest festival in Gandia (Valencia)

in August 2018

.

He stayed in a hotel in Valencia with his wife, and, as usual, traveled with a large amount of jewelry that "complements his appearance during concerts."

Daddy Yankee maintains that he deposited two watches, three chains, a cross, four bracelets, three rings and a pair of diamond earrings valued at

$1,052.50

in the safe .

His brother-in-law, who was also traveling with the couple, deposited a gold cord valued at 19,600 euros and 4,200 euros in cash in the safe in his room.

The Court recalls in the resolution that the appellants stayed in a modern four-star hotel, whose rooms are equipped with "

a specific security measure for the belongings and valuable belongings

of the clients: the safe installed in it, which "It is a theft or loss prevention device."

Thus, the fact of using this device "already assumes that the client

abides by the security measure

that the hotel offers."

According to the prosecution's account, an unknown person appeared at the hotel reception and asked the receptionist

for a duplicate of the keys

to the two rooms and "without asking for justification" they were given to him.

This person allegedly took advantage of the absence of the complainants and entered the rooms.

There

he asked the technical staff to open the box

and a worker "came up and opened the box", so he was able to steal all the jewelry.

The following day the facts were reported.

Without justification

The first ruling, appealed by the complainants, considered that

the receptionist had collaborated

in the theft by having provided the keys without asking for justification and the claim was dismissed.

It relied on different resolutions based on the fact that there was no prior justification for what was stolen and considered the photographs provided by the injured parties to be insufficient, so they appealed the ruling.

Now, the Court considers that it must adapt to the "social reality of our time" the interpretation and application of

article 1,783 of the Civil Code,

which literally speaks of the responsibility of "fondistas and innkeepers" for damages or losses of clients' effects. during the stay.

In accordance with this adaptation to social reality,

it does not seem logical

that guests have to inform the establishment

which specific objects they deposit

in the safe.

Likewise - the magistrates continue - one cannot "overlook the modus operandi that the thief followed" in this case, since he would not have been able to commit the theft if he had not had "the invaluable although

ignored collaboration of the defendant

, since his staff provided a copy of the room keys and opened a safe without requiring reliable identification from the person making those requests.

The ruling, which instead rejects the appeal of the singer's brother-in-law, also staying in another room in the same hotel,

is not final and can be appealed against

before the First Chamber of the Supreme Court.