The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (TS) has forced the winner in 2013 of

a National Lottery ticket, awarded 125,000 euros,

to half share the money with a friend, with whom, as it has been demonstrated, bought the tenth jointly.

The Supreme Court thus ratifies a previous sentence of the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in which it was confirmed that the defendant was the author of a crime of misappropriation and therefore he was sentenced to one and a half years in jail and the obligation to return 50,250 euros to his partner.

To this amount must be added the interest counted from the recent notification of the Supreme Court ruling.

The successive courts consider it proven that between December 7 and 11, 2013, the two men purchased a participation in the Christmas raffle at a gas station in San Isidro and

the defendant kept the ticket while his friend signed on the back

with a pen that he asked one of the establishment's workers.

According to the sentence, the convicted person finally took advantage of the fact that he had the tenth in his possession and did not respect the verbal agreement with his partner, so he proceeded to collect the entire prize at a bank branch in Arona by means of a transfer.

From the outset, he categorically refused to share the amount won, which amounted to 100,500 euros, once 24,500 in state taxes were deducted, as is usual in this type of contest.

The main evidence that concluded with the obligation to return half of the proceeds were the statements of the victim who was given full credibility, but no less relevant was

the testimony of a man and a woman who worked at the gas station

who recalled how both friends were playing a slot machine and at one point with the money they won they decided to buy the ticket.

The only contradiction that arose in the statement of both was who had requested the pen, although this fact is downplayed, which is attributed to the time elapsed, and it is also possible that both of them had requested it.

The signature has features that allow us to maintain that it was the complainant who made it.

The Chamber describes as "lucubrations" the explanations offered by the defendant about how the signature was embodied on the back of the tenth, according to what he said, without his knowledge or consent.

On the contrary

, it is considered proven that the signature was stamped in its day by the scammed party

to record their participation in the purchase of the tenth.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • Lottery