Man jailed for defrauding Malaga hotel of more than 1,000 euros after winning owner’s trust

The court upheld an earlier ruling by the criminal court of Malaga, sentencing him to one year in prison and ordering him to pay the hotel owner 1,102.80 euros in compensation for the unpaid accommodation. Judges found he had checked in with no intention of paying the full cost of his stay.

The defence appealed against the conviction, arguing that it was merely a breach of contract and not fraud. It also maintained that there was insufficient evidence of the initial deception, alleged a breach of the presumption of innocence and requested a reduction in the sentence.

The court rejected all these arguments, saying that the conviction is based on the victim’s statement, supported by the invoices and the acknowledgement of debt signed by the defendant. According to the owner, the guest only paid for the first month and subsequently paid just 50 euros on two occasions before stopping payment. After that, it was impossible to trace him.

In the judges’ view, the evidence showed that the defendant acted according to a "premeditated plan". The ruling concluded that at no point did the defendant intend to pay for his stay, as he left "a television set that did not work as a deposit and cut off all possible communication with the victim".

The court said that the difference between a civil breach of contract and fraud lies in the existence of deception from the outset. In this case, they consider it proven that the defendant paid only the first instalment "to gain the victim’s trust", with no intention of settling the remainder of the debt or honouring the acknowledgement of debt that he signed. The court added, furthermore, that it was not proven that the non-payment was due to a deterioration in his financial situation.

The judgement also ruled out any breach of the defendant’s right to remain silent. It noted that the trial was lawfully held in his absence because he had been duly summoned, and stated that his failure to appear did not form the basis of the conviction, but merely reinforced the prosecution’s evidence, which was already deemed sufficient.

Finally, the court refused to reduce the sentence. It stated in its ruling that Article 249 provides for a sentence of between six months and three years and "in view of the circumstances of the fraud – which does not involve a very large sum – a sentence of 12 months imprisonment was imposed, a figure closer to the minimum sentence (six months) and far removed from the maximum (three years)”. In this regard, it said that the minimum sentence is not applicable given the amount defrauded and in view of the defendant’s “clearly evasive attitude towards his responsibilities”. It therefore upheld the conviction in its entirety and maintained both the prison sentence and the obligation to repay the 1,102.80 euros to the owner of the hotel.