The Seville Court tried this Monday the last accused of a plot that was dedicated to scam people with financial problems who could not get financing through conventional channels: they were convinced to ask for a car loan but then the scammed I did not receive the money or the vehicle and he was forced to pay the fees and even the traffic fines.
The First Section of the Hearing judged Idalia M.C.V., that was advertised on the internet to get loans and debt refinancing. This woman was unaccounted for and was not tried in February 2020, when they were tried and convicted. the two leaders of the plot, one of them commercial in a dealership in Valencina de la Concepción.
Idalia is accused of intervening in two of the seven scams for which the defendants were convicted. In all cases, those affected were people with financial difficulties who could not access financing because they did not comply with the requirements of the credit institutions. Then they convinced them take out a loan to buy a car that they would later resell, but the reality is that they never received the money or the car and, in addition, they were forced to pay the fees to the financial institution.
Idalia denied to the court that in the two cases in which she intervened the car purchase was covering up a money loan. On the contrary, she assured that her clients “wanted to buy a car” but she did not intervene afterwards but instead he sent the documentation to the other defendants.
Despite this, the private prosecution exercised by the affected financial institution maintained its request for 4 months in jail for her.
The two condemned as ringleaders, Francisco I.M. y Antonio M.L., this last employee of the Valencina de la Concepción dealership, offered those affected the possibility of signing a financing contract that, instead of being a personal loan, would be for the acquisition of a vehicle since the interests for these cases are lower.
Sources in the case inform this newspaper that both have appealed their sentence of one year and nine months in jail, in which the Court applied the mitigation of undue delays given that the facts date from 2013.