The Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the bank in a sentence that obliges an individual to compensate a financial institution for a theft of money from a bank account that they shared with another relative.
According to a sentence to which this newspaper has had access, the case occurred between 2014 and 2015, when a woman began to withdraw 50,000 euros from an account that she owned together with her mother and brother, although the money was exclusively owned by the mother, very old.
These movements were possible thanks to the fact that the bank had allowed the movements only with the signature of the offending woman, even though the account required a joint signature. The brother alerted the bank and several operations were rolled back. However, the offending person made 20,000 euros his own, which could not be recovered. The brother, on behalf of his mother, then sued the bank and the bank was ordered to pay those 20,000 euros.
The bank did not agree with this sentence and filed a complaint for misappropriation against the offending woman. She obtained a favorable sentence in the first instance, contrary in the second and finally, the Supreme Court has just agreed with her.
"The ruling is relevant because it establishes jurisprudence about civil liability when it comes to stealing money between family members. The Supreme Court considers that the offender must answer to third parties, in this case the bank, despite the fact that at the criminal level he is exonerated of any crime because the figure of the acquittal excuse applies," says Anna Pi, a lawyer from the Ceca Magán law firm, which has advised the financial institution.
Pi recalls that the acquittal excuse prevents criminal proceedings between direct family members, in order to avoid irreparable schisms within the family. However, this acquittal excuse does not exempt from civil liability, when it is projected against third parties, as in this case. And it is that despite the fact that C.'s acts were directed against his mother's assets, there was a third party harmed, the bank, which has the full right to be compensated for the damage suffered.
