The Provincial Court of Zaragoza has acquitted A widow to which her husband’s children accused of having stayed with 370,000 euros of the deceased’s bank account without the consent of this and that they should be part of their inheritance. Justice considers that the woman was authorized to manage her husband’s funds and that there is no evidence to act with deception or abuse when transferring money.
According to the October 2024 ruling, the children of the deceased accepted his father’s inheritance without knowing that these bank movements had been made. To the Discover that the 370,000 euros were not part of the assets received, they found that it was the widow who had retired, by checks, your father’s account money A few days before he died due to Covid-19 pneumonia.
This is why children They sued the stepmother claiming that she had withdrawn the money from the account without her father’s consent. After this, the prosecutor made charges for improper appropriation and unfair administration, and the private accusation also added the scam arguing that the widow had withdrawn the money with the intention of staying with her inheritance.
Justice considers that the widow had authorization to have the funds of her husband’s account
During the instructional phase the necessary evidence and testimonies were collected, including an expert analysis of the deceased’s signature. This was used to Check if it corresponded to the document that the widow had contributed as proof that she was authorized to have the funds of her husband’s accounts.
After the trial and assess all the evidence, The Provincial Court considers that the widow was authorized in her husband’s account from 4 years before to date of death. In addition, there was a Private document signed by the deceased before his death in which he authorized the woman to manage the money of her account, and several witnesses confirmed its authenticity.
The court also considered that It was not proven that the woman had cheated on her husband nor that he was incapacitated when giving him the authorization to manage his money.
Therefore, the undue appropriation collected in article 252 of the Criminal Code (CP) is rejected, since the woman had a prior authorization. Nor can it be considered to exist, for this it is required that there is a previous deception, which was not tested. The unfolding administration provided for in article 252 of the CP cannot be considered, since there is no abuse in the management of her husband’s heritage by having authorization to do so.