Prosecutor accuses him of staying 33,000 euros that a marriage gave him to negotiate the usufruct of a home

The lawyer of Lleida, Pere RF, of 60 years, accused of the fourth time of staying money of his clients have not presented/displayed the judgment that had to celebrate this Wednesday in the Hearing of Lleida.

Both the Prosecutor’s Office and the private prosecution have requested the Chamber to issue a search and arrest warrant and now the Hearing will have to resolve this petition.

The Prosecutor’s Office accuses the lawyer of having stayed, in 2008, 33,000 euros that a marriage gave him to negotiate with the bank the right of usufruct of the house where they lived.

The marriage complains that he did not realize until 2015 that the lawyer had not made any management and that he had kept the money.

It is not the first time that some clients denounce this lawyer, who has already been tried three times for other cases.

In the first trial, the criminal 2 of Lleida sentenced him to three years in prison and return almost 20,000 euros to the complainant.

The sentence was appealed at the Hearing of Lleida and the Chamber acquitted him because the facts had prescribed.

In the other two trials, which took place in the Hearing of Lleida, he was sentenced to a total of four and a half years in prison and return almost 230,000 euros to two families. Both are appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the trial that was to take place this Wednesday, Pedro RF was accused of staying 33,000 euros from a marriage in Lleida.

According to the Office of the Prosecutor, a bank in 2008 took out the right to the usufruct of the house where the couple lived for 33,000 euros.

The couple hired the services of the lawyer and gave him a check of 33,000 euros to negotiate with the bank.

The complainants say that when they asked the lawyer about how the negotiations were going on, the lawyer would take them long and say that he was making arrangements with the bank.

In 2015, the bank contacted the couple to offer them the sale of the usufruct and then they realized that the defendant had not had any contact with the bank and that the check for 33,000 euros had been left.

For these facts, the prosecution asks him two and a half years in prison for a crime of misappropriation as well as two years of disqualification and 10,800 euros of fine for a crime of professional disloyalty.

The public prosecutor also asks that the lawyer compensates the denouncing marriage with 33,000 euros.