The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the appeal filed against the decision of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, confirming the criminal liability of a businessman from Las Palmas for repeated offenses against Social Security and the crime of asset stripping. The established facts place the epicenter of the fraudulent operation in the northern and southern areas of Gran Canaria, highlighting asset transactions and corporate asset stripping operations linked to the tourist municipality of Mogán, where the accused attempted to remove real estate from his personal assets to avoid enforcement action by the General Treasury of Social Security (TGSS).
The Supreme Court, under the opinion of Canary Islands Justice Manuel Marchena, has dismissed the grounds alleged by the defense in its appeal, which challenged the assessment of the evidence and the legal classification of the facts. The Criminal Chamber confirms that the creation of this fraudulent corporate structure was not a legitimate business restructuring to revitalize operations, but rather a premeditated scheme to defraud the Social Security system, effectively preventing any enforcement or seizure of assets. Thus, the prison sentences imposed on appeal are upheld—two years for each of the Social Security fraud offenses, with the mitigating circumstance of partial reparation of damages after depositing funds, and one and a half years for the asset stripping offense—in addition to the multimillion-euro fines and the special disqualification from managing commercial companies.
The investigation and subsequent court rulings by the Provincial Court of Las Palmas and the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) uncovered a systematic and deliberate evasion of tax and social security obligations. The modus operandi consisted of successively establishing different companies in the construction sector as they accumulated millions of euros in debt to Social Security due to unpaid wages. Thus, after operating with companies such as Promor 2009 SL and Dirección 001, and facing the imminent commencement of enforcement proceedings and the declaration of joint and several liability as sole administrator due to insolvency and losses with negative equity, the defendant launched a third shell company.
To ensure the continuity of business operations with the same material and human resources, but without assuming the accumulated liabilities, the sale of machinery, scaffolding, vehicles, and tools was simulated for an amount exceeding €44.000 through simple accounting entries and cross-tabulations that were never actually paid. This strategic move also included the formal appointment of his wife as the sole administrator of the new company, while the main defendant maintained de facto control of the business. Simultaneously, with the clear intention of thwarting the legitimate expectations of the Spanish Social Security Treasury (TGSS) in collecting payments, the businessman transferred a bungalow located in the municipality of Mogán, formally registered in the Property Registry, to the new shell company for a deferred price of €240.000. Only a negligible amount was paid at the time of signing before a notary, thus depleting his personal realizable assets.
