Legal Battle for Compensation Continues for Carlos After Seven Years
Since 2018, Carlos’s lawyer has submitted 18 motions to the court in an effort to enforce a final ruling and to seize the assets of the defendant, a martial arts instructor from Arucas (Gran Canaria) convicted of sexually abusing a minor.
Background
Carlos is still waiting longer than seven years for the enforcement of a final judgement to recover nearly €9,000 that he paid as a deposit for the purchase of a property in Visvique, a locality within the municipality of Arucas. This purchase never materialised due to the seller’s breach of the agreed price.
Since September 2018, Carlos’s lawyer has filed 18 applications with the Court of First Instance and Instruction 2 of Arucas, seeking the effective seizure of assets belonging to V.J.C.L., the martial arts instructor in question, who is currently serving eleven and a half years in prison (now in a third-degree regime) for sexually abusing a 9-year-old student.
The lawyer has also requested meetings with various judges who have presided over this case on at least eight occasions, but none have granted an audience. During this time, the plaintiff has managed to recover only €210 from the dispute. Four years ago, he received an initial seizure of €30, and this summer, a second seizure yielding €180.
The Conflict
The conflict began in 2017. Carlos knew the property owner, who had been teaching taekwondo to his daughter at a well-known gym in Arucas, Hodori, for over a decade. The two agreed on a price of €30,000 for the sale of a 1,400 square metre parcel of rustic land. To formalise the transaction, they signed a private contract with two witnesses, one from each side: Carlos’s then-partner and a student from the gym. During this process, the buyer paid a deposit of €8,809.
However, a few days later, the owner attempted to increase the price to €35,000, €5,000 more than agreed. At that time, a financial institution had already granted Carlos a loan of €22,000 to complete the property purchase.
Due to this breach of contract, Carlos sent a burofax to the property owner to recover the €8,809 deposit, but the owner refused to accept it.
Court Ruling
The case went to court. Carlos filed a lawsuit, and the Court of First Instance and Instruction 2 of Arucas ruled in his favour. A judgement dated 15 March 2018 ordered the property owner to return the deposit, plus interest and court costs.
The judicial resolution highlighted “malicious behaviour” on the part of V.J.C.L., pointing out, “without being exhaustive,” the owner’s actions. It emphasised that he attempted to increase the initially agreed price from €30,000 to €35,000 and inexplicably refused Carlos’s request for the cash transaction to be conducted with proper guarantees before a notary. The owner insisted on completing this process privately, as indicated in WhatsApp messages submitted in the case.
The judge also noted that the seller did not collect the burofax sent by Carlos requesting the return of the deposit and even denied having received it, despite WhatsApp messages evidencing his awareness of the document’s dispatch.
During the hearing, the defendant stated that if Carlos wanted “he could return the €8,000.” However, he subsequently told Carlos’s lawyer that he had not done so “because (Carlos himself) did not sign.”
V.J.C.L. admitted during the hearing that he drafted the contract, which stipulated a penalty for the buyer in case of breach (the double of the deposit), but did not include a penalty for himself as the seller.
“The malicious conduct of the defendant has resulted in expenses for the actor, directly related to the frustrated transaction, for which he must be compensated, such as burofax costs, notary fees, and banking charges,” stated the March 2018 ruling.
Enforcement Process
Following the finalisation of the judicial resolution, the enforcement process began in July of that year with the seizure order. Through a “general order,” the judge mandated the retention or immobilisation of V.J.C.L.’s assets (who had already sold the property to a third party) to ensure the enforcement of the debt. However, more than seven years later, the outcomes have been virtually non-existent.
Carlos’s lawyer has repeatedly requested the court’s assistance (in at least 18 instances over the seven years) to enable his client to recover the deposit, yet only two seizures have occurred up to this point: one for €30 and another, more recent, for €180.
In these requests, the lawyer urges the court to gather information from the judicial neutral point, a network of services that facilitates access to necessary data for judicial processes, to seize the properties in the name of the defendant, along with his bank accounts, tax refunds, salaries, unemployment benefits, or any payments made by public entities.
The requests are processed, but there has been no response. Carlos’s lawyer finds a delay of “two or three years at most” justifiable for the execution of the judgement, depending on the court’s workload, but cannot comprehend why this case has been delayed for over seven years without Carlos being able to achieve justice. “From day one, a seizure of the commercial premises” belonging to V.J.C.L. in Arucas, the gym he opened four decades ago, has been requested. “Partial seizure of the property (premises and adjoining residence) could proceed and be auctioned, but nothing has been done in all this time,” he notes.
The court’s secrecy and delays frustrate Carlos, who has faced “financial difficulties” throughout these seven years and is still unable to repay a loan from a family member, knowing that nearly €9,000 (plus interest and costs) “is out there.”
Criminal Conviction
In October 2018, just three months after the seizure order, the owner of Hodori was remanded in custody, accused of sexually abusing a nine-year-old student. He had been arrested following a complaint filed by the child’s mother. The instructor was tried by the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, which sentenced him to eleven and a half years in prison, having found it proven that he repeatedly abused the boy during a camping trip, at the gym, in his home, and during competition trips.
As ancillary penalties, the Court imposed a fifteen-year restraining order from the victim and required him to pay a compensation of €40,000. The ruling also included a disqualification of fourteen and a half years for any profession or occupation, paid or unpaid, involving “regular and direct” contact with minors.
In May 2021, the TSJC upheld the conviction, although the decision was not unanimous. In numerous instances over the past few years, one of the judges on the Criminal Chamber, Antonio Doreste, former president of the Canarian High Court, expressed a dissenting opinion, advocating for the acquittal of the accused on the grounds that the victim’s testimony was insufficient and uncorroborated by peripheral elements.
In this dissenting opinion, Doreste posited that the situation stemmed from “spite” on the part of the mother, who had engaged in sporadic relations with the teacher before the minor disclosed the abuse. The judge also considered the “massive support” shown by former students and parents towards V.J.C.L. to be “revelatory,” highlighted by a public demonstration held in the municipality just a month after his arrest.
The defence relied on this dissenting opinion to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the higher court confirmed the conviction. In a ruling issued in December 2021, the Criminal Chamber reminded that prior to the incidents, the child’s mother had maintained a good relationship with the coach, to the extent of allowing her son to stay overnight at his house and even to sleep in his bed. “If the minor refused at any point to go to the defendant’s house before a tournament or competition, it was precisely because he complained about what was happening on those occasions,” read the judgement.
The Supreme Court deemed the testimonies of the mother and an aunt of the minor as corroborating elements of the child’s account. They recounted that, on the eve of a trip to Tenerife for a championship, the victim began to cry and refused to sleep again at his martial arts instructor’s house. The Supreme Court also emphasised that it is common for the victim’s testimony to be the only direct evidence in cases of sexual abuse or assault, as these usually occur “in absolute secrecy.”
V.J.C.L. has not yet fully served his prison sentence, but he is presently enjoying third-degree status, a semi-liberty arrangement. His appearances on social media confirm this. The gym remains open, offering, among other activities, taekwondo classes for children. A notice at the entrance states that only cash payments are accepted. According to data in the commercial registry, the convicted instructor has been an administrator since 1996 of a company dedicated “to the development of the characteristic activities of gyms and all types of martial arts schools.” In 2022, the company’s registration was closed due to a revocation of the NIF (Tax Identification Number), one of the severest measures that the Tax Authority can impose against companies that have not fulfilled their obligations for a period.
This newspaper has attempted to ascertain whether the convicted instructor has compensated the victim’s family for the abuses but has yet to receive a response.
