Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Gisela Strauß Templin Dauercamper Campingplatz Projektbegleitung GmbH

A player in a lottery group that did not share the special fraction prize was acquitted by the Supreme Court

A woman sentenced to a year-and-a-half in prison for failing to distribute the incredible prize to the fraction of the winning lottery number she shared with five other people has been acquitted by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.

- 2 reads.

A player in a lottery group that did not share the special fraction prize was acquitted by the Supreme Court

A woman sentenced to a year-and-a-half in prison for failing to distribute the incredible prize to the fraction of the winning lottery number she shared with five other people has been acquitted by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court exonerated him from the crime of misappropriation. It understood that the obligation to the group was to share it, but there was no quota allocation agreement for the prize. The Chamber believes that the injured parties can sue civil court for a compensation amount.

The Court has estimated that the appeal was worth $15,000. This woman had been responsible for purchasing several National Lottery tickets over the past 15 years. She also shared the proceeds with five other participants in Saturday and Thursday draws. The tickets were purchased by the accused and distributed to the participants along with a 10% surcharge. According to their custom, the appellant purchased ten tenths (or numbers) in October 2014. Each tenth was awarded 30,000 euros. One of the tenths also received the special prize for fraction 1,170,000 euros.

The draw was held on October 24, 2014. Before it took place, the defendant randomly gave two members of the group two tenths each of number 44,386, which was then awarded. After the draw, she gave two more tenths to the other members of the group. She also reported the prize to the third person, who was playing 50% of a tenth. She kept the prize.

The Provincial Court of Alicante sentenced her for a crime of theft. It was understood that the three participants who were not distributed the tenth in previous draws had a proportional share in the undistributed 10ths, which included the one that received the special award.

In its judgment, however, the Second Chamber considers that this argument is inconsistent with the Court's factual declaration. It states that "the fractions that corresponded each of them hadn't been determined" and that "without any of these - the participants in the game had only reserved a particular fraction>>."

This sentence states that the Chamber's jurisprudence in relation to misappropriation of lottery prizes has been limited to the determination and allocation of quotas. The Chamber expressly states that the proven fact of this sentence indicates that in this case, it was not possible to determine the allocation of quotas for the special prize for the fraction. The appellant fulfilled his obligation by distributing the tenths lottery numbers obtained and transmitting each player the part he purchased, even though he knows he is a winner. The sentence states that the defendant distributed winning tickets equal to the amount each player played.

Although the court rules out misappropriation, it does indicate that the facts may have been a crime or fraud. However, it was not the subject of the case in this instance. The Chamber also considers that the facts could be used to support a civil claim for an amount.

Two magistrates cast a vote in favor of the sentence. These judges believe that the lack of an allocation of quotas in this case shows that they had a common expectation about a special prize that would correspond to the tenths purchased in proportion to their respective parts in the series. It was not the opposite. The object of the game was determined on a fraction that has been precisely determined after the special prizes are known. She then distributes the fraction at her convenience once she knows the fraction with more than one million euro.

According to the Chamber's own jurisprudence, the fact that no quotas are allocated does not negate the crime of misappropriation.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.