Embezzlement at a real estate agency and the franchisor’s civil liability
Misappropriation in the real estate sector raises an issue that goes far beyond a simple dispute over money. When a client entrusts a significant sum to an agency for a specific purpose and, when the time comes, discovers that the funds have not reached their intended destination, the matter ceases to be a mere business incident. At that point, criminal liability may arise, but so does an equally important practical need: ensuring that the aggrieved party can recover their money if the facts are ultimately proven in court.
This case, pending before Investigating Court No. 3 of Torrevieja, Preliminary Proceedings No. 1861/2018, is a clear example of this dual dimension. On the one hand, it examines the possible commission of a misappropriation offense by a franchised real estate agency. On the other hand, it raises the issue of including a well-known multinational real estate agency in the criminal proceedings as a vicariously liable party. This second issue is no minor detail, because it can make the difference between a conviction with real consequences and a judgment that, despite acknowledging the harm, does not allow for effective compensation.
At Carlos Baño Abogados, we approach these types of cases with a very clear strategy. It is not enough simply to file a complaint. We must organize the facts, secure the evidence, anticipate the risks involved in the proceedings, and protect the future civil claim from the very beginning. In cases involving franchises, established brands, or large corporate structures, this approach is even more critical, because the injured party cannot be left entirely at the mercy of a local office that may close, disappear, or prove insufficient to meet the demands of the case.
The facts that gave rise to the criminal proceedings
The case began when a German client came to our office in Alicante after having paid a substantial sum of money to a real estate agency in Guardamar del Segura. That payment had been made as a deposit for the rental of a home located in Algorfa, Alicante, owned by a Russian citizen. The purpose of the money was clearly defined. It was not an ambiguous payment nor an open-ended negotiation. The amount was to be applied to a specific lease agreement and was intended to allow the tenant access to the property on the agreed-upon date.
The apparent smoothness of the transaction comes to a halt on the day set for the handover of the keys and the takeover of the property. No one shows up for the appointment. The client does not receive the keys, cannot enter the home, and therefore cannot exercise his rights as a tenant. At that point, the problem is no longer a simple delay or poor coordination between the parties. What emerges is a fundamental doubt about the fate of the money paid and the reality of the management carried out by the intermediary agency.
The homeowner's account
After confirming that the transaction had not gone through, the customer receives crucial information from the landlord. He is told that the money had not been received. That statement completely changes the situation. If the landlord has not been paid, the failure of the rental cannot be explained as a simple scheduling or organizational glitch. The matter becomes much more serious, because it raises the question of what happened to the amount paid in advance by the tenant.
The significance of this version lies not only in the fact that it directly contradicts the agency. Its importance lies in the fact that it shifts the focus of the proceedings to a very specific legal issue. If someone received money with the obligation to deliver it to a third party and that third party claims not to have received it, the analysis moves beyond the civil realm and begins to take on potential criminal significance. From that point on, the investigation must focus on accurately reconstructing the path of that money.
The version provided by the real estate agency
The agency disputed this. It claimed that it had indeed delivered the money to the landlord and provided a copy of a receipt to substantiate that alleged delivery. That was its initial line of defense. If the amount had been properly transferred or paid, the situation would be viewed differently, and other reasons for the lease’s failure would need to be examined.
However, the owner denied having signed that document and claimed that he had never received any payment. That contradiction lies at the heart of the proceedings. If the receipt was authentic and the delivery took place, the legal assessment would be one thing. If the document did not reflect reality and the money never reached its destination, the hypothesis of embezzlement gained clear weight. That is why the complaint was not filed as a generic claim, but as a criminal action based on specific facts and a fundamental contradiction regarding the destination of the money.
When a real estate dispute can amount to misappropriation
Not every issue arising from a real estate sale, lease, or brokerage transaction constitutes a crime. Often, the issue is a breach of contract, mismanagement, or a civil dispute that must be resolved through other means. The difference lies in the purpose for which the money was intended and the specific obligation assumed by the recipient. If a person or company receives a sum of money to deliver it to a third party or to use it for a specific purpose and fails to do so, the elements of misappropriation may be present.
This means that the analysis does not depend solely on whether the client feels wronged. It depends on whether the money was earmarked for a specific purpose and whether the recipient acted merely as a manager, intermediary, or custodian of that amount. When that obligation to deliver exists and the money does not reach its recipient, the proceedings must examine whether it was a simple breach of contract or a genuine misappropriation into the recipient’s assets.
The Importance of Documentary Evidence
In a proceeding of this nature, documentation is crucial. Bank transfers, supporting documents, contracts, messages, emails, reservations, receipts, and any other documents related to the transaction make it possible to accurately reconstruct what happened. Without that documentary basis, the case risks being reduced to a clash of versions that hinders the progress of the investigation.
That is why, when handling a lawsuit for misappropriation in the real estate sector, the first crucial step is to organize all the evidence and determine the exact role of each party involved. It is not enough to say that payment was made. It is necessary to specify to whom the payment was made, for what purpose, under what conditions, and what the specific obligation was regarding that amount. It is this reconstruction that provides the legal basis for moving the case from civil to criminal proceedings.
The difference between a mere civil dispute and a crime
A civil dispute may result in a financial claim, a contractual settlement, or compensation, but it does not always warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings. Misappropriation requires something more. It requires that the person who received the money was obligated to return it or deliver it to a third party and, instead of doing so, kept it or used it for a purpose other than what was agreed upon.
In this case, the legal debate does not revolve around an ambiguous interpretation of a contract, but rather around a much more specific issue. The client paid the rent for a residence. The landlord claims he did not receive it. The agency says he did pay and provides a receipt whose authenticity is in question. It is this combination of facts that gives the case clear criminal relevance and justifies the actions taken by our firm.
The complaint filed by our criminal defense attorneys
In light of the owner’s account and the existence of a document whose signature was in dispute, a criminal complaint was filed against the head of the real estate company for alleged misappropriation. The complaint was neither an impulsive reaction nor a mere procedural formality. It was a technical decision aimed at initiating specific proceedings and placing the dispute on the level it truly deserved in light of the existing evidence.
A well-drafted complaint serves several purposes at once. It presents the facts in chronological order, establishes the legal position of the injured party, identifies the intended use of the funds, describes the discrepancy between the agency’s account and the owner’s account, and requests an investigation to clarify the destination of the funds. Furthermore, in cases like this, it allows work to begin immediately on the future civil liability arising from the crime, which is often just as important as the criminal aspect.
Why a simple financial claim wasn't enough
When there is reasonable evidence that the money was not used for the agreed-upon purpose and there is a possible forgery in the document intended to justify the transfer, limiting the action to a civil claim for monetary damages is insufficient. The aggrieved party has the right to a criminal investigation into whether the amount was actually delivered or whether it was misappropriated.
In this context, the criminal proceedings are not an overreaction, but rather a response to the nature of the alleged acts. It is not merely a matter of recovering a sum of money. It is a matter of determining whether someone received money for a specific purpose and kept it for themselves, thereby causing financial harm and thwarting a clearly defined real estate transaction.
The true purpose of the legal action
From a strategic standpoint, the lawsuit had two objectives. The first was to prompt a thorough investigation into the whereabouts of the money and the authenticity of the receipt provided by the agency. The second was to lay the groundwork so that any civil liability arising from the proceedings would not be rendered meaningless if the facts were proven.
That second objective is essential. In practice, a criminal conviction can lose much of its value for the victim if there is no real means of recovery. For this reason, from the early stages, efforts focused not only on the direct perpetrator but also on the potential liability of the franchisor as a secondary civil defendant.
The Status of a Franchisee and Its Legal Implications
The legal proceedings initiated at the request of our criminal defense attorneys revealed that the agency in question was operating as a franchisee of a major multinational real estate agency. This was acknowledged by the defendant himself and was also evident from the documentation submitted in the proceedings. This fact, which from the outside might seem purely business-related, has significant legal implications in terms of civil liability.
When a local office operates under an established brand, within a defined business system, and presents to customers the appearance of being part of a larger structure, the franchisor’s vicarious liability cannot simply be dismissed. Especially when that structure has been decisive in building customer trust and facilitating the collection of the money paid.
Why franchising isn't a minor issue
In many legal proceedings, there is a tendency to believe that only the individual or the specific company that received the money matters. However, in business practice, the presence of a franchise directly influences consumer confidence. The customer is not simply dealing with an isolated office. They are dealing with a company that presents itself under a specific brand, a specific image, and a specific business network.
This means that the higher-level business structure cannot be ignored when examining the civil consequences of the crime. If the injured party entered into a contract under the guise of a well-known and solvent real estate network, and if the office was operating under that guise, the claim for vicarious liability acquires a basis that must be assessed by the court.
The connection between brand, representation, and customer trust
The issue is not merely one of advertising. It is not a matter of a company using a well-known logo. The question is whether the conduct toward the customer took place under a sufficient appearance of representation or integration to justify that, in the event of a conviction and non-payment by the direct perpetrator, the franchisor should be held vicariously liable.
In this case, the documentation provided supported precisely that connection. The agency under investigation did not operate as a business entirely separate from the franchisor. Rather, it operated within a recognizable structure, using a commercial identity and presenting itself in a manner that was relevant for purposes of civil liability.
The inclusion of the franchisor as a secondary civilly liable party
The most significant procedural issue in this case was the motion filed by our attorneys to have the franchisor brought into the criminal proceedings as a secondary civilly liable party. That motion was granted by the court and upheld by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which represents a major breakthrough for the plaintiff’s case.
The court’s ruling is very clear. If it is ultimately proven that the franchised real estate agent misappropriated the money paid by our client, he or she will be held liable as the perpetrator of the crime and will bear civil liability arising from that conduct. However, if the franchisee agency fails to pay, the franchisor may be held secondarily liable in civil court as part of the criminal proceedings themselves. This significantly strengthens the actual chances of obtaining compensation.
What does this decision mean for the aggrieved party?
For the customer, this decision is not merely a technical matter with no practical significance. It is a financial safeguard. Following the reported incidents, the agency under investigation closed its offices, raising reasonable doubt about its actual financial capacity to pay a potential judgment. If the case were to proceed solely against the franchisee, the plaintiff could secure a favorable judgment but face enormous difficulties in collecting the award.
Bringing in a more financially sound company changes that situation. It does not automatically guarantee the outcome of the proceedings, but it does provide much stronger protection for the enforceability of any future civil judgment. In practical terms, this means that the case is focused not only on investigating the crime, but also on ensuring the practical enforceability of any eventual court ruling.
Why the Public Prosecutor's Office supported the request
The Public Prosecutor’s Office’s support for the request made by our attorneys is no coincidence. It is consistent with the logic of the proceedings and the role of vicarious civil liability in criminal proceedings. If there is evidence supporting the significant involvement of a higher-level entity and if, furthermore, the directly responsible party may not be solvent, the protection of the injured party requires that this inclusion be assessed from the preliminary investigation phase onward.
This prevents the proceedings from being artificially limited to a person who, in the worst-case scenario, may be unable to compensate for the damage. From a legal standpoint, the decision is consistent with the purpose of civil liability arising from a crime, which is not limited to a guilty verdict but also seeks to provide financial compensation to the victim.
Section 120 of the Penal Code and its application to this case
The legal basis for vicarious civil liability is found in Article 120 of the Penal Code. This provision governs the circumstances under which certain individuals or legal entities may be held civilly liable for crimes committed by others, when the prescribed legal conditions are met. The aim is not to shift criminal liability to someone who did not commit the act, but rather to ensure compensation for the damage when the directly responsible party fails to do so.
In a case such as this, the application of Article 120 requires an examination of the relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee, the manner in which the franchisee interacted with the customer, the contractual documents signed, and the degree of representation that was effectively established in practice. When the franchisee operates as an integral part of the franchisor’s commercial structure and is presented as such in documents and in dealings with the customer, the claim for vicarious liability gains a solid legal basis.
Acting on behalf of the franchisor
Our argument was based on the fact that the franchisee was acting on behalf of the franchisor, as evidenced by the documentation and the way the transaction was presented to the client. That conduct under a common brand, structure, and corporate appearance cannot be ignored when it comes time to seek civil remedies for a crime committed in that context.
The purpose of this argument is not to artificially prolong the proceedings. Rather, it is to prevent a business structure that benefits from a commercial network and the trust associated with its brand from being completely sidelined when one of its operators causes financial harm of a criminal nature and, furthermore, becomes insolvent or goes out of business.
The practical significance of secondary civil liability
Subsidiary civil liability is of enormous practical value because it transforms a potential judgment into a ruling that is truly beneficial to the injured party. Without this mechanism, in many cases the injured party would have to file new lawsuits or accept that, despite having won in court, recovering the money would be very difficult or impossible.
The relevant legal provision can be found directly in the Penal Code. Its application to cases such as this demonstrates that criminal proceedings should not only serve to determine liability, but also to effectively protect the victim’s right to compensation.
The true significance of this court ruling
For our client, a German national, this court ruling is clearly significant. Following the reported incidents, the agency under investigation closed its offices, which leads one to reasonably believe that its financial situation may be precarious. In that context, even a future criminal conviction might not be enough to reimburse the victim for the lost funds and damages suffered.
That is why ensuring that a far more financially sound company is brought into the proceedings as a secondary civilly liable party is a decisive step. It is neither a minor detail nor a procedural technicality with no practical significance. It is a genuine measure to protect the injured party’s right to be compensated for their damages.
The difference between winning the case and collecting the money
In legal practice, there is a very clear difference between obtaining a favorable ruling and ensuring that the ruling is enforced financially. A case may be legally won, yet the client may still be left without payment if the party directly responsible lacks sufficient assets or has gone missing.
That is why, in cases like these, the strategy cannot focus solely on proving the crime. From the very beginning, it must include a thorough analysis of the defendant’s financial standing, the corporate structure involved, and the avenues for securing actual—rather than merely theoretical—compensation.
What this case demonstrates from a procedural standpoint
This approach demonstrates that a well-structured criminal defense goes beyond simply making accusations. It organizes the facts, selects the evidence, anticipates future issues, and safeguards the client’s financial interests from the preliminary investigation phase onward. It is this approach that ensures the process makes complete sense to the client.
It also shows that in the real estate sector, it is not always enough to look only at the local office or the specific agent. Sometimes the true legal scope of the case becomes apparent when one examines the sales network, the franchise, the projected representation, and the civil liability that may arise from that framework of operations.
The Opinion of Carlos Baño Abogados
Proceedings for misappropriation require a comprehensive understanding of the issue. A criminal investigation is essential, but it is not enough if future civil liability is not protected from the outset. When the directly responsible party may lack solvency, the intervention of a franchisor or a higher-level corporate entity can be the key to ensuring that the injured party actually recovers their money.
At Carlos Baño Abogados, we handle these types of cases by combining criminal analysis, evidentiary strategy, and asset protection for our clients. It is not just a matter of reporting serious offenses, but of ensuring that the judicial response has practical utility and allows for effective redress for the harm suffered. If you need advice on a similar matter, you can review our services at Lawyers in Alicante.
You can also visit us directly at our office. Find us on Google Maps.
