Supreme Court Acquits Consultant in Funds Misuse Case

The Supreme Court has overturned a lower court's conviction of a consultant accused of keeping client funds. The client had provided a provision of funds to establish a commercial company. The Penal Chamber of the court ruled that the elements of the crime had not been sufficiently proven.

The decision hinged on the ambiguity of the financial transaction. The magistrates noted that it was not definitively established whether the funds were strictly allocated for specific administrative tasks, such as notary or registration procedures, or if they were an advance on professional fees. Because of this lack of clarity, the court determined that the case did not belong in the criminal sphere. Instead, the High Court indicated that the matter should be addressed through civil channels if a resolution regarding the funds is still needed.

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling absolving a consultant who had been previously convicted of appropriation indebida (misappropriation). The charges stemmed from a provision of funds received from clients for the purpose of constituting a commercial society. The Penal Chamber has determined that the criminal conduct was not accredited.

In its decision, the High Court emphasized that the evidence did not establish a clear intent to commit a crime. The tribunal stated that the funds in question were not clearly designated for specific procedural obligations. The ruling effectively separates a potential contractual dispute from criminal liability.

The core of the legal analysis focused on the destination of the money provided by the clients. The magistrates pointed out that it is not sufficiently clear whether the funds that were not returned were strictly destined for concrete procedural acts, such as notary or registry fees. Alternatively, the funds could be interpreted as an advance on the consultant's professional fees.

This distinction is critical in determining criminal liability. If the funds were an advance on fees, the failure to return them would be a civil matter. If they were earmarked for specific expenses and were kept, it could constitute a crime. The court found the following possibilities regarding the funds:

• Strictly for administrative expenses (notary/registry).
• An advance on professional fees for the consultant.
• Funds with no clear designation in the record.

Due to the lack of clarity surrounding the funds, the High Court concluded that the existence of misappropriation cannot be appreciated. The tribunal asserted that when the nature of the funds is ambiguous, criminal intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the presumption of innocence stands.

The court explicitly stated that, in this case, the dispute must be resolved in the civil jurisdiction rather than the penal jurisdiction. This means that while the consultant has been cleared of criminal charges, the clients may still pursue a civil lawsuit to recover the funds if they believe there is a contractual breach.

The Supreme Court's decision highlights the strict requirements for proving criminal misappropriation. Without clear evidence that the funds were strictly for specific expenses, the court cannot infer criminal intent. The acquittal reinforces the distinction between professional fee disputes and criminal theft.

The case now returns to the civil sphere, where the original disagreement over the funds can be adjudicated without the threat of criminal penalties. This ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases involving financial provisions for business formation.