Sentenced to two years in prison for an administrator for not informing suppliers of the crisis that was going through his company
Dissolving a society is not an easy step, either personally or legally
JM Barjola. - Dissolving a company is not an easy step, either personally or legally. But in addition, if the legal procedures are not followed, the liquidation of a company may also involve damage to the interests of third parties . Especially, for regular suppliers, on many occasions the first ones affected by the insolvency of their partner.
In this context, a recent sentence has recalled that perpetuating relations with suppliers , hiding the bankruptcy of the company and appearing normalcy, not only implies a behavior of doubtful ethics, but also involves a crime of fraud that can lead to prison sentences.
The resolution in question has been issued by the Provincial Court of Valladolid, in a ruling of October 24 (available for consultation on this link ). In it, the sentence of two years in jail is confirmed for the sole administrator of a company for simulating a solvency situation against third parties, getting goods worth thousands of euros, paying with checks and invoices linked to accounts without funds .
A year of deception
In the case, the court confirms that the accused appeared to be going through a good economic moment in front of other operators in the market, when in fact he knew his lack of liquidity, since he had had the opportunity to access the accounts and check his balance (some were emptied and diverted to a second society).
It is not credible, the TSJ reasons, that all accounting was carried out by an employee, without the partner having any type of intervention or knowledge of the company's financial situation, as the defendant intended to defend.
According to the facts, the situation of false solvency was perpetrated for more than a year, during which time the company acquired goods from up to 11 different suppliers, for sums of between 4,000 to 94,000 euros per contract. On no occasion were suppliers informed of possible future payment problems, and in some cases they even received part of the price, which consisted, in the eyes of the court, in a trick to create a false hope of collection.
The ruling concludes, in view of the damage created for the suppliers (who were suddenly involved in a bankruptcy proceedings ) that what was appropriate was to proceed to its dissolution (as established in article 363.1.e of the Capital Companies Law ) or failing that, declare your contest; In no case continue to operate legally with third parties, much less simulating a solvency that was clearly non-existent, notes the ruling.
Thus, the Hearing condemns the sole administrator to two years in prison for a crime of fraud , provided for in articles 281 and 250.1.5ª of the Criminal Code, corresponding special disqualification for the exercise of passive suffrage, and a fine of 9 months with daily fee of 8 euros. It also condemns you to sponsor civilly with each of the scammed providers.
Likewise, the ruling estimates two more years of imprisonment for the same member for a bankruptcy insolvency proceeding in contest with property lifting ( articles 257 and 258 of the Criminal Code). According to the facts, it is proven that he also tried to alter the company's accounting and divert his assets once the contest was declared.
http://noticias.juridicas.com/actualidad/jurisprudencia/14787-condenado-a-dos-anos-de-prision-un-administrador-por-no-informar-a-los-provedores-de-la-crisis- that-crossed-your-company /