The Debrecen District Court pronounced a verdict on October 11, 2021, in a case in which four defendants deceived five victims who received nothing in return for their money.
The court charged the first-degree defendant with 5 felony fraud offenses, of which 1 remained in a regular trial, a second-degree defendant with 3 ordinary fraud offenses, and a third- and fourth-degree defendant with an accused offense as an accomplice and an accomplice. Therefore, the first-degree defendant was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months in prison, the second-degree defendant to 2 years and 6 months in prison, and the third-degree defendant, as a special recidivist, to 2 years in prison. The fourth-degree defendant was sentenced by the district court to 1 year 6 months in prison, but his execution was suspended for 2 years probation. The first, second and third-degree defendants were barred by the court from practicing public affairs for 3 years.
The Debrecen District Court ruled on the civil law claims of the private parties, which the accused have to pay to them for damages.
During the evidentiary proceedings, the Debrecen District Court established the same factual situation as the indictment. The victim of the first indictment encountered an advertisement on an Internet advertising site in which the second-degree defendant, under the pseudonym, offered an MTZ tractor for sale. On December 18, 2017, the victim inquired about the tractor by phone. He introduced himself under the pseudonym of the second-degree defendant and claimed that he was engaged in farming, wanted to buy a new machine, so he was selling the old one. The defendant also informed the victim that his ad was no longer relevant, as the dealer from whom he was buying the new machine would take over the machine advertised for sale, including its price. The victim continued to see the ad on the Internet on December 20, 2017, so he called the “seller” again and inquired if he still had the tractor. The accused and the victim then agreed that the victim would buy the machine for HUF 2 million, which he transferred to the current account provided by the accused. Following the transfer, the victim called the defendant, who untruely provided the information that the money had not arrived in his account. The victim then called the defendant several times to inquire about the arrival of the money, however, after that only the voicemail was turned on. The victim then went to a settlement called Cserháthaláp, given by the defendant, where the tractor could have been taken over after the money had been transferred. The villagers there informed the victim that the person named by him did not live in the settlement. At a branch in Gyöngyös, the first-degree defendant picked up the money transferred by the victim on 20 December 2017, received HUF 20,000 from it, and handed over the remaining amount to the second-degree defendant.
In four other cases, the crime was committed in a similar way, but the third and fourth defendants in the case were already involved. In one case, for example, third- and fourth-degree defendants introduced themselves to the victim separately by telephone as if they were the mayors of a Borsod settlement, and the tractors for sale were owned by the municipality. According to them, the municipality has applied for new machines, so they want to sell the old ones.
During the evidentiary proceedings, the first- and second-degree defendants were admitted to committing the offenses. The first-degree defendant also testified against the third- and fourth-degree defendants.
The defendants caused nearly HUF 4,700,000 in damage to the five victims by advertising non-existent tractors on the Internet.
Judge Dr. Éva Gervai assessed the convictions as an aggravating circumstance that the defendants had a history of multiple convictions, some were still being prosecuted, three defendants had previously been convicted by the court for internet fraud, and the third-degree defendant was a particularly recidivist.
The judgment of the Debrecen District Court was noted by the prosecutor’s office and the first- and second-degree defendants and their defense counsel, while the third- and fourth-degree defendants and their defense counsel appealed against the decision.
debrecenitorvenyszek.birosag.hu
Picture: illustration.
