Chris O'Hare
Convicted Fraudster warning
Please be aware of any dealings with Chris O'Hare.
Please see link to banned directorship:
Full name Christopher Peter O’Hare.He is known to work within the property sector between the United Kingdom and Spain, using companies Ellesmere Capital and Sustain Capital. He is thought to be living in and around Marbella, southern Spain.
Link to his directorships (public information):
Link to his LinkedIn page (public information):
Background:
O’Hare has previously been convicted in a court of law, serving four years in jail for a 4 million Euro fraud from a Dubai fund (see link below on this page for public information on the case that saw O’Hare convicted, as well as links to O’Hare’s legal appeal – which was denied by the court).
After being released, O’Hare went on to re-offend by using fraudulent contracts and projects – essentially embezzling (in legal terms, unjust enrichment) large sums of money for professional fees for projects and development sites that it appears he did not intend to use the money for. I’m personally a victim of dealings with O’Hare after his conviction and find it very important to warn you of dealings with him as I do not want anyone to experience the same thing I went through. I have personally had just under £40,000 embezzled from O’Hare. The same thing happened to another party I know of; in her case it was circa £80,000 embezzled. Note that O’Hare has not as of yet been convicted of either matter mentioned above, largely due to quoted legal costs involved in pursuing the matter (which could outweigh the initial loss of money).
How O’Hare operates:
Based on my personal experience, I will now share how O’Hare has operated. In my case, O’Hare drafted contracts, claiming to be a fund manager with direct access to a 100 million Euro fund, intended to be used for projects within the property sector. O’Hare used the contracts to secure investment funds under the contractual obligation to be used to pay various standard upfront project fees, on the basis that his fund would cover the remaining funding of the project. However, these fees were never paid to the relevant professionals, or at least not in full. Instead, it appears O’Hare pocketed the money for personal use outside the contract terms. Legally speaking, this is unjust enrichment.
O’Hare also drafted contracts based on development sites and properties that he does not own, have any connection with, and most importantly – any security on as the asset or vehicle to take investors’ funds. This was what happened in the case I know of where circa £80,000 was embezzled.
It is clear to me that some of the bank statements that were provided by O’Hare to demonstrate proof of funds of up to £10mn, were falsified statements. I do not hold the information on how he did this, but it is possible that a software editing tool was used. This may have been done to make projects look legitimate to investors who would go on to think that O’Hare has the funding stated in the contracts, so please be vary of documents O’Hare may provide.
Based on the personal experience of losing my own money, I strongly encourage you not to do business with O’Hare at any cost. Note that he works alongside two colleagues, Matthew Bush and Matthew Beeson. I cannot personally comment on their involvement in any of his business. I will only mention that they were working together as employees/partners with O’Hare in the Sustain Capital office in southern Spain, at the time I was dealing with him.
Here is the English translation for O’Hares appeal against his 4 year prison sentence
You can view the original version here;
https://supremo.vlex.es/vid/735624909
The names have been changed due to Spanish data protection laws but the company name, Birdhill Estates SL is given. O’Hare and his ex-wife has listed as directors of the company which you can see here;
http://www.infocif.es/ficha-empresa/birdhill-estates-sl
Anyone needing confirmation of this could also contact Sean Kelleher who is the CEO at Mondial in Dubai. He was a director of the Lighthouse Mutual Fund that O’Hare stole 4 million Euros from hence his 4 year prison sentence;
sean.kelleher@mondialdubai.com
Or go the Facebook victims page;
https://www.facebook.com/Lighthouse-MF-Victims-686558541392165/community/
SUPREME COURT
Criminal Chamber
Car no. 831/2018
Car date: 05/31/2018
Type of procedure: RESOURCE CASACION (P)
Procedure number: 10216/2018
Failure / Agreement:
Speaker: Excmo. Mr. Miguel Colmenero Menendez de Luarca
Provenance: Provincial Court of Malaga (Section 9)
Lawyer of the Administration of Justice: Ilma. Mrs. María Josefa Lobón del Río
Transcribed by: MLSC / BRV
Note:
CASACION APPEAL (P) no .: 10216/2018
Speaker: Excmo. Mr. Miguel Colmenero Menendez de Luarca
Lawyer of the Administration of Justice: Ilma. Mrs. María Josefa Lobón del Río
SUPREME COURT
Criminal Chamber
Car no. 831/2018
Excmos. Mr.
D. Manuel Marchena Gomez, president
D. Miguel Colmenero Menendez de Luarca
D. Antonio del Moral Garcia
In Madrid, May 31, 2018.
The Hon. Mr. Miguel Colmenero Menendez de Luarca.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
FIRST
By the Provincial Court of Malaga (Section 9), in the Chamber Roll No. 1109/2017, arising from the Abbreviated Procedure 10/2013 of the Examining Court No. 5 of Marbella, a judgment dated January 24, 2018 was issued, in which operative part the following was agreed:
“Condemn Ramón, as the criminally responsible perpetrator of a continuing crime of misappropriation, already defined, without the concurrence of modifying circumstances of criminal responsibility, to the penalty of four years in prison, special disqualification for the right to passive suffrage during the time duration of the sentence and a fine of ten months with a daily quota of twenty euros, also condemning him to pay half of the procedural costs caused, including in this proportion those corresponding to the individual prosecution, having to compensate LIGHTHOUSE MUTUAL FUND in the amount of € 4,076,613.96 with the legal interests of article 576 LEC , declaring the subsidiary civil liability of BIRDHILL ESTETES, SL ” .
SECOND
Against said Judgment, an appeal was filed by Ramón, through the presentation of the corresponding brief by the Procurator of the Courts, Mrs. Silvia Ayuso Gallego.
The appellant alleges as grounds for the appeal:
- – Violation of the law of article 849.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law , due to an error in the evaluation of the evidence.
- – Infringement of constitutional precept, of article 852 of the Criminal Procedure Law , in relation to article 5.4 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power , article 24.1 and 2 of the Constitution , regarding effective judicial protection without defenselessness and presumption of innocence.
- – Breach of form, based on article 851.3 of the Criminal Procedure Law .
- – Under the protection of article 852 of the Criminal Procedure Law , for infringement of article 24 of the Constitution , of the right to effective judicial protection without defenselessness (article 24.1), to the ordinary judge predetermined by law, to a process without delay undue and with all the guarantees, the means of proof and the presumption of innocence ( art. 24.2) . All this in relation to article 5.4 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power .
THIRD
In the procedure corresponding to the substantiation of the appeal, the Public Prosecutor opposed it.
BEDROOM
In accordance with the distribution rules approved by the Governing Chamber of this Supreme Court, the Speaker of this resolution is the Hon. Mr. Magistrate Mr. Miguel Colmenero Menendez de Luarca.
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW
In attention to the content of arts. 901 bis a) and 901 bis b) of the LECrim , it is necessary to resolve first the third reason of the appeal in which a breach of form is alleged.
FIRST
A) In the third motive of the appeal, the appellant alleges breach of form, based on article 851.3 of the Criminal Procedure Law .
Complaint that, as the contested judgment itself recognizes the diligence of evidence consisting of the accounting of the defendant’s company in Spain, it has not been viewed and, therefore, neither analyzed nor assessed.
The Court required the manager Gema to provide the accounts of the defendant’s company in Spain. The aforementioned manager provided the accounting on a CD. But the sentence under appeal affirms “that it has been materially impossible” to view it. The defense stated in the oral trial that it could be viewed and attached a brief expert report to the notice of this appeal with a few simple steps to do so.
It considers that if the accounting of the defendant’s company in Spain had been assessed, it would have been evidenced that, with greater or lesser success and / or fortune, the defendant managed his business according to his best knowledge and understanding and without any misappropriation. Unfortunately the “speculative bubble” collapsed the economy and many lost their jobs, their homes, their companies and their investments.
B) This Chamber has been constantly affirming that the omissionate inconsistency is admissible in those cases in which the Court does not rule on the content of the claim, silencing essential aspects for the proper qualification of the facts, without prejudice to the possibility of an implicit dismissal regarding those questions that have not been accepted by the decision-making body. This duty to attend and resolve all claims that have been brought to the process in a timely and temporary manner, is closely linked to the right to effective judicial protection and not to suffer defenselessness.However, the jurisprudence itself has made it clear that the true scope of this ground for challenge is not that of the omission of factual elements, but that of legal claims, so that the failure to find or Narrative inclusion of those factual data that the parties want to see reflected in the sentence, the lack of which would have to be integrated, where appropriate, by way of art. 849.2º of the Criminal Procedure Law “.
C) The matching requirements for said appraisal are not met. The appellant refers to the lack of assessment of the accounting, but the truth is that it could not be assessed as it was impossible to view the CD that its manager contributed to the cause.
In any event, there is no record that the Court has omitted any statement on the proposed evidence and in reality what the appellant raises is a factual question and not a legal question. What the appellant actually shows is his discrepancy with the conviction, considering the evidence insufficient and the defense evidence not having been properly appreciated. But this will be analyzed in the corresponding Legal Reasoning, to which we refer.
For all the above, the reason is inadmissible, in accordance with art. 885.1 of the Criminal Procedure Law .
Second
A) The appellant alleges in the first reason for his appeal, infringement of the law, of article 849.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law , due to an error in the evaluation of the evidence.
It claims that the Court has not assessed the “strategic consulting agreement” signed by the parties involved in the events, represented by their respective companies. In the aforementioned contract, which is incorporated in the resource in a complete manner, it is agreed that BIRDHILL ESTATES appoints LIGHTHOUSE FUND as an independent and exclusive consultancy authorized to enter into negotiations with related parties, with the purpose of executing material transactions and contracts, as well as promoting the investments and services of BIRDHILL ESTATES (hereinafter “Strategic Consulting Services”).Therefore, BIRDHILL ESTATES, represented by the appellant, sold both real estate, where the end customer paid an amount of money in exchange for a real estate property, and real estate investments, where the end customer invested an amount of money in exchange for a return. after a while. AND LIGHTHOUSE FUND, represented by Mr. Carmelo, was obliged to sell both the real estate and the real estate investments of BIRDHILL ESTATES.
This agreement is only understood in the socio-economic context of the “speculative bubble”. Two very professional real estate investment companies, registered in tax havens, were forcing themselves into an agreement that, in the current socioeconomic context, is unthinkable, but which, in the context of the “speculative bubble”, was understood.
BIRDHILL ESTATES could resort to financing from a bank, the LIGHTHOUSE FUND or both, and what is clear is that this system worked if the real estate market grew above 29% every two years and the system collapsed.
In conclusion, it reiterates that the Court has improperly assessed the “strategic consulting agreement”, which is the basis for resolving a commercial dispute between companies registered in tax havens (British Virgin Islands and Delaware), which agreed to resolve their disputes governed by law from England and Wales in England and the United Kingdom.
B) The jurisprudence of this Chamber (among others STS 599/2016 , Appeal No. 1375/2015, dated 07/07/2016) requires that for the violation of the Law to be considered, under the provisions of art. 849.2 of the LECrim, due to an error in the assessment of the evidence, the following requirements must be met: a) that such an error of fact is invoked in the assessment of the evidence, so that it has sufficient significance to modify the meaning of the judgment, otherwise we would be in the presence of a simple correction of peripheral or complementary elements; b) that the documents on which the appeal is based, incorporated into the case, with express designation of those individuals from which the error suffered can be unequivocally deduced, are clearly cited; c) that such documents are literosufficient, that is, that they are sufficient by themselves to reach the supporting conclusion that is sought, evidencing the object of evidence without the need to resort to other evidentiary sources or complex argumentative developments; d) that its evidentiary efficacy has not been distorted or contradicted thanks to other evidence that also acts in the case; e) that the appellant carries out, at least, a minimum argumentative justification as the cause of the challenge; f) that the appellant proposes a new wording of the “factum” derived from the error of fact reported in the motive; and g) that such rectification of the “factum” is not an end in itself, but a means to create a premise other than the one established and, consequently, to make possible a different legal subsumption from the one being challenged. f) that the appellant proposes a new wording of the “factum” derived from the error of fact reported in the motive; and g) that such rectification of the “factum” is not an end in itself, but a means to create a premise other than the one established and, consequently, to make possible a different legal subsumption from the one being challenged. f) that the appellant proposes a new wording of the “factum” derived from the error of fact reported in the motive; and g) that such rectification of the “factum” is not an end in itself, but a means to create a premise other than the one established and, consequently, to make possible a different legal subsumption from the one being challenged.
On the other hand, the jurisprudence of this Chamber ( STS 165/2016, of March 2) has considered, regarding the expert evidence, the possibility of its appreciation, in those cases in which, there is a single opinion or several absolutely coincident and not By providing the Hearing with other evidence on the same factual elements, the Court has considered the opinion or concurrent opinions as the sole basis of the facts declared proven, but incorporating them into said statement in an incomplete, fragmentary, mutilated or contradictory way, so that significantly alter its original meaning.And also when, with only said opinion or concurrent opinions and no other evidence on the same factual point, the Court of Instance has reached conclusions that diverge from those of the aforementioned reports, without stating the reasons that justify it or without an explanation. reasonable ( SSTS 168/2008, of 29-4 ; 755/2008, of 26-11 ; 703/2010) .
C) C. The agreement cited by the appellant does not undoubtedly prove that the facts were not carried out as described in the Proven Facts. It is ineffective as it is not sufficiently literous and it does not demonstrate by itself that the facts declared proven by the Court are uncertain.
A different matter is that the appellant does not share the assessment that the court has made of the document. But this is alien to this appeal, so we refer in full to the following Legal Reasoning in which we will analyze the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction.
For all the foregoing, the motive is inadmissible in accordance with the provision of article 885 No. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law .
third
A) The appellant alleges in the second reason for the appeal, violation of constitutional precept, of article 852 of the Criminal Procedure Law , in relation to article 5.4 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power , article 24.1 and 2 of the Constitution , regarding effective judicial protection without defenselessness and the presumption of innocence.
It considers that the Court has omitted to analyze emails between the companies that prove the complex commercial negotiations and that the LIGHTHOUSE FUND has legal advice of the highest international level. He understands that this has rendered him defenseless.
In the fourth plea, he alleges, under the protection of article 852 of the Criminal Procedure Law , an infringement of article 24 of the Constitution , of the right to effective judicial protection without defenselessness (article 24.1), to the ordinary judge predetermined by law, to a process without undue delay and with all the guarantees, the means of proof and the presumption of innocence ( art. 24.2) . All this in relation to article 5.4 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power .
It affects maintaining that the Court did not correctly assess the “strategic consulting agreement”, nor have it assessed the e-mails sent by the parties and not having viewed the company’s accounting, has produced defenselessness and nullity of right. It claims that the judgment under appeal has not known the merits of the case and has limited itself to the surface, making a simplistic interpretation of the facts when it comes to complex real estate deals at the international level, with chains of companies operating in different countries. The judgment under appeal is limited to computing the funds received by the appellant from the private prosecution, assessing what was invested and what was appropriate, without considering the costs of operating the businesses, financial costs and tax costs.
Complaint that the right to an ordinary judge predetermined by law has been violated, since the contract required to resolve conflicts by the arbitration system in England and Wales. The complaint filed by LIGHTHOUSE FUND has been a pressure tool to resolve a commercial dispute, but the agreed jurisdiction was binding and determined the judge who should resolve the disputes.
B) This Chamber has held in a reiterated jurisprudence ( STS 475/2016 , Appeal No. 296/2016, dated 06/02/2016), that the right to the presumption of innocence recognized in art. 24 CE implies that any person accused of a crime must be considered innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the Law, and, therefore, after a fair process ( art. 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ; art. 6.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and art. 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), which supposes that a probationary activity has been developed in accordance with the constitutional and legal provisions, and therefore valid, whose incriminating content, rationally valued in accordance with the rules of logic, the maximums of experience and the scientific knowledge, is sufficient to disprove that initial presumption, insofar as it allows the Court to reach an objective certainty, insofar as it is generally acceptable, about the reality of the events that occurred and the participation of the accused, so that based on the itself can declare them proven, excluding the existence of doubts that can be qualified as reasonable. The cassational control is aimed at verifying these extremes, validity and sufficiency of the evidence and rationality in its assessment, without implying a new assessment of the probative material, so that it is not possible that the Court of cassation, which has not witnessed the evidence personal practices practiced in plenary, substitute the one carried out by the Court of instance before which they were practiced.
It is not a question, therefore, of comparing the evidentiary assessment made by the Court and that held by the appellant or any other possible one, but, more limited, to verify the regularity of the evidence used and the rationality of the argumentative process.
C) The Proven Facts describe that the accused Ramón was joint and several administrator, together with his wife Sabina, of the Spanish company BIRDHILL ESTATES, SL, incorporated in Marbella (Málaga) on September 26, 2001 and apparently registered in the State of Delaware (USA), whose corporate purpose was the acquisition by any title of rural and urban properties, their reconstruction and administration, possession, exploitation and leasing of such assets and their total or partial sale, among others.
LIGHTHOUSE MUTUAL FUND is a company domiciled in the British Virgin Islands, whose corporate purpose is investment in the sale of real estate.
On March 29, 2006, both companies, the first represented in said act by the accused and the second by Carmelo, entered into a contract called “Strategic Consultation Agreement” by virtue of which LIGHTHOUSE would invest in different real estate projects in which it was operating. BIRDHILL ESTATES, committing itself to reimburse the amounts invested increased by 12%, which was collected in promissory notes that would be executable two years after their issuance.
For this, the defendant opened in the name of the company that represented three current accounts in the SOLBANK Entity of Marbella, where the LIGHTHOUSE money transfers would be made in order to invest them in the different projects offered by BIRDHILL.
Said sums were delivered by LIGHTHOUSE, between May 8, 2006 and June 29, 2007, for the specific purpose of investing the defendant in the following real estate projects:
- – Promotion “La Cala Golf”, in Mijas (Málaga). In this case, the amount invested by the complainant amounted to € 1,486,750.
To carry out the promotion, the company represented by the defendant acquired six registered properties for a price of € 2,059,000, which was paid through a mortgage loan for the amount of € 994,000 granted by the SOLBANK entity, while the rest, 1,065 € .000, was paid with what LIGHTHOUSE had contributed. The mortgage granted by SOLBANK was foreclosed upon failure to pay the amount of the debt by BIRDHOUSE, which lost said properties.
As for the rest of the amount delivered by the complainant, € 421,750, it was appropriated by the defendant for his own benefit. - – Promotion “La Cala Hills Villas”, in Mijas (Málaga). For this promotion the complainant contributed € 2,085,000, of which the defendant allocated € 930,136.04 to the acquisition of the properties on which it was going to be carried out, being the registers of the Property Registry No. 3 of Mijas (Málaga), which were acquired for a price of € 4,000,000, with the remainder being paid with a mortgage loan that had to be executed due to non-payment, losing said properties.
Likewise, a mortgage was granted to BIRDHILL for the acquisition of said parcels, being foreclosed for non-payment, for which it lost said properties.
Ramón took over, for his own benefit, the rest of the LIGHTHOUSE investment, amounting to € 1,154,863.96. - Promotion “Mill of the Flour” in Campillos (Malaga). In this case, the amount invested amounted to € 2,500,000, which the defendant made his own with the intention of obtaining an illicit enrichment, not allocating any of the proceeds to the acquisition of said property where the real estate development should have been carried out.
In the legal reasoning, the sentence under appeal explains the result of the means of evidence practiced in the plenary session and the deductive judgment through which it forms its conviction.
Regarding the accreditation of the appellant’s participation, the Court had:- – The statement of the legal representative of LIGHTHOUSE MUTUAL FUND, Carmelo, in the sense of the Proven Facts. Regarding the “Strategic Consultation Agreement”, he confirmed that, by virtue of it, LIGHTHOUSE would invest in different real estate projects in which it claimed to be operating BIRDHILL ESTATES, committing itself to reimburse the amounts invested increased by 12%, which were collected in different promissory notes that the defendant delivered each time he received the different items, which are attached to the proceedings. In each case, the specific purpose to which the accused should allocate the sums received was established, thus assuming the obligation to apply them for that purpose.
- – The documentary evidence of the different aspects described. The Court specifies that the bank transfers indicated the name of the promotion to which they corresponded. It also cites that in the documents called “Investments propasal form” (translated by the interpreter as “investment proposal forms”), which correspond to various deliveries made, the promotion to which they should be applied is specified.
On the other hand, even though the Court considers that the so-called “Strategic Consulting Agreement” is quite confusing, “surely due to the legal culture of its signatories, very different from the Spanish one”, of which there is no doubt that the amounts that LIGHTHOUSE was delivered successively, they were specifically destined to concrete and specific real estate developments, in which Ramón undertook to apply them.
The defendant alleged that in many of the promotions the investment, although it was true that it arrived, did so late and for this reason the operation was frustrated.Thus, specifically in the promotion of the “Flour Mill”, which was supposedly to be developed in Campillos, consisting of the construction of 107 apartments, although the defendant admitted that he received € 2,500,000, even if he said “no it was agreed very well and that the money received would be used to pay commissions and to the real estate company “, the Court considered that not only did it not prove it in any way, but that its version was contradicted by the testimony of Hipolito (a lawyer by profession, there being no doubt of his impartiality, among other reasons for being a partner in the office of the defense attorney), who reported that, apart from advising the defendant at the time, in the personal sphere, he turned out to be a co-owner of an undivided estate from a inheritance,on which Ramón said the promotion was going to be carried out.He confirmed that there were in his day deals with the same to sell it, but that the operation was not finalized, nor was any document signed, nor was any signal received. Not remembering that anyone in his family received any commission. From this, the Court deduces that it was not an alleged delay in the investment that prevented the development of the real estate development, but that the defendant’s company, in reality, never owned the farm where it said it was going to be carried out, nor did he have any rights over it, maintaining only a few deals that did not come to fruition. Therefore, it concludes that it did not allocate the amount received, the 2,500,000 euros, to the purpose for which it was delivered.
Regarding the statement of the accused that he reached an agreement with the complainant company and that they agreed that the money would be applied to a promotion that was going to be or was being done in Poland, Mr. Carmelo clarified that this had nothing to do with the investments of his company in Spain and nothing is said in the record that allows us to deduce that the accused was authorized to apply the money in that country. To this must be added that, according to the defense witness Filomena, a tax advisor at the time of the accused, stated in the plenary session, she was not aware that he had applied any amount of what he received to investments abroad.
As for the other two promotions, “La Cala Golf” and “La Cala Hills Villas”, in Mijas (Malaga), it is clear that the defendant applied part of the money received to the purpose for which it was delivered, specifically, to pay part of the price of the land, but his claim that the rest was also invested in said developments (payment of architects, development expenses, loans, commissions, etc.), did not prove it.
The Court also did not grant him credibility when he alleged that he was not required to settle the accounts. It is clear that the complainant tried unsuccessfully on numerous occasions to contact the defendant at the address they were aware of, by various means, without success, until he was detained in the Czech Republic by virtue of the European Arrest Order issued by the investigating court. .
Therefore, the Court ruled out that it could be a pending settling of accounts, but that it was a “flight of the person who should have justified the destination of the money received, since it was required to do so on numerous occasions. The Court concludes that the accused He limited himself to affirming that he gave the money the agreed destination, without providing any documentation, despite the fact that more than eleven years have passed since its receipt, and adds that an attempt was made to view the accounting, which apparently contains a CD provided by the tax advisor of the accused, which was ” materially impossible”.
Thus, if the defendant received the amounts indicated and did not apply them to the destination entrusted to him, not offering any reasonable explanation that allows knowing the destination he gave the money, the Court deduces that he applied it to his private uses with the intention of profit. Therefore, the facts declared proven are legally constitutive of a crime of misappropriation foreseen and punished in article 252 , in relation to article 250.5º of the Penal Code .It can be affirmed that there are completely different and incompatible versions of facts, but determining the greater or lesser credibility of them corresponds to the Court of Instance, and only an arbitrary or irrational conclusion could generate the cassational censorship of the evidence against the charge. This is not the case in this case, as there has been sufficient evidence against the appellant, regardless of the fact that he does not share the assessment of the documentary and personal evidence made by the Sentencing Court.The testimony of the witnesses, together with the documentary carried out, has been sufficient and skillful evidence to destroy the presumption of innocence; the Trial Chamber having explained in a sufficient and motivated manner why it granted such a condition to the aforementioned statements, compared to those of the appellant.
The Court of Instance has condemned with sufficient evidence, of charge and obtained in accordance with the principles that legitimize the jurisdictional activity.
The jurisdiction of the Spanish Courts is indisputable given the place of commission of the facts, being irrelevant for this purpose that it had been agreed between the parties signing the agreement that commercial issues should be elucidated in the foreign jurisdictions indicated.
Therefore, the reasons incur in cause of inadmissibility of article 885.1º of the Criminal Procedure Law .
Consequently, the following operative part should be adopted:
THE CHAMBER AGREES: THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR THE ADMISSION of the appeal for cassation formalized by the appellant, against the sentence handed down by the Provincial Court of origin, in the case referenced in the heading of this resolution.
The costs of the appeal are imposed on the appellant.
This is how it is agreed, sent and signed by the Hon. Messrs. Magistrates indicated in the margin.