[ad_1]
The woman was accused of illegally using her bank card and acquiring someone else’s property for almost 8,000 euros, that is, paying for goods and services and withdrawing money from a bank account. In the criminal case, a dispute arose as to whether the disposition of the money in the deceased spouse’s bank account implied criminal liability for the other spouse.
According to the court’s press release, the trial court acquitted the woman because the data collected in the case did not show that the woman’s actions were intentional to fraudulently seize someone else’s property with a foreign payment card. The prosecution that supported the accusation in the case and the children of the deceased from the first marriage did not agree with the acquittal. The district court dismissed both appeals and found that the woman had been acquitted of justification.
The district court concluded from the information in the case that the woman was able to use her husband’s bank account and payment card because the spouse had given her the bank login details and payment card PIN. Before die. In this case, the data were sufficient to conclude that the spouses jointly carried out agricultural activities and jointly managed the family property, and that part of the funds in the spouse’s account did not correspond to the concept of third-party property, which is one of the necessary characteristics. of fraud against a woman. The woman’s actions also did not identify the fraud as a necessary sign of fraud, as she was convinced that she had the right to use the common money obtained from the spouse’s account to cover necessary needs, as well as funeral and joint household expenses: on behalf of another person, but did not realize the dangerous nature of such an act because the spouse did not regard the card as a stranger; he had repeatedly made financial transactions with his spouse’s card and known access codes while he was alive, with no negative consequences; she was convinced that she was not taking money from anyone other than her own money, ”so her actions are not a crime.
The ruling of the Klaipėda Regional Court comes into force from the day of its publication, but an appeal can be made to the Lithuanian Supreme Court within three months.
[ad_2]
