They are trying this Tuesday a Civil Guard agent accused of keeping 50 euros from a detainee in Níjar (Almería)

ALMERÍA, 23 Jan. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Provincial Court of Almería plans to host this Tuesday the trial against a Civil Guard agent for whom the Prosecutor's Office requests five years in prison accused of seizing 50 euros from a detainee whose belongings had been removed after his arrival at the barracks of Níjar, which they had deposited in a bag that remained "open".

The prosecutor accuses the agent of a crime of infidelity in custody of documents as a means to commit a crime of forgery, maintaining that he modified and changed the procedure for the removal of belongings in which the assets owned by the detainee were detailed, as well as a crime of misappropriation, for which he also claims a 23-month fine at a rate of ten euros a day and six years of disqualification for employment or public office.

According to the provisional indictment, consulted by Europa Press, the injured party arrived at the Níjar barracks after being arrested on July 23, 2021, so that an agent and a student guard there proceeded to search him and remove his belongings. in a room set up for it.

Subsequently, two other agents and the student agent carried out up to three times -one of them in front of the detainee- the recount of the arrested person's possessions, among which there were 150.09 euros of his property that they introduced into a bag of effects.

The diligence was printed by one of the agents ten minutes before 2:00 p.m., meaning that it was signed by the arrested person, who was "accepted" with what was written. In addition, the same agent reflected its content in the virtual detainee book, according to the data collected by the Prosecutor's Office, and commissioned another to write the internal chain of custody document, for which "he left the bag of belongings open on the table" before leaving.

With this, the agent in charge drew up the document, although "without reflecting the amount of the seized cash" and kept the paper together with the open bag in a box set up for this purpose, waiting for his partner to sign the procedure, although "for mistake signed by the student guard". It was the student guard himself who, not knowing how to proceed and the rest of the agents having left, contacted the accused, who was "the only guard who was in official premises."

Thus, when he went to the door room, he saw the bag of belongings open, which according to the Prosecutor's Office, "he took advantage of, with the intention of illicit enrichment, in a mendacious manner" and knowing of the "ignorance of the student guard because it was his first service" , to approach him "suggesting that he should be careful with the bags of belongings", so that he invited him "without justification" to re-examine the belongings and see if they matched those detailed on the custody sheet.

It was then that, according to the Public Ministry, the agent took advantage of the fact that he was "alone in the door room" and "seized 50 euros belonging to the detainee, falsely counted the money again" and "making the student guard believe that he had 100.09 euros", he took the belongings removal procedure in front of him, "he tore it up and got rid of it, throwing it into the trash can".

The Prosecutor's Office points out that, after that, the defendant took a new bag around 3:20 p.m. and "mendaciously" modified the virtual detainee book from the computer on which he provided services, altering the amount of 150 euros initially reflected in the file.

Later, he would have prepared a new belongings diligence that, after printing it at 4:20 p.m., he took the detainee to sign, "which, not knowing why they were taking him out of the cell again, and thinking that it was a routine procedure, the initialed without checking the amount".

Thus, it was not until the following morning when the detainee was released after having been transferred with his belongings to the court, when the acting agents and the arrested man realized that 50 euros were missing. They also verified the existence of "two non-matching proceedings: the withdrawal of effects perfidiously prepared by the defendant, and the return of effects" original.