O Court of Justice of São Paulo (TJ-SP) maintained the condemnation of a man for qualified estelionato after him Do not pay 49 orders for Japanese food. The frauds were performed by use of fake transfer voucher and the cancellation of payment schedules.
In the court decision, the damage pointed out by the company was R $ 11,496.50. The defendant was sentenced to 6 years and 8 months imprisonment, in a semi-open initial regime, and 17-fine days. The crimes were committed between October 17, 2022 and February 3, 2023.
The defense of the accused tried to frame the case as a privileged theft, but was denied, because the damage caused was not of small value, and the defendant was not primary, as required by legislation. The value of the loss corresponded to approximately half of the monthly revenue of the establishment.
As it was or blow
The electronic fraud committed involved the use of fake transfer vouchers, simulating the payment via Pix, but not actually transfer. He sent fake payment proof to the restaurant, making it appear that the payment had been made.
Sometimes the defendant scheduled the payment via Pix for the next day, but canceled the appointment after receiving the order, without the amount being credited to the restaurant account.
The fraud was discovered when the restaurant’s legal representative noticed a difference in the cashier and found that payments via Pix were not in the bank statement.
It was found that of the approximately 49 requests placed, most of the payment proofs were false and only a few were schedules that were later canceled.
The decision issued by the TJ-SP upheld the conviction for estelionate using fraudulent electronic mediumaccording to article 171 of the Penal Code.
Grandmother’s cell phone and absence of the defendant
The fact that the defendant does not attend the police station or the court to defend himself, being decreed his default, was a highlight of the decision issued by the 9th Chamber of Criminal Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo. This reinforced the difficulty in obtaining the defendant’s version of the facts, but did not prevent proof of authorship by other evidence.
The decision also points out that the convicted man used both his own cell phone and his grandmother’s cell phone to place the requests, which showed an attempt to conceal his actions. The defendant’s grandmother confirmed that he used her cell phone to place the orders.
