Supreme Court overturns a dual conviction for a fraud involving Airbnb

The woman was part of a network of over 40 individuals dedicated to committing online fraud across the country for years. Their speciality was phishing—identity theft to redirect payments to fake suppliers. Over more than a year, the network managed to deceive around 50 local councils and public administrations, as well as dozens of private individuals, including four victims in Mallorca. For these victims, the scams mainly involved fake rental offers, either through property portals or short-term holiday rentals.

Within the organisation, the convicted woman occupied one of the lower ranks. Her role was to open bank accounts using her own identity documents, which were then used to receive funds from the frauds. Each time a payment was transferred into her account, she had to immediately withdraw the money from an ATM before the bank or the victim could take action. By using her own documents, she became far more vulnerable to investigation compared to the masterminds of the operation.

Prison Sentence

In June last year, she was sentenced by a criminal court in Palma to six months in prison for fraud. That sentence was based on evidence that she had provided her bank account to receive payment for a fraudulent Airbnb rental in Palma. The victim transferred 1,440€ for the reservation, an amount that was quickly withdrawn from the account.

However, this same fraud had already been part of a more complex case tried by the National Court. In that case, she had also been convicted of fraud and involvement in a criminal organisation, receiving a custodial sentence. The investigation in that case found she had received three transfers, all for rental scams.

Faced with the dual conviction for the same offence, the Public Prosecutor’s Office acted on its own initiative and filed an extraordinary appeal for review against the Palma court's ruling, which was already final. The Supreme Court concluded that the offences covered by both convictions were the same and accepted the extraordinary review, a mechanism used in similar cases. The Court ruled that the principle of non bis in idem—not being punished twice for the same act—had been breached, and the second conviction was annulled.