A Dutch citizen settled in Leon capital faces a two-year prison sentence charged with a crime against industrial property for selling on the Internet fakes of high-end watches. The trial will take place next October 3 at 11:30 am in the Criminal Court No. 2 of León.
According to the Office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, from January 2009 to November 2010, the accused was engaged in marketing through the website www.relojesdealex.spaces.live.com of different watches of various well-known marks, including Cartier, Bulgaria, Rolex, Omega, Tag Heuer Breitling, Hublot, Montblanc and Audemars Piguet who have submitted express denunciation.
About 9:50 am on November 23, 2010, the company registered and registered at the address located at Avenida José Aguado nº24, where counterfeit watches of famous brands were seized, three laptops, three hard disks, three mobile phones As well as instruments used for the sale of these effects and 18,463 euros that had obtained by the sale of products.
The watches were imitations of the authentic products of these marks that had been manufactured and marketed to the margin of all knowledge and authorization of the holders of the same rights. The accused had acquired them previously, stating his illegality, knowing that he did not have such authorization.
The Prosecutor’s Office understands that the facts constitute an offense against industrial property and asks the accused to receive a two-year prison sentence and a 24-month fine at a rate of 10 euros per day. As a result of these facts, the defendant obtained benefits during this period in excess of 100,000 euros.
On the contrary, the defense claims that his client bought those replica watches in wholesale stores with the belief that they were not forgeries and, as such, deny that the accused obtained profits of 100,000 euros.
The defense also alleges incompetence of the Spanish criminal court orders, since the facts reported by the prosecutor took place outside Spanish territory, specifically in Holland, where the watches were purchased.
Lastly, he recalls that the offense has prescribed, after more than three years, and notes that there is a violation of fundamental rights, among other things, with the telephone interventions made to his client. For all these reasons, he requests the free acquittal of his client.