A man was apprehended by law enforcement regarding an issue discovered on the reverse side of his lottery ticket. He was under the impression that he had won a substantial amount in the draw, but his fortune quickly turned sour.
The individual, who chose to remain anonymous, participated in the Christmas lottery in Spain with hopes of clinching the renowned ‘El Gordo’ prize. The year was 2013 when the incident occurred, and the entire nation eagerly anticipated the chance to win a significant sum of money up for grabs.
Upon the announcement of the winning numbers, the man believed he had secured a hefty €125,000 (£110k) in winnings, which he shared with a friend. However, little did he know that this marked the onset of a dramatic saga that eventually led to his arrest on the directives of Spain’s Supreme Court.
Christmas lotteries hold immense significance in Spain, with statistics from 2012 revealing that 98% of eligible participants contributed funds towards El Gordo, eyeing a prize pool worth nearly £2 billion. Nevertheless, as per reports from Spanish media outlet AS, one individual’s joy of winning was marred by allegations of fraud and disagreements.
Subsequent to claiming the winnings shortly after the grand draw, the accused enjoyed an increased bank balance. However, nine years later in 2022, he found himself standing before the Provincial Court in Tenerife, accused of withholding half of the money from his ticket-purchasing companion.
The plaintiff narrated that his attempts to retrieve his share of the winnings were futile as the defendant purportedly retained both portions for himself. Subsequently, the man received an 18-month prison sentence after the case escalated to the Supreme Court, along with an order to pay over €50,000 (approximately £44,000) to the plaintiff, inclusive of accrued interest.
Both courts established that the men jointly purchased a lottery ticket at a Tenerife gas station between December 7 and 11, 2013. Even though the defendant covered the cost of the ticket, it was the plaintiff who endorsed the back of the ticket with a pen provided by station employees.
Testimonies in court revealed that following the ticket’s declaration as a winner, the defendant reneged on the verbal agreement made at the gas station by refusing to share the winnings. The plaintiff’s version of events was corroborated by station employees who witnessed the ticket purchase.
The station staff asserted that both friends decided to acquire the lottery ticket after a slot machine win at the premises. Although there was initial confusion over the signature on the ticket, this aspect was eventually discounted from the case.
In defense, the defendant contended that the plaintiff signed the ticket without his consent. However, the court dismissed this argument as mere speculation, affirming that the signature was affixed by the victim to confirm his participation in acquiring the lottery ticket.