Case Background: The 2019 Child Support Ruling
The case originated from a ruling on December 11, 2019. At that time, Seville’s Court of Violence against Women No. 4 ordered the defendant—a man who ran two thriving barbershops—to pay €120 per month for each of his two minor children in child support. This ruling established his legal obligation as a father.
Faking Hardship: Filing to Stop Payments Claiming ‘Bankruptcy’
A few years later, the man filed a petition with the court to modify the original ruling and suspend child support payments. He claimed his financial situation had severely deteriorated and that the two barbershops he previously ran had both closed. To substantiate his claim, he submitted several documents, including tax returns, VAT (IVA) settlement forms, and a certificate from the Social Security Treasury General confirming the de-registration of his self-employed (Autónomo) status, effective from June 2022.
Courtroom Showdown: Key Evidence Exposes the Lie
During the hearing, the children’s mother and her lawyer strongly opposed the modification of child support, arguing that the man was still operating his barbershop. To prove this, two witnesses testified in court, confirming the shop was still open for business. One witness even provided a video recorded inside the establishment, clearly showing the man serving a customer. This video became irrefutable key evidence, directly proving that his alleged “financial hardship” was a complete fabrication.
Harsh Verdict: Petition Denied and Facing Multiple Investigations
The court’s investigation concluded that although the barber had processed his de-registration as a self-employed worker, he was, in fact, still running his shop “covertly.” Therefore, the financial documents he submitted did not reflect his true economic situation. Consequently, the court ultimately rejected his request to stop child support payments and ordered him to cover all legal costs of the proceedings.
More seriously, the court’s ruling did not end there. In accordance with Article 94 of Spain’s General Tax Law (Ley General Tributaria), the court decided to formally forward the case information to the Spanish Tax Agency (Agencia Tributaria) for an investigation into potential tax violations. Simultaneously, the case was referred to the competent investigative court (Juzgado de Instrucción) to assess whether his actions constituted criminal offenses such as document forgery or attempted fraud. This means his initial attempt to evade child support could now escalate into serious criminal and administrative penalties.
