The crime and its preparation

The convicted man, referred to in one report as Maximiliano (a pseudonym), worked at an Abanca branch and used his position to access the victim's personal and financial data for about a month before the attack. On 4 February 2022, he drove to the small village of Candamil in Xermade to scout her home, observe her movements, and plan his escape route.

The next day, he returned and struck her on the head with a blunt object, a blow the court described as "brutal". He then took her mobile phone and fled. With the device, he called the bank's customer service repeatedly, impersonating the victim to unlock the banking app, and carried out several fraudulent transfers from her accounts to his own on the same day and in the following days.

“The blow was brutal.”

Injuries and aftermath

The victim, a 61-year-old woman with a pre-existing delicate health condition and a recognised permanent disability, suffered severe head trauma and had to undergo two surgeries. She was admitted to the intensive care unit of the Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti in Lugo.

Her condition deteriorated to the point of great dependence. She now lives in a socio-sanitary centre and must use a wheelchair.

Trial and sentence

The Audiencia Provincial de Lugo handed down the sentence on 9 June 2026 after the accused accepted the facts and reached an agreement with the prosecution and the private accusation. He was convicted of attempted murder, robbery with violence, and continuous fraud. The agreement capped the prison term at 15 years, though the initial charge could have led to a 23-year sentence.

Compensation and bank liability

The court ordered the convict to pay the victim €1,419,927 in compensation for temporary injuries, hospitalisation, permanent sequelae, and other damages, as well as approximately €44,988 to the Galician health service (Sergas) for medical care.

Abanca's subsidiary civil liability was limited to around €730, covering only the amounts lost through the fraudulent transfers. The court ruled that the violent acts were unrelated to the employee's job duties, so the bank was not liable for the far larger non-pecuniary damages.