The investigation of Rocío Carrasco continues for the alleged non-payment of the pension corresponding to her son David Flores. Last week it was published that the Prosecutor’s Office requested to sentence to the eldest daughter of the Jury for a crime of “family abandonment”, and now the investigating judge has ruled that she should sit in the dock according to the car to which the ‘Open Case’ medium has had access.

Verónica Carabantes, the magistrate, refused to dismiss the case by find “signs of criminality” in the behavior of the defendant, to whom she imputes a “crime of non-payment of pensions and against family rights and duties”, and orders that a trial be held, the date of which is not yet known.

In the same order, Judge Carabantes imposes on Rocío Carrasco the payment of a deposit of 6,000 euros “to ensure the pecuniary responsibilities that could be imposed on him”. Otherwise, the universal heiress of ‘the greatest’ would be exposed to the lien on her property in an amount equivalent to the total guarantee.

At trial, Antonio David Flores and his son David, the recipient of the the monthly pension of 200 euros that Rocío Carrasco would not have paid since it was imposed in 2018. In addition, the private prosecution also requests the intervention of Olga Moreno in court, although at the moment her appeal has not been confirmed.

While the plaintiff requests for Carrasco a year in prison and the payment of 15,000 euros, the Prosecutor’s Office reduces the sentence to 18 months of fine with a daily fee of 20 euros. Total, 10,800 euros, plus another 8,200 with interest for pension allocations in arrears between February 2018 and July 2021.

David against his mother

In this sense, it should be remembered that it was David Flores himself who upheld the lawsuit in court that Antonio David filed against Rocío Carrasco for non-payment of his pension. The young man only put one condition to end the process: that his parents cease in his legal war.

“Inside the courts, he made an appeal in which he was willing to give up the pension that could correspond to him in exchange for his parents, both of them, stopping denouncing mutually”, then explained the family lawyer.

Categorized in: