Prosecutors Seek 40 Years Prison for Bar España Hoax Author

Prosecutors seek 40 years prison and €3.6 million for Bar España hoax

A blogger known as "Un Técnico Preocupado" (A Concerned Technician) spent years circulating allegations about an alleged abuse and disappearance plot at the Bar España in Benicarló (Castellón). The Public Prosecutor's Office now demands **40 years of imprisonment and €3,600,000** in civil liability, according to data cited by participants in the debate. This figure, for a crime involving the dissemination of hoaxes, has raised alarms: some see it as a deterrent sentence, while others suspect that such a disproportionate punishment fuels the very conspiracy theory authorities aim to bury.

The case involves a web of names: Judge Sofía Díaz, president of the Provincial Court of Castellón, whose past was marked by accusations circulated against her; prosecutor Javier Carceller, who leads the public prosecution; and up to six other defendants charged with spreading the hoax. A toxicology report published by El Español contradicted its own headline, a detail that has become central to distrust toward the media.

How many years does the prosecution seek for the Bar España hoax?

The request for **40 years of imprisonment** is the core of the controversy. For comparison, the same material notes that multiple murderers and rapists have received lower sentences. This asymmetry—punishing the spread of false accusations more severely than killing—is what raises the question of whether the system protects people or narratives.

Some argue that destroying innocent lives by labeling them pedophiles cannot go unpunished. Opponents contend that such an excessive sentence turns the defendant into a martyr and gives wings to the conspiracy: if the punishment is so brutal, there must be something to hide. It is the logic of the martyr, applied in reverse.

Double standards with major media and the Julio Iglesias case

The most repeated comparison is not with murderers, but with the media. Major outlets have attributed serious crimes without proof and with much greater reach, yet no one faces 40 years or €3.6 million. References are made to Carrillo’s first vvife, accused of being buried in Dolores Ibárruri’s house, or the case of Julio Iglesias, where journalists from eldiario.es were formally charged.

The argument holds weight: if freedom of expression protects value judgments not subject to truth requirements, why doesn’t it protect the blogger? In the same case, judicial responses dismissed a mother’s claim for defamation because the website did not explicitly attribute the crime to her. Applied inversely, this criterion would leave almost any veiled accusation unchecked.

Judge Sofía Díaz and the harassment that derailed her career

The case has a personal dimension rarely discussed. Magistrate **Sofía Díaz**, today president of the Provincial Court of Castellón, saw her life disrupted thirty years ago when she became the target of a hairdresser in Benicarló who circulated accusations against her. It is the same pattern now being judged, but with the victim on the other side of the bench.

This uncomfortable symmetry explains why the matter is not just a hoax: it is the story of how an unproven accusation can ruin someone for three decades. And of how the system takes thirty years to react, if it reacts at all.

Should we launch a fundraising campaign for the defense?

The proposal for a small donation drive to alleviate defense costs—which the accused pays out of pocket, while the prosecution is handled by a state-funded prosecutor—has sparked division. Some recall that the blogger asked for donations to "himbestigar" (a misspelling of investigate) and received them. Others block accounts after having disseminated their opinions thousands of times.

The full calculation of defense costs versus the €3.6 million claimed reveals a surprising disparity. It is not merely an economic issue: it confirms that justice starts with an advantage when the State accuses you.

---

One disconcerting fact remains: one of the defendants has already retracted his statements and apologized to those affected. The hoax collapses on its own. What does not collapse is the question of why the punishment arrives seven years later, with heavy artillery.