Massage therapist on trial for rape and sexual assault at Tribunal de Corts

Closing arguments were heard at the Tribunal de Corts in the trial of a massage therapist accused of two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault against three clients. After the public prosecutor, the private plaintiffs and the defence presented their final submissions, the court reserved judgment.

The prosecutor told the court the three complainants gave credible, coherent and consistent accounts, and attributed early imprecision about dates to nervousness and shock. Officials and police who first interviewed the women, the prosecution said, corroborated visible distress, fear and difficulty recounting events. Medical reports were cited as documenting psychological harm compatible with post‑traumatic stress, and expert witnesses described recognised reactions to sexual violence, including temporary verbal and physical “freeze” responses.

According to the indictment and the prosecution’s presentation, the alleged acts occurred in sessions between 2022 and 2024 and included touching of the breasts and vagina in one case, vaginal and anal contact in another, and contact with the vulvar lips in the third. Scientific analyses introduced at trial reportedly detected microparticulate talc in a genital sample. The prosecutor also pointed to the disappearance of messages from the accused’s phone and stressed that an absence of DNA evidence does not exclude that a sexual assault took place.

Prosecutors confirmed they are seeking seven years’ imprisonment for each rape count and two years for the sexual assault — a total of 16 years — together with expulsion from the country, about ten years of professional disqualification, and collective fines and civil damages. The three private plaintiffs have aligned with the prosecution’s criminal classification and seek compensation for moral damage and partial permanent disability, with individual claims reported between €3,000 and €25,000 and a combined request of roughly €50,000.

The defence denied the charges and urged the court to uphold the presumption of innocence and apply in dubio pro reo. Defence counsel called roughly fifty former clients who testified they were satisfied with the therapist’s services, arguing those testimonies demonstrate professional conduct and that boundaries were not exceeded. The defence argued there is no solid proof of guilt and asked for acquittal if reasonable doubt remains.

Defence lawyers further contended that if the alleged digital penetrations had occurred, medical examinations would likely have revealed physical injury — which post‑incident exams did not show. They said the detected talc could be explained by routine massage practice and accidental transfer, and they questioned aspects of the victims’ psychological reports and the described dynamics of the therapy sessions.

The prosecution and the private plaintiffs responded that the testimony of satisfied clients was presented to undermine the victims’ statements and stressed the case concerns the three women who filed complaints, not the wider client base of about 1,500 customers. They argued the accused selected more psychologically vulnerable clients — women with prior abuse histories or recent bereavements — and that differences in mental resilience could explain why certain clients were allegedly targeted even during sessions attended by others. Prosecutors also pointed to what they described as contradictions in the defence’s account about visits, messages and the therapist’s methods.

The accused, who has been held in provisional detention for around 18 months, denied the allegations in a final statement and asked to be released if acquitted. Defence counsel requested immediate acquittal and provisional release should the court find insufficient evidence to convict.

Both sides asked the Tribunal de Corts to accept their legal assessments: the prosecution and private plaintiffs to convict and impose the requested prison terms, expulsions, disqualifications, fines and damages; the defence to acquit for lack of sufficient evidence. The court will now deliberate and deliver its judgment.