The Superior Court of Justice understands sentimental fraud as the practice through which, in a relationship between two people, one of the parties simulates the existence of an emotional relationship in order to, from this and the emotional vulnerability of the other, obtain financial or patrimonial gains.
The decision draws a parallel between sentimental fraud and the criminal type provided for in article 171 of the Penal Code, according to which, for its configuration, it is necessary:
obtaining an illicit advantage, to the detriment of others;
use of artifice, trickery or any other fraudulent means; and
inducing or maintaining the victim in error.
Thus, if it is established that the financial expenses do not represent ordinary expenses of a romantic relationship, but rather the satisfaction of exclusive financial desires of one party, in a short space of time, and that such financial desires were satisfied through misleading through the simulation of the existence of a romantic relationship, combined with pressure resulting from a ruse (alleged financial difficulty), emotional fraud will be characterized.
Such a situation, in the understanding of the STJ, represents an unlawful act and, consequently, civil liability under articles 186 and 927 of the Civil Code.