Loaned Rolex, Dispute Over €26,500: What Must Be Decided in Court in Palma

An expensive promise and an open question in Palma

When does borrowing something lead to criminal proceedings? That is likely to be the question before the court in Palma from Monday, November 16. A German man is facing a charge of misappropriation. At the center of the case is a Rolex Daytona Cosmograph valued at €26,500. That is the prosecution’s account—there has been no verdict before the trial.

According to the facts presented so far, a friend lent the man the watch in 2021. He reportedly promised to return it once he had acquired an identical model. The two are said to have separated in October of that year. Afterward, according to the allegation, the watch was sold to a third party, and the defendant allegedly kept the proceeds. The prosecution is seeking a prison sentence of two years and three months, as well as €26,500 in damages.

What the prosecution alleges—and what remains unresolved

The central question is not whether a Rolex is expensive. It is what the two people actually agreed, and whether it can be proven that the man unlawfully sold the watch and kept the proceeds. The court must determine that based on the evidence. Until then, the presumption of innocence applies. A charge is not a conviction, and the sentence being sought has not yet been imposed.

When an item is loaned, seemingly minor details can matter: Was it clearly a loan? Was there a deadline or any conditions for its return? Was a replacement discussed, and what was supposed to happen if the purchase did not go ahead? The alleged sale and the question of where the money went are also central to the case. Based on the information currently available, it is not possible to say what evidence or testimony the court will hear.

The stated value is also part of the dispute, not merely a decorative price tag. With a luxury watch, the model, condition, and valuation may all matter. The prosecution puts the loss at €26,500; whether a claim is justified, and in what amount, must be examined during the proceedings. The outcome should not be reported in advance as if it were already settled.

The blind spot: private agreements without a clear paper trail

Public attention quickly focuses on the conspicuous object: a Rolex, a five-figure sum, and the possibility of a prison sentence. Less visible is the everyday gray area from which such disputes can arise. People lend one another keys, jewelry, cars, or money—often out of trust, sometimes without a receipt or clear rules for returning them. That is not automatically suspicious. But it can make later disputes harder to untangle.

The history of the relationship does not, by itself, explain what happened legally. A breakup can intensify a personal dispute; it neither proves nor disproves the allegation. That distinction between a personal conflict and a criminal-law question is easily lost in quick retellings. For those involved, the proceedings are more than a headline. Everyone else should exercise restraint while the court has yet to decide.

Everyday life in Mallorca, far removed from the image of luxury

In the morning, traffic inches along Palma’s Avenues, cups clatter outside cafés, and somewhere someone is looking for the key they lent a friend yesterday. Most of these small acts of lending end with a “thank you” and the item being returned. With valuable possessions, that same leap of trust can suddenly carry much higher stakes. A costly watch is not unique in principle—just particularly visible, as separate reports on a luxury watch stolen in Palma’s Old Town and a Rolex robbery in Port d’Andratx show.

On an island where many people live temporarily, move away, or travel between countries, agreements that stretch over time can become complicated. That does not explain this particular case, let alone excuse anything. It simply shows why a few clear lines in writing can sometimes be wiser than a vague “later.” For valuable items, it helps to have written confirmation, photos, details of the item’s condition and value, and a specific return deadline. If an item is to be sold or exchanged, explicit consent should also be recorded.

What matters now

The trial must examine the allegations, not the headline. That includes the handover of the watch, the alleged agreement, what happened to the item afterward, and the compensation being sought. The court will decide whether the evidence is sufficient for a conviction. The prosecution’s request for a prison sentence of two years and three months says only what punishment it is seeking.

The case is a reminder that trust and having a clear record are not opposites. A clear agreement protects both sides, even when they are close to one another. And for the public, the rule is: distinguish carefully before passing judgment. Starting Monday, an allegation will be before the court in Palma—not a finished story with a known ending.