According to the prosecution's statement, the events date back to when the accused contacted the plaintiff through a mutual friend, learning of his interest in acquiring websites. Both parties signed a contract in which the accused committed to creating 20 niche websites, and the buyer paid the agreed amount through various deposits into the investigated party's bank account.

However, the Public Prosecutor's Office maintains that the accused later changed the initial conditions to obtain greater economic benefit. With the aim of enriching herself, she proposed to the plaintiff that instead of creating the 20 agreed websites, she would sell him a specific website that she claimed to own, promising “one million monthly visits and high profitability.”

The plaintiff accepted the new proposal, agreeing that the money already paid would be counted as part of the payment for this single website. The accused, however, initially did not provide the site's name, citing “security reasons” until full payment was completed. Once the entire price, including VAT, was paid, the accused provided some website data but could not transfer the content, hosting, or backup, as she was not the actual owner.

Given this situation, the aggrieved party is claiming appropriate compensation. The Prosecution considers these facts to constitute a fraud offense, for which the accused would be directly responsible, and requests a four-year prison sentence for her.