White-Collar Crime 2026 Comparisons

Categories of Criminal Offence

Offences in Spain fall into three categories according to the penalty attached to them: serious offences, less serious offences and minor offences. The penalty also determines matters such as the applicable procedure, the limitation period and which court has jurisdiction. White-collar crime generally falls within the serious or less serious categories.

Elements of the Offence and Forms of Commission

Under Spanish criminal law, four elements must be established: that the conduct falls within a statutory definition, that it is unlawful, that it is culpable and that it is punishable. Offences may be committed by omission where there is a statutory or contractual duty to act, and may also be committed negligently, but only in the cases expressly provided for by law. An offence may likewise be committed in the form of an attempt. In addition, certain preparatory acts – known as conspiracy, solicitation and incitement to commit an offence – are punishable wherever the Criminal Code so provides for the particular offence.

General Rule

In white-collar cases, as in any other, the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecuting parties. Under the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution, the person under investigation bears no evidential burden whatsoever: they are not required to produce evidence, to testify against themselves or to tell the truth, and their silence cannot found a conviction.

Standard of Proof

To displace the accused’s presumption of innocence, the prosecution must adduce sufficient incriminating evidence, lawfully obtained and examined at trial subject to adversarial argument, in public and before the court itself. Furthermore, under the in dubio pro reo principle, the court may convict only where the evidence so examined enables it to reach a conviction of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mitigating Circumstances, Defences and Legal Persons

Although the case law is not entirely settled, the exception to the above arises in proving mitigating circumstances or defences (such as self-defence), in respect of which the accused must meet a certain evidential standard. This has particular significance for the exemption from liability of legal persons, which must prove the existence, implementation and adequacy of their compliance models, without prejudice to the prosecution’s obligation to establish the organisational failing as an element of the offence, as discussed in detail in 4.1 White-Collar Defences.

Limitation periods

Article 131 of the Criminal Code sets the limitation period by reference to the maximum penalty attached to the particular offence, ranging from 20 years for the most severely punished offences to one year for minor offences and for the offences of insult and slander. Exceptionally, certain offences (genocide, crimes against humanity, terrorism and certain offences committed in situations of armed conflict) are never time-barred.

Calculation

Time begins to run from completion of the offence. In the case of continuing offences, time runs from the last infringement; in the case of permanent offences, from the point at which the unlawful situation ceases; and in result-based offences, from the point at which the result occurs. There are certain exceptions in which the dies a quo is fixed independently of the date of commission, essentially in sexual offences against minors, where the start of the period is deferred until the victim reaches the age of majority.

Interruption

The limitation period is interrupted when the proceedings are directed against the person against whom there is prima facie evidence, by means of a reasoned judicial decision formally naming them as a suspect. The mere filing of a complaint or private criminal complaint (querella) suspends time for a maximum of six months, provided that it is in fact admitted for processing by the judge within that period.

Extraterritorial Reach

Spanish criminal jurisdiction extends to offences committed outside national territory provided that the conditions in Article 23, paragraphs 2 to 6, of the Judiciary Act (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial) are met. That provision governs a range of situations enabling the Spanish courts to investigate and try offences committed abroad, in accordance with the principles of active personality (offences committed by Spanish nationals abroad), protection (offences committed abroad but against legal interests particularly connected with national interests) and universal jurisdiction (offences against interests regarded as such by the international community).

Co-Operation Instruments

All the relevant international instruments on co-operation apply in Spain, including the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its protocols, the 2000 EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, the European Investigation Order and the European Arrest Warrant, implemented by Act 23/2014 on mutual recognition. Also relevant in this field are Act 4/1985 on passive extradition and the bilateral extradition and criminal co-operation treaties concluded by Spain with dozens of countries.

Limits

The principal limit recognised by Spanish law on the prosecution of offences committed abroad and on international co-operation is the prohibition on double jeopardy (non bis in idem), a principle which prevents a person from being investigated or tried more than once for the same facts, even where those proceedings take place in different countries. Its bearing on defence strategy, together with the other recognised limits on co-operation, is examined in 4.5 Cross-Border Defence Strategies. Spain has no blocking statute of its own, although Regulation (EC) 2271/96 applies directly in respect of certain secondary sanctions imposed by third States, as set out in 3.10 Financial/Trade/Customs Sanctions.

Institutional Participation

Spain participates in numerous international bodies such as Europol and Eurojust, as well as in a range of international working groups and organisations devoted to combating international corruption.

European Public Prosecutor’s Office

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) began operating in Spain in mid-2021. Beyond the capacity for co-operation with delegated prosecutors in other countries, that body was given competence to investigate certain offences and to prosecute them at trial.

Conditions

A legal person may be held liable only in those cases in which the Spanish Criminal Code expressly so provides. It is further required that the offence be committed in the name or on behalf of, and for the direct or indirect benefit of, the legal person, either by its legal representatives or by those authorised to take decisions on its behalf or vested with powers of organisation and control, or that the offence be committed by employees subject to the authority of the foregoing precisely because the duties of supervision, monitoring and control were seriously breached.

Concurrence With Individual Liability

The criminal liability of the company is cumulative with, and independent of, that of the individual. Accordingly, although it is always required that a natural person committed the offence on behalf of the legal person, the liability of the latter is autonomous, so that under Article 31 ter of the Criminal Code a conviction is possible even where the individual cannot be identified or where it has not been possible to bring proceedings against them. Conversely, directors incur no automatic personal liability as a result of the entity’s conviction: they are liable only for their own conduct, which must be proved independently.

Succession and Corporate Groups

Conversion, merger, acquisition or division of a legal person does not extinguish liability, which passes to the resulting entity. At the same time, there is no automatic parent-company liability for the acts of a subsidiary.

Compliance Models

A compliance system may exempt the company from criminal liability or mitigate it, provided that an organisation and crime-prevention model that is both adequate and properly implemented by the company is in place, all in accordance with Article 31 bis of the Criminal Code. The requirements that the model must satisfy are set out in 3.3 Anti-Bribery Regulation, and its effectiveness as a ground of exemption in proceedings is addressed in 4.1 White-Collar Defences.

A Prescribed Framework

Penalties must be imposed in accordance with the rules laid down in the Criminal Code. That is, the court must start from the penalty attached to each offence and then apply the rules that adjust it by reference to mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the degree of execution, the form of participation and so on. Once those rules have been applied, the result is a range within which the sentencing court must fix the specific penalty, which may be equal to or lower than that sought by one of the prosecuting parties and which must in any event be properly reasoned.

Relevant Mitigating Circumstances

The mitigating circumstances that matter most in white-collar practice are confession, reparation of the harm caused, undue delay in the proceedings and the analogous mitigating circumstance of co-operation.

Legal Persons

For legal persons, compliance measures – even belated ones – are the principal mitigating factor. The specific catalogue of mitigating circumstances applicable to legal persons is developed in 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

Negotiated Pleas

Except in fast-track trials, a conviction following a negotiated plea (conformidad) does not carry an automatic sentence reduction, although in practice a reduction is generally achieved through recognition of a mitigating circumstance, which can produce substantial reductions capable of avoiding actual imprisonment. The regime governing negotiated pleas is set out in 2.7 Deferred Prosecution and 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

Joinder of the Civil Claim

Spanish criminal proceedings allow the civil claim arising from the offence to be joined to the criminal case and determined in the judgment by the same court, unless the injured party expressly reserves the right to bring it subsequently before the civil courts. The public prosecutor may also pursue the civil claim for the benefit of the injured party, even where that party has not entered an appearance in the criminal proceedings.

Scope

It covers restitution, reparation of the harm and compensation for both material and non-material loss. The costs of professionals engaged to pursue the prosecution are also included. Civil liability arising from the offence extends to those directly liable, to insurers and to those vicariously liable, among them the legal persons that own the business, for offences committed by their employees (Article 120.4 of the Criminal Code).

Securing Assets

Assets may be secured on a precautionary basis so as to meet civil liability, commonly through the imposition of bonds, attachments and entries in public registers.

Collective Redress

There are no collective actions in Spanish criminal proceedings, so each injured party must enter an appearance – individually or grouped with other injured parties – in order to pursue the civil claim, or else rely on the public prosecutor seeking the corresponding civil liability on their behalf.

Investigation

The investigation is directed by the investigating judge, who, since Organic Act 1/2025, forms part of the investigating divisions of the first-instance courts (tribunales de instancia). The Central Investigating Courts hear white-collar cases of particular significance or with effects in several provinces (Article 65 of the Judiciary Act). For offences falling within the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, it is that body which conducts the investigation. Where offences are committed by minors (provided they are over 14), the investigation is directed by the Juvenile Prosecution Office.

Trial

Depending on the penalty attached to the offence charged and on the body that conducted the investigation, the trial takes place before different courts, which in white-collar matters may be the criminal divisions of the first-instance courts, the Provincial Court or the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court.

Public Prosecution Service

The prosecution service takes part in all proceedings, both at the investigation and at the trial stage, with the Economic Crime Prosecution Office or the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organised Crime usually acting in white-collar cases. The prosecution service may also open pre-procedural investigations, provided that these do not involve measures affecting the fundamental rights of those under investigation. European delegated prosecutors likewise act as prosecutors in the cases they have investigated.

Special Jurisdiction (Aforamiento)

Certain holders of significant public office at national or regional level enjoy aforamiento. This means that the investigation and trial of proceedings against them must be conducted by the Supreme Court or by the High Court of Justice of the autonomous community in which they hold office.

Specialist Units

The Economic and Financial Crime Unit (of the National Police) and the Central Operational Unit (of the Guardia Civil) generally act as specialist judicial police in economic crime.

Administrative Enforcement

The Spanish Tax Agency, the Spanish Securities Market Commission (CNMV), the National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC), the Bank of Spain and SEPBLAC (the Spanish financial intelligence unit) may investigate and impose sanctions within their own, exclusively administrative, spheres, but must stay the proceedings and refer the matter to the criminal courts where they identify prima facie evidence of an offence in the conduct under investigation.

Institutional Change

Alongside the roll-out of the first-instance courts, there has for years been a movement towards the prosecution service ultimately taking over the investigation of all or most offences. To that end, the Criminal Procedure Bill approved on 28 October 2025 assigns the investigative function to the prosecution service, with an anticipated entry into force on 1 January 2028. The Bill will undoubtedly lapse, however, with the dissolution of Parliament in the coming months.

Routes to Commencement

Proceedings are commenced by complaint, by private criminal complaint (querella), by police report or of the court’s own motion. In socio-economic offences and fraud cases, it is common for administrative bodies such as the Spanish Tax Agency (through the prosecution service or the State Legal Service) or the Labour Inspectorate to prompt the opening of the criminal investigation.

Prosecutorial Inquiries

Before the matter reaches court, the prosecutor may carry out pre-procedural inquiries. The prosecutor may not adopt measures restricting fundamental rights, which are reserved to the judicial authority, but may order a suspect’s arrest. If the evidence of an offence is confirmed, the prosecutor must bring the inquiries to an end and seek the opening of judicial proceedings by way of complaint or querella.

Admissibility Control

The judge opens preliminary proceedings by means of an order and may refuse to accept the complaint or querella where the conduct described does not constitute an offence, where there is no evidence that it was committed, or where the facts are manifestly false.

General Framework

Investigative measures are carried out under judicial direction and control. The investigation has an initial time limit of 12 months, extendable indefinitely for successive periods of up to six months, each of which must be granted by reasoned order, which, in complex economic cases, can result in very lengthy investigations.

Production of Documents

The judge may require the individual or company under investigation, and third parties, to hand over documents. That said, the person under investigation is under no obligation to produce any document that may incriminate them.

Entry and Search

Entry and search require a reasoned order and an assessment of proportionality. The Criminal Procedure Act defines the domicile of a legal person and separately regulates the search of mass-storage devices, which requires specific judicial authorisation and the application of minimisation criteria. In the course of an entry and search, relevant documentation may be seized for the purposes of the investigation.

Testimony

Witnesses are required to attend and to tell the truth, unless one of the exceptions in Articles 411, 412, 416 and 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies. A person under investigation (or, in the case of a legal person, the individual specially appointed by it to give evidence) may remain silent, answer only those questions they choose, or decline to tell the truth.

Digital Assets

Crypto-assets may be frozen and secured by serving a requirement on authorised and registered service providers and may be confiscated under Articles 127 et seq of the Criminal Code. The substantive and regulatory regime applicable to crypto-assets is set out in 3.16 Crypto-Assets and Digital Currency Crimes.

Current Use

There is at present no specific legal framework governing artificial intelligence in criminal investigations. Nor are the tools that investigating police forces may use either prescribed or published.

Regulatory Limit

Organic Act 7/2021 on data protection in the criminal sphere applies, and its regime excludes decisions based solely on automated processing, as does Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on artificial intelligence, which classifies systems used in law enforcement as high-risk and makes remote biometric identification subject to judicial authorisation.

AI-Assisted Internal Investigations

There is no formal recognition of these. Their findings may be introduced into the proceedings as documentary or expert evidence and are subject to adversarial testing, to proof of the chain of custody and to verification of the integrity of the sources, which makes it advisable to document the methodology used in detail. The treatment under criminal law of the misuse of such tools is examined in 3.15 Artificial Intelligence and Automation Misuse.

Whether Required

Internal investigations are not legally mandatory, but they are advisable in practice in order to qualify for mitigation of, or exemption from, criminal liability as part of the legal person’s compliance system. Article 31 bis, paragraph 5, of the Criminal Code requires the organisational model to impose an obligation to report risks and to provide for a disciplinary system, and Act 2/2023 requires entities with fifty or more employees to have an internal reporting system, the regime for which is set out in 4.4 Whistle-Blower Protection. An internal investigation strengthens the effectiveness of the model and may support a finding of exemption from or mitigation of liability.

Duty to Report

There is no general obligation to share findings with the authorities, without prejudice to sector-specific reporting duties (most notably in anti-money laundering) and to the general duty to report offences laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act.

Data Protection and Employment

Data protection legislation (the Spanish Organic Act and the General Data Protection Regulation) and employment legislation (the Workers’ Statute and collective agreements) both apply, in particular the rules on the monitoring of digital devices, alongside the employer’s managerial powers.

Confidentiality

Professional secrecy covers investigations conducted by an independent external lawyer who is a member of the bar, reinforced by Organic Act 5/2024 on the Right of Defence. For the time being, no equivalent privilege is recognised for in-house counsel, although several professional associations and bar councils advocate such a legislative change. The characterisation of professional secrecy and its consequences in cross-border internal investigations are developed in 4.5 Cross-Border Defence Strategies.

Mechanics

In the procedure normally used for white-collar offences (the abbreviated procedure), once the investigation is complete and if there is sufficient evidence of an offence, the judge issues an order converting the proceedings and gives the prosecuting parties the opportunity to file an indictment or to seek dismissal. If any party files an indictment, the investigating judge orders the case to proceed to trial.

Standing

In addition to the public prosecutor, the injured party may prosecute (private prosecution) and so may any citizen (popular prosecution, Article 125 of the Spanish Constitution), a distinctive feature of the Spanish system and a regular presence in major corruption cases.

Limits on Popular Prosecution

Under the so-called Botín doctrine, established by Supreme Court Judgment 1045/2007, a popular prosecutor cannot on its own sustain the opening of trial where both the public prosecutor and the private prosecutor seek dismissal. Supreme Court Judgment 54/2008 qualified that criterion and confined its effect to cases in which no injured party has entered an appearance, a frequent situation in offences against the public administration.

Termination Without Trial

Unless the case has previously been dismissed, once the order committing the case to trial has been issued there is no longer any possibility of the case being concluded by other means or by some form of agreement, since even a guilty plea agreed between the accused and the prosecuting parties must be brought before the trial court.

Legal Persons

Legal persons appear and are prosecuted through a specially appointed representative, who incurs no personal criminal liability by virtue of holding that role. Exemption from criminal liability on the basis of an implemented compliance model must be determined at trial, as explained in 4.1 White-Collar Defences.

No Deferred or Non-Prosecution Agreements

Spanish law makes no provision for deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreements. Any negotiated outcome leads either to the withdrawal of the charges by all the prosecuting parties or to a conviction on the terms agreed between them: it is not possible to close an investigation by means of an agreement acknowledging the facts but without a conviction, and this is the most significant difference from common law systems.

Negotiated Plea (Conformidad)

This is the only functionally equivalent mechanism. It requires agreement on the charge and the sentence with all the prosecuting parties that have entered an appearance, personal ratification by the accused and judicial review of the legal characterisation and of the voluntary nature of the plea, within the sentencing limits set out in 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

Other Mechanisms

In white-collar matters there are also the statutory bars to punishment arising from voluntary tax and social security regularisation, examined in 4.2 De Minimis, and the mitigating circumstances specific to legal persons under Article 31 quater of the Criminal Code, developed in 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

Compliance

The implementation of effective preventive measures operates as a mitigating circumstance and commonly forms part, in practice, of the negotiation conducted by the legal person, but it is not possible to reduce the sentence or to make a plea conditional on promises to improve or implement compliance models after the trial has taken place.

Company Offences

The Criminal Code devotes a chapter specifically headed “Corporate Crimes” to those offences that protect against the most serious attacks on the corporate legal framework, for example the falsification of annual accounts or other corporate documents. Alongside these there is a large number of further offences particularly associated with corporate and business activity, although they may also be committed outside that sphere. The most important are set out below.

Offences Against Property and Fraud Offences

These include misappropriation, disloyal administration of assets and fraud (estafa). Punishable by up to eight years’ imprisonment, they cover situations in which companies or individuals take the money of other companies or of private individuals, whether by deception, by acting disloyally in the administration of assets under their management, or by simple unlawful appropriation of those funds.

Punishable Insolvency

The Criminal Code punishes the fraudulent removal of assets from creditors’ reach, the frustration of enforcement and the intentional or negligent aggravation of insolvency. The criminal route is open only where there has been concealment of assets, however, and not on account of mere business failure. Legal persons may be liable for fraud, for insolvency offences and for market offences, in accordance with the general conditions set out in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability.

Bribery

The Criminal Code punishes any authority or public official who receives, solicits or accepts a benefit in order to perform an act contrary to the duties of office, with three to six years’ imprisonment, a fine and special disqualification for nine to twelve years. The penalties are lower where the act is one properly falling within the office, where the benefit is a reward for an act already performed, or where it is given by reason of the office held. The private individual who offers the bribe is liable to the same penalties as the official.

Foreign Public Officials

Corruption in international business transactions is the subject of a self-standing offence: bribing or attempting to bribe a foreign authority or official, or an official of an international organisation, in order to obtain or retain a contract or an undue advantage, punishable by three to six years’ imprisonment, a fine and a ban on contracting with the public sector.

Influence Peddling

This offence requires the improper use of a personal relationship or of office in order to influence another official. Evidence of lobbying the administration is not enough: pressure on the decision-maker must be proved.

Private-Sector Corruption

Liability attaches to any director, manager or employee who receives or accepts a benefit in order unduly to favour another in the purchase of goods or the procurement of services, in breach of their obligations. The penalty is six months’ to four years’ imprisonment, special disqualification and a fine.

European Reform

Directive (EU) 2026/1021 will require this catalogue to be significantly widened, on the terms set out in 5.1 The Year Ahead.

No Self-Standing Duty

Spain does not punish failure to prevent corruption as a separate offence, nor does it impose a general obligation to maintain a compliance programme. The system operates indirectly: the absence of an adequate model is not itself an infringement, but it prevents the legal person from relying on the exemption from liability referred to in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability.

Content of the Prevention Model

Article 31 bis of the Criminal Code lists the requirements: identification of high-risk activities, decision-making protocols, models for managing financial resources, an obligation to report, a disciplinary system and periodic review. Supervision must be entrusted to a body with autonomous powers of initiative and control. In practice, the courts look above all at whether the model was being applied effectively or had merely been approved and left at that. This question is addressed from the defence perspective in 4.1 White-Collar Defences.

Sector-Specific Obligations

Compliance duties do exist in particular sectors, notably anti-money laundering, securities markets and financial institutions. Act 2/2023 additionally requires entities with 50 or more employees to implement an internal reporting channel, with penalties of up to EUR1 million.

Duty to Report

There is no general legal obligation to report suspicions of corruption, beyond the general duty to report offences and the obligations owed to SEPBLAC by regulated entities. Internal and external reporting channels are examined in 4.4 Whistle-Blower Protection.

Insider Dealing

The Criminal Code punishes the use of inside information to acquire or dispose of financial assets or to recommend transactions in them. To be punishable, the information must be confidential, specific, relating to securities or financial instruments, not public, and capable of influencing their price. The penalty is six months’ to six years’ imprisonment, a fine and disqualification, and is aggravated where the profit obtained or the value of the instruments exceeds the statutory thresholds or where the integrity of the market is seriously harmed.

Market Manipulation

The dissemination of false news or rumours, the use of deception or violence and the carrying out of transactions giving false signals as to supply, demand or price are all punishable by six months’ to six years’ imprisonment, a fine and disqualification.

Issuer Disclosure

Directors of issuing companies are liable where they falsify the economic and financial information contained in prospectuses or in documentation subject to mandatory disclosure in order to attract investors or obtain financing.

Unauthorised Banking Activity

There is no self-standing offence of unlawfully carrying on banking activity. Taking deposits, an activity reserved to authorised institutions, constitutes a very serious administrative infringement and, where appropriate, fraud. The CNMV and the Bank of Spain impose penalties under Act 6/2023, although they must stay their proceedings where the matter passes to the criminal courts. Market abuse in relation to crypto-assets is governed by its own regime, set out in 3.16 Crypto-Assets and Digital Currency Crimes.

Basic Offence

The tax fraud offence punishes anyone who defrauds the State, regional, provincial (foral) or local tax authorities by evading the payment of taxes or of amounts withheld or which should have been withheld, or by improperly obtaining refunds or tax benefits. It is essential that the amount evaded exceeds EUR120,000 per tax and tax period, a threshold that operates as an element of the offence. The penalty is one to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of between one and six times the amount evaded, together with loss of the right to obtain grants and tax benefits in future.

Aggravated Offence

The penalty rises to two to six years’ imprisonment where the amount evaded exceeds EUR600,000, where the conduct is carried out within a criminal organisation, or where intermediaries, non-cooperative territories or fiduciary structures are used that make it difficult to identify the taxpayer or the amount involved. In those cases, the limitation period rises from five to ten years, in accordance with the rules set out in 1.3 Statute of Limitations, substantially extending the period during which the matter may be reviewed.

Related Offences

Social security fraud has a minimum threshold of EUR50,000, and grant fraud and tax accounting offences are punished as separate offences. The quantitative thresholds and their legal nature are analysed in 4.2 De Minimis.

Prevention and Regularisation

Full and voluntary regularisation before notification of an inspection or the filing of a querella operates as a statutory bar to punishment and remains the principal means of resolving these matters so as to avoid criminal sanction.

Tax Accounting Offence

This offence applies to a person required by tax law to keep commercial accounts, books or tax records who fails entirely to comply with that obligation, keeps different sets of accounts concealing the true position of the business, omits the corresponding entries, or makes them using different or fictitious figures. In the latter two cases the amounts omitted or falsified must exceed EUR240,000 per financial year. The penalty is five to seven months’ imprisonment.

Falsification of Accounts

Falsification of the annual accounts is punished as a company offence, as explained in 3.1 Criminal Company Law and Corporate Fraud. In insolvency proceedings, double bookkeeping and material irregularities preventing an understanding of the financial position are also penalised, as is the falsification of information provided to the proceedings.

Forgery of Documents

The issuing or alteration of invoices and commercial documents is likewise criminal conduct, carrying a penalty of six months’ to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. This offence typically arises as an instrumental offence alongside others, such as fraud, misappropriation or tax fraud.

Administrative Enforcement

Administrative infringements under the General Tax Act, the audit sanctions regime and penalties for failure to file accounts with the Commercial Registry also apply. Whether a legal person is liable depends on which offence is ultimately applied. Where criminal proceedings run in parallel, the administrative sanctioning procedure must be stayed.

An Administrative Model

Spain does not criminalise cartel conduct as a self-standing offence. Collusive conduct and abuse of a dominant position are, however, administrative infringements under Competition Act 15/2007, enforced by the CNMC. Fines may reach 10% of the undertaking’s total worldwide turnover, with penalties of up to EUR60,000 on the directors involved in the agreement and a ban on contracting with the public sector.

Benefits for Co-Operation

The legislation allows full immunity from the administrative fine for the first applicant to provide evidence decisive for the detection and prosecution of the cartel, provided it co-operates fully and continuously with the authorities. This route is widely used, although it does not confer immunity from criminal liability where a criminal offence has been committed through participation in the cartel. The leniency regime and its interaction with criminal proceedings are set out in 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

The Criminal Dimension

Although the cartel itself is not punishable, some of the conduct in which its participants commonly engage does give rise to criminal liability. Bid-rigging in public tenders and auctions, for example, is punishable by one to three years’ imprisonment, a fine and disqualification, as is the withdrawal of raw materials from the market with the intention of forcing a change in prices, punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment and a fine.

Misleading Advertising and Price Manipulation

The Criminal Code punishes manufacturers or traders who, in their offers or advertising, make false claims or state untrue characteristics about their products or services in such a way as to be capable of causing serious and manifest harm to consumers, with six months’ to one year’s imprisonment or a fine. It also punishes anyone who tampers with automatic measuring devices so as to charge consumers more than the correct amount. The withdrawal from the market of raw materials or essential goods in order to create shortages or force a change in prices is likewise an offence.

Consumer Products

Offences against public health extend to the production and marketing of harmful foodstuffs, medicines and products. Placing food products on the market without the required authorisations and thereby endangering consumers’ health is also punishable.

Fraud

Mass fraudulent contracting may also be brought within the offence of fraud, including in its aggravated form where it concerns housing or essential goods or affects a large number of people.

Administrative Enforcement

The ordinary enforcement of this conduct is administrative and falls to the State and regional consumer authorities, which must give way to the criminal courts only on the terms set out in 2.1 White-Collar Enforcement Authorities.

The Concept of Cybercrime

Although some offences expressly contemplate commission by electronic means, a large proportion of offences may be committed through information technology or in the digital environment without any need for specific regulation, so that in many cases they are absorbed by general offences, as occurs with offences against privacy or with fraud involving digital assets such as cryptocurrencies, the regime for which is set out in 3.16 Crypto-Assets and Digital Currency Crimes.

Computer Fraud and the Supply of Criminal Software

Computer fraud covers computer manipulation or similar artifice producing an unauthorised transfer of assets, as well as the fraudulent use of another person’s cards and credentials. Specific custodial penalties also apply to those who supply or develop software enabling the commission of various offences under the Criminal Code.

Trade Secrets

Obtaining or taking possession of data, documents or storage media in order to discover a trade secret is punishable by two to four years’ imprisonment and a fine; dissemination or disclosure raises the penalty to three to five years. Breach of the duty of confidentiality, and exploitation by a person aware of the unlawful origin of the information, are punished as separate offences. Civil protection is provided by Trade Secrets Act 1/2019.

Applicable Regime

Spain applies the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union, which are directly applicable by way of regulation, as well as United Nations measures insofar as they are incorporated through them. Third-state sanctions do not apply directly, and Regulation (EC) 2271/96 – the only relevant blocking statute – operates against certain secondary sanctions, as noted in 1.4 Extraterritorial Reach and Cross-Border Co-Operation.

Current Position Under Criminal Law

There is at present no specific offence of breaching restrictive measures. The conduct is prosecuted as smuggling where it concerns prohibited or restricted goods, defence material or dual-use items and the statutory quantitative threshold is exceeded, punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment and a fine; below that threshold, it constitutes only an administrative infringement. Money laundering may also arise where frozen funds are moved, on the terms set out in 3.13 Money Laundering.

Proposed Criminalisation

Although it is unlikely to become law given the forthcoming dissolution of Parliament, the Bill transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1226 introduces a specific title of offences against the Union’s area of freedom, security and justice, designed to reinforce EU restrictive measures through the criminal law, extending confiscation and conferring jurisdiction on the National High Court, while excluding the supply of goods and the provision of services on humanitarian grounds. Its progress through Parliament is set out in 5.1 The Year Ahead.

Receiving (Receptación)

This offence requires an intention to profit, knowledge of the commission of an offence against property or the socio-economic order in which the defendant took no part, and conduct consisting either in helping those responsible to profit from the proceeds of the offence, or in receiving, acquiring or concealing those proceeds. The penalty is six months’ to two years’ imprisonment, aggravated where the proceeds are trafficked, and may not exceed the penalty attached to the predicate offence.

Acting as an Accessory After the Fact (Encubrimiento)

Liability attaches to a person who, knowing that an offence has been committed and having taken no part in it, helps the perpetrators to benefit from the proceeds, conceals or destroys the corpus delicti, the proceeds or the instrumentalities, or helps them to evade investigation. The penalty is six months’ to three years’ imprisonment. Certain relatives are exempt, except in the form of the offence consisting in concealing or destroying evidence.

Predicate Offences

Receiving requires a predicate offence against property or the socio-economic order; acting as an accessory after the fact may follow any offence. The perpetrator of the predicate offence cannot be liable for either, since both require that the defendant took no part in it.

Overlap With Money Laundering

The boundary between receiving and money laundering is resolved as a conflict of norms, generally in favour of money laundering, the regime for which is set out in 3.13 Money Laundering. Legal persons may be liable for money laundering, but not for ordinary receiving.

Perpetration and Participation

Perpetrators are those who commit the act alone, jointly or through another person used as an instrument. For sentencing purposes, the instigator and the necessary co-operator are treated in the same way. An accomplice, who co-operates through prior or contemporaneous acts that are not essential, receives the penalty reduced by one degree. All forms of participation require intent and a principal act that is both unlawful and falls within a statutory definition.

Special Offences

A large proportion of white-collar offences can be committed as perpetrator only by a person having a particular status (a taxpayer, a director, a public official, and so on). In order to avoid gaps in punishability, however, the Criminal Code allows liability to be imposed on a person acting as a de facto or de jure director or on behalf of another, even where the conditions of the offence are met by the company and not by that individual. In addition, an outsider (extraneus) may participate as instigator or necessary co-operator, with a discretionary reduction in penalty.

Omission

Alongside offences of pure omission, commission by omission is decisive in relation to directors and compliance officers who occupy a position of guarantor, on the terms outlined in 1.1 Criminal Offences.

Organised Structures

Where a company is used as a vehicle for offending, or where several persons combine on a stable basis to commit white-collar offences, the offences of criminal organisation and criminal group may also arise, carrying their own penalties, which are cumulative with those for the offence committed. This is a frequent feature of indictments and is routinely contested at trial.

The Offence

A person is liable for money laundering where they acquire, possess, use, convert or transfer assets knowing that they derive from criminal activity – whether committed by that person or by a third party – or where they carry out any other act to conceal or disguise their origin, or to assist a participant in the underlying offence to evade the consequences of their acts. The penalty is six months’ to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of between one and three times the value of the assets.

Predicate Offences and Forms of the Offence

There is no closed list of predicate offences and no prior conviction is required, so prima facie evidence of criminal origin suffices, which in practice makes this offence extremely common in complex economic cases. Self-laundering is punishable, as is the offence committed through gross negligence. The penalty is aggravated where the assets derive from certain specific offences (drug trafficking or corruption offences) or where the defendant belongs to a criminal organisation. Its boundary with receiving is addressed in 3.11 Concealment.

Prevention

Act 10/2010 imposes on regulated entities – financial institutions, notaries, lawyers in certain transactions, auditors, real estate agents and crypto-asset service providers – duties of customer due diligence, reporting of suspicious transactions to SEPBLAC, record-keeping, training and internal control.

Administrative Penalties

Very serious infringements may attract penalties of up to 10% of annual turnover, five times the profit obtained or EUR10 million, together with public reprimand and the removal of directors from office. This regime is set to be transformed by the implementation of the European anti-money laundering package, examined in 5.1 The Year Ahead.

Environment

It is an offence, in breach of protective legislation, to cause or carry out emissions, discharges, radiation, extraction, noise or deposits liable to cause serious harm to the balance of natural systems, punishable by six months’ to two years’ imprisonment, a fine and special disqualification; the penalty increases where a serious risk to human health is created. Penalties are aggravated in cases of clandestine operation, disobedience, falsification of information and the management of hazardous waste. This is one of the areas in which the liability of legal persons referred to in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability is expressly provided for.

Social Dimension

Offences against workers’ rights punish the imposition of conditions harmful to those rights, unlawful labour trafficking and the failure to provide safety measures where that creates a serious risk to life or physical integrity, with six months’ to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. Severe labour exploitation is prosecuted as human trafficking. The distinctive feature of these offences is that liability falls on the directors and managers of the company, with no criminal liability for the legal person itself, although ancillary consequences may be imposed.

Supply Chain

There is currently no Spanish due diligence statute. Greenwashing is not a self-standing offence and is dealt with as misleading advertising, examined in 3.8 Consumer Criminal Law, or as fraud.

Reform Pending Transposition

Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, the transposition deadline for which expired in May 2026, will require the offences to be widened, the penalties raised and corporate fines calculated by reference to turnover to be introduced.

No Specific Offences

The Criminal Code contains no offences addressed to the misuse of artificial intelligence, algorithmic trading or automated decision-making as such. The conduct must be brought within general offences, with the interpretative effort that entails and with obvious gaps in relation to non-intentional outcomes.

Markets

Algorithmic manipulation – the mass entry of orders designed to generate misleading signals as to supply or demand – falls within the offence of market manipulation examined in 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law, without prejudice to the administrative regime applied by the CNMV.

Fraud

Computer fraud covers computer manipulation or similar artifice producing an unauthorised transfer of assets, including frauds executed through automated systems and the impersonation of voice or image using synthetic content. The generation of false documentation using such tools is prosecuted as forgery.

Attribution of Liability

Spanish law does not confer legal personality on automated systems: liability falls on natural persons in accordance with the ordinary rules on perpetration and participation set out in 3.12 Aiding and Abetting, and on the legal person where the offence appears in the statutory catalogue referred to in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability. Since negligence is punishable only where the law expressly so provides, a substantial proportion of harm caused by autonomous systems currently falls outside the scope of criminal liability, at least directly. The use of these tools by investigating authorities is addressed in 2.4 Use of Technology in Investigations.

Legal Characterisation of Crypto-Assets

The Spanish Criminal Code contains no specific offences relating to crypto-assets; recourse must be had to the general offences. Supreme Court Judgment 326/2019 of 20 June (Criminal Chamber) held that bitcoin does not have the legal status of money and is not a tangible object capable of restitution, but rather an intangible asset, so that civil liability is fixed by reference to its market value in euros. That characterisation is decisive: crypto-assets are prosecuted as property and not as transferable securities, unless the token embodies rights equivalent to the latter, in which case Articles 282 bis, 284 and 285 of the Criminal Code would apply.

Principal Applicable Offences

The most common conduct falls within fraud (Articles 248 to 251), with the aggravating circumstances in Article 250 based on the amount involved (common in pyramid schemes and bogus investment platforms); misappropriation and disloyal administration (Articles 252 and 253) as against custodians and managers; money laundering (Article 301); and the offence against the public treasury (Article 305), reinforced by the reporting obligations introduced by Act 11/2021. Attacks on exchanges and virtual wallets may additionally constitute unlawful access to information systems (Article 197 bis) and computer damage (Article 264). Confiscation operates under Articles 127 et seq.

Regulatory Regime and Consequences of Non-Compliance

Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) is fully applicable. Spain opted for the shortest transitional regime, which expired on 30 December 2025, so that only providers authorised and registered by the CNMV may provide services. Breach of that authorisation requirement constitutes a very serious infringement of the Securities Markets and Investment Services Act 6/2023, attracting substantial fines and the disqualification of directors. In anti-money laundering terms, crypto-asset service providers are regulated entities under Act 10/2010 and are subject to the so-called travel rule under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113. Market abuse in relation to crypto-assets is penalised administratively under Title VI of MiCA and only exceptionally through the criminal law.

Substantive Defences

The most frequent lines of defence are that the conduct falls outside any statutory definition, and the distinction between criminal wrongdoing and mere civil or commercial breach, focusing on the principle that criminal law is a last resort. Equally common are arguments that intent was absent and that there was a mistake of fact or of law under Article 14 of the Criminal Code, which is particularly significant in the case of blanket criminal provisions (tax fraud, securities markets, environmental offences). In complex corporate structures it is also usual to argue the absence of a position of guarantor, relying on the effective delegation of functions and on the principle of reliance. Limitation (Articles 131 and 132) carries considerable weight in long-running cases.

Procedural Defences

The most prominent are the exclusion of evidence under Article 11.1 of the Judiciary Act where entries and searches, downloads from devices or interceptions of communications have been improperly authorised or executed; the mitigating circumstance of undue delay under Article 21.6, commonly treated as highly qualified in large-scale economic cases; and breach of the non bis in idem principle where an administrative penalty has already been imposed in respect of the same facts, the same person and the same legal basis.

Compliance Programmes

Article 31 bis, paragraphs 2 and 4, establishes a ground of exemption from liability for the legal person where the organisation and management model meets the requirements of paragraph 5 and the perpetrator fraudulently circumvented it; partial compliance operates in mitigation. Exemption extends only to the closed catalogue of offences carrying corporate criminal liability – including, among others, fraud, punishable insolvency, money laundering, corruption, and tax and environmental offences – and in no case exempts the individual. Under Supreme Court Judgments 154/2016 of 29 February and 221/2016 of 16 March (Criminal Chamber), it falls to the prosecution to establish the organisational failing as an element of the offence.

Quantitative Thresholds

There is no general de minimis clause, but there are statutory thresholds operating as objective conditions of punishability: EUR120,000 per tax and tax period for the offence against the public treasury (Article 305); EUR50,000 as against the social security authorities (Article 307); EUR10,000 for grant fraud (Article 308, following Organic Act 1/2019); and specific thresholds for fraud against the European Union budget (Articles 305.3 and 306).

The Boundary of the Minor Offence

In offences against property, the figure of EUR400 separates the minor offence from the less serious offence in theft (Article 234.2), fraud (Article 249) and misappropriation and disloyal administration (Articles 252.2 and 253.2). It should be noted that Organic Act 1/2026 of 8 April has introduced new offences based on repeat offending which convert certain repeated minor property offences into less serious offences, with a corresponding increase in the limitation period.

Statutory Bars to Punishment and the Absence of Exempt Sectors

Tax regularisation under Article 305.4 and its counterparts in Articles 307.3 and 308.6 operate as full statutory bars to punishment, provided they are carried out before notification of inspection activity or the filing of a querella or complaint. There are no exempt sectors or industries: aforamiento and parliamentary immunity are filters as to jurisdiction or procedure, not grounds of exemption from liability.

Negotiated Plea (Conformidad)

The conformidad is the mechanism for the negotiated termination of criminal proceedings and is governed by Articles 655, 784.3, 785, 787 ter and 801 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It requires agreement with all the prosecuting parties that have entered an appearance, personal ratification by the accused and judicial review of the legal characterisation and of the voluntary nature of the plea. A legal person enters a plea through its specially appointed representative. There is no formal negotiation of the charge in the common law sense, although an equivalent result is achieved through an agreed characterisation of the facts, which determines the terms of the court’s decision.

Self-Disclosure and Co-Operation

Confession and reparation of the harm operate as mitigating circumstances (Articles 21.4 and 21.5). For legal persons, the specific catalogue in Article 31 quater applies: confession before becoming aware of the proceedings, co-operation by providing new and decisive evidence, reparation of the harm, and the implementation of effective preventive measures before trial. Belated co-operation is dealt with under the analogous mitigating circumstance in Article 21.7. Where treated as highly qualified, these circumstances allow the sentence to be reduced by one or two degrees under Article 66.1.2 of the Criminal Code.

Leniency and the Absence of Deferred Prosecution Agreement

In competition matters, Articles 65 and 66 of Act 15/2007 and Royal Decree 261/2008 provide for immunity from, and reduction of, fines before the CNMC. This is a strictly administrative programme with no direct effect in criminal proceedings. Spanish law makes no provision for deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreements.

Legal Framework

Protection is provided through Act 2/2023 of 20 February on the protection of persons who report regulatory infringements and on the fight against corruption, which transposes Directive (EU) 2019/1937.

Obligations on Companies

Private entities with 50 or more employees must implement an internal reporting system. So must those operating in the financial services, anti-money laundering, transport and environmental sectors, irrespective of the number of employees. The system requires the appointment of an officer with autonomy and independence, the acceptance of anonymous reports, safeguards for the confidentiality of the reporting person’s identity, the keeping of a register and a decision within three months, extendable in particularly complex cases.

Protection Afforded and External Channels

Retaliation is prohibited by reference to a non-exhaustive list of conduct, with any measures adopted being void, the burden of proof reversed in the reporting person’s favour, support measures and legal assistance available, and exemption from liability for obtaining the information reported. The external channel is operated by the Independent Whistle-blower Protection Authority and by equivalent regional authorities. There are also anonymous reporting channels run by the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organised Crime, SEPBLAC, the CNMV, the CNMC and the Spanish Tax Agency.

Incentives and Penalties

Act 2/2023 expressly excludes financial rewards for reporting persons, so there is nothing equivalent to the US incentive programmes. Breach of the statutory obligations is punishable by fines of up to EUR1 million for legal persons and up to EUR300,000 for individuals, with a possible ban on contracting with the public sector and on obtaining grants.

Movement of Information Between Jurisdictions

The European Investigation Order, governed by Act 23/2014 as amended by Act 3/2018, together with Eurojust, Europol and the EPPO, mean that material produced in one jurisdiction becomes usable almost immediately in the others. The defence must plan as a single exercise what is handed over, when and subject to what reservations, because a voluntary disclosure made in one state may become evidence for the prosecution in another.

Recognised Limits on Co-Operation

The transnational non bis in idem principle, under Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 23.2(c) of the Judiciary Act, allows a foreign res judicata to be relied on, subject to the qualifications established by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Also available, as limits capable of being raised against requests for information from third states, are Article 48 of the General Data Protection Regulation, the principles of speciality and dual criminality in the case of offences not expressly included in the European Arrest Warrant list, and the grounds for refusal contemplated in that instrument on the basis of disproportionality or breach of fundamental rights.

Professional Secrecy Is a Duty of the Lawyer, Not a Privilege at the Client’s Disposal

In Spain, professional secrecy is framed as a duty of the lawyer – Articles 542.3 of the Judiciary Act and 118.4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 5 of the General Statute of the Spanish Legal Profession – and not as a privilege that the client may selectively waive, unlike the position in common law systems. The defence must therefore classify each document from the outset according to who created it and under what confidentiality regime, because once material has been incorporated into foreign proceedings it travels to Spain through the ordinary mutual recognition channels, with no possibility of recovering the protection lost.

Co-Ordinated Defence and Internal Investigations

Spanish law does not formally recognise joint defence agreements or the common interest privilege, so the exchange of information between the defence teams of several individuals under investigation has no specific protection beyond the general rules on professional secrecy and the ethical obligations governing the confidentiality of communications between lawyers. A distinct question arises in relation to statements given by employees in internal investigations, which are obtained under the contractual duty to co-operate and not under the privilege against self-incrimination in Article 24.2 of the Constitution. It is therefore advisable to decide at the outset whether the interview is to be conducted with express warnings to the employee, and how its outcome will be recorded and shared.

The New European Anti-Corruption Directive

Directive (EU) 2026/1021 of 29 April on combating corruption entered into force on 31 May 2026, with a general transposition deadline of 1 June 2028, extended to 1 June 2029 for sectoral risk assessments and the national anti-corruption strategy. It will require the introduction of an offence of unlawful exercise of public functions broader than the existing offence of prevaricación, a self-standing offence of enrichment from corruption, an extension of influence peddling and a system of corporate fines calculated by reference to turnover.

Circumvention of International Sanctions

The transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/1226, the deadline for which expired on 20 May 2025, remains outstanding. The Bill was submitted to the Spanish Parliament on 21 October 2025 and is still before it, to the point that on 4 June 2026 the European Commission issued Spain with a reasoned opinion for failure to notify transposition measures, with a warning of referral to the Court of Justice and a request for financial penalties. The legislation will introduce a specific offence of breaching Union restrictive measures, with corporate criminal liability, which will require criminal risk maps and sanctions due diligence systems to be revisited. In any event, with the imminent dissolution of the Spanish Parliament at the end of the legislative term, the Bill will lapse and will have to be started afresh after the elections.

Reform of the Anti-Money Laundering System

On 28 July 2026 the Council of Ministers gave first-reading approval to the draft Bill on comprehensive measures on the prevention of money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which implements the European package composed of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, Directive (EU) 2024/1640 and Regulation (EU) 2024/1620. The legislation creates the National Financial Integrity Authority as an independent administrative authority and single point of contact with the European Anti-Money Laundering Authority, concentrating functions currently dispersed within SEPBLAC, and widens the range of regulated entities. The forthcoming dissolution of Parliament will cause this legislation to lapse as well.

Other Areas to Watch

Particular attention should be paid to the MiCA Regulation, fully applicable following the close of the Spanish transitional regime on 30 December 2025, which points to the first enforcement action by the CNMV and to an increase in the prosecution of crypto-asset fraud. Equally to be watched is the consolidation of the EPPO’s activity in relation to fraud involving European funds, which will continue to raise questions as to the demarcation of its competence with that of the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption. Finally, it will be worth following the issues arising from the practical application of Organic Act 1/2026 of 8 April, which has toughened the criminal treatment of repeated low-value property offending.