Financial Crime 2026 Comparisons

Definition of “Financial Crime”

“Financial crime” is not a formal legal term under Spanish law. It is a broad category that covers offences against property, the socio-economic order and market integrity. It also includes corporate offences, money laundering and offences against the Public Treasury and Social Security.

Constituent Elements of an Offence

Under Spanish criminal law, an offence requires three elements:

• the conduct must match the statutory definition of the offence;
• it must be unlawful; and
• the offender must be culpable.

Intent requires that the offender knows the essential facts of the offence and intends to bring them about.

Negligence occurs when the offender breaches their duty of care, causing foreseeable and avoidable harm without intending to do so.

As a general rule, only intentional conduct is punishable. Negligent conduct is only punishable where the law expressly provides for it.

Attempt and Inchoate Offences

An attempt occurs when the offender begins to carry out the offence but does not complete it for reasons beyond their control. The penalty for an attempt is reduced by one or two degrees below the penalty for the completed offence.

Inchoate offences are only punishable where the law expressly provides for them (for example, in relation to money laundering or market manipulation). There are three types:

• conspiracy – when two or more people agree to commit an offence and decide to carry it out;
• solicitation – when a person who has decided to commit an offence invites others to participate; and
• incitement – directly encouraging the commission of an offence through the media or before a large audience.

Corporate criminal liability is addressed in 5.1 Corporate and Individual Liability.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution. The prosecution must prove both that an offence was committed and that the defendant was involved. Where the defendant is a company, the prosecution must also prove the organisational failings that give rise to the company’s liability (see 5.1 Corporate and Individual Liability).

The defendant does not have to prove their innocence or assist in their own prosecution. However, the defence may present evidence to challenge the prosecution’s case, which is known as “exculpatory evidence”.

Standard of Proof

A conviction requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If any reasonable doubt remains after hearing the evidence, it must be resolved in the defendant’s favour.

Presumptions

Spanish criminal law does not recognise strict liability offences, presumptions of guilt or any mechanism that reverses the burden of proof.

Spanish criminal law punishes those who contribute to the commission of an offence. There are three categories of participants:

• instigator – a person who induces another to commit the offence;
• necessary cooperator – a person whose contribution is essential to the offence; and
• accomplice – a person who plays an auxiliary role.

Instigators and necessary cooperators receive the same sentence as the principal offender. Accomplices receive a lesser sentence.

Many financial crime offences are “special offences”. This means that only a person with a specific status can be the principal offender. For example, in tax fraud, only the taxpayer can be the principal. However, those who commit these offences without the required status are not unpunished. The Criminal Code allows the court to impose a reduced sentence on such participants.

Limitation Periods

The limitation period for a financial crime depends on the maximum sentence for that offence. Periods range from five to 20 years.

The most serious offences, punishable by 15 years’ imprisonment or more, have a 20-year limitation period. Offences carrying sentences of ten to 15 years have a 15-year limitation period. Those punishable by five to ten years’ imprisonment have a ten-year limitation period. All other offences have a five-year limitation period.

When the Limitation Period Starts

Where multiple offences are charged together, the limitation period for the most serious offence applies to all of them.

The limitation period begins on the date the offence was committed. For offences defined by their result, this is when the prohibited outcome occurs. For offences defined by conduct, it is when the prohibited act takes place. For continuing offences (a series of related acts), the period begins from the last act. For ongoing offences (a continuing unlawful state), it starts when the unlawful situation ends.

Limitation Period for Civil Claims

In Spanish proceedings, the civil claim is typically brought within the criminal case itself (see 6.3 Proceeds of Crime Recovery). Commencing criminal proceedings suspends the limitation period for any related civil claim. If the victim chooses to pursue the civil claim separately, the limitation period is one year (Article 1968.2, Civil Code), running from the conclusion of the criminal case.

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Offences

Spanish courts have jurisdiction over offences committed in Spain.

Spanish courts may also prosecute offences committed abroad by Spanish nationals. This applies where:

• the conduct is also a crime in the country where it occurred; the Public Prosecutor or the victim brings proceedings; and
• the offender has not already been convicted or acquitted abroad.

Spanish courts also have jurisdiction over bribery in international business transactions in certain circumstances. These include cases where:

• the offender is Spanish;
• the offender is a foreign national living in Spain;
• the offender acts on behalf of a company based in Spain; or
• the offence is committed by a company registered in Spain.

International Judicial Cooperation

Spain is a party to the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. This requires signatory states to provide the widest possible mutual legal assistance, including conducting investigations, obtaining evidence and serving documents. Assistance may only be refused on specific grounds, such as where it would breach public policy or where Spanish courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

Mutual Legal Assistance

Within the EU, Law 23/2014 transposed into Spanish law the main mutual recognition instruments:

• the European Arrest Warrant;
• custodial sentences and measures;
• probation and supervision measures;
• the European Protection Order;
• freezing orders for assets or evidence;
• confiscation orders;
• pecuniary sanctions; and
• the European Investigation Order.

The European Investigation Order allows one Member State to request investigative measures from another, such as obtaining witness statements, accessing bank accounts or gathering documents. Recognition is largely automatic and there are fixed deadlines for execution.

From August 2026, the European e-evidence Regulation will allow courts to request data directly from digital service providers in other Member States. Requests must be fulfilled within short timeframes. There will be no need for judicial approval in the Member State where the provider is located.

Outside the EU, mutual legal assistance is provided through bilateral or multilateral treaties.

Extradition is addressed in 1.6 Extradition and Prohibited Destinations.

Extradition Requirements

For extradition to be granted, the following requirements must be met:

• the conduct must be a criminal offence in both Spain and the requesting country;
• the offence must carry a sentence of at least one year’s imprisonment; and
• there must be a treaty with the requesting country or that country must provide assurances of reciprocity (that it would act the same way if Spain made a similar request).

Procedure

• Judicial phase: The National Court processes the request. The Central Investigating Court carries out preliminary steps and the Criminal Chamber decides whether the legal requirements are met.
• Executive phase: If the Chamber approves extradition, the Council of Ministers makes the final decision. The Government may refuse extradition on grounds of sovereignty, security or public policy, even if the court has approved it. However, if the Chamber refuses extradition, the Government cannot grant it.

Extradition of Spanish Nationals

The general rule is that Spanish nationals may not be extradited (Article 3.1, Passive Extradition Act 4/1985). However, this Act applies only where treaties do not provide otherwise and the Constitution permits extradition in accordance with a treaty or statute and on the basis of reciprocity.

Within the EU, this prohibition does not apply. The European Arrest Warrant allows Spain to surrender its nationals to other Member States. However, surrender may be conditional on the person returning to Spain to serve their sentence.

Grounds for Refusing Extradition

In Spain, the grounds for extradition refusal are as follows:

• Spanish courts have jurisdiction over the offence;
• the offence is political in nature (excluding terrorism, crimes against humanity and attacks on heads of state);
• the person would be tried by a special or exceptional court;
• criminal liability has been extinguished under Spanish law or the law of the requesting state.
• the person has already been tried or is being tried in Spain for the same conduct;
• the requesting country does not guarantee that the person will not face the death penalty, torture or inhuman treatment;
• the person has been granted asylum in Spain.

Extradition may also be refused if the offence was committed outside the requesting country’s territory and Spain would not prosecute a similar offence committed outside its own territory.

Prohibited Countries

Spain does not maintain a list of countries to which extradition is prohibited. Extradition is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Authorities Responsible for Investigation and Prosecution

• Investigation phase: The facts are examined and evidence is gathered by an Investigating Court at the place where the offence occurred. For complex cases, matters of national importance or cases involving organised crime, jurisdiction lies with the Central Investigating Courts of the National Court.
• Trial phase: Once the investigation is complete, the case is transferred to a different court for trial. Jurisdiction depends on the severity of the potential sentence. Criminal Courts hear cases punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment. Provincial Courts try more serious offences.

Where the investigation was conducted by the National Court, the trial is heard by the Central Criminal Court or the Criminal Chamber of the National Court, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

Who Can Bring Criminal Charges

Unlike other legal systems, where only the public prosecutor can bring criminal charges, Spanish law allows multiple parties to do so:

• public prosecutor – the prosecutor is responsible for the administration of justice and must bring criminal proceedings where there is evidence of an offence;
• private prosecution – the victim or injured party may join the proceedings and bring both criminal and civil claims, regardless of whether the public prosecutor supports the case; and
• popular prosecution – a distinctive feature of Spanish law; any Spanish citizen may bring criminal proceedings in the public interest, even if they are not personally affected (this mechanism is often used by associations, trade unions and political parties in corruption and financial crime cases).

Parallel Enforcement Regimes

Spanish law prohibits punishing a person twice for the same conduct.

If a public authority (such as the Tax Agency, the CNMV, SEPBLAC or another regulator) finds irregularities that may constitute a criminal offence, it must report them to the public prosecutor. Once criminal proceedings begin, any administrative penalty proceedings are suspended until the criminal case concludes.

A criminal investigation may be initiated in the following ways:

• by a complaint brought by the Public Prosecutor, the victim or any Spanish citizen (see 2.1 Investigative and Enforcement Authorities);
• by a police report – the Police may identify evidence of an offence during their investigations and submit a report to the Investigating Court; and
• by a referral from regulators – certain authorities, including the Tax Agency, the CNMV, SEPBLAC, the Bank of Spain and the Labour Inspectorate, must report to the Public Prosecutor if they find evidence of an offence in the course of their work.

Prosecutorial discretion is addressed in 6.1 Prosecution and Resolution Mechanisms.

Requesting Documents and Information

Investigating Judges have full powers to order any individual or company to produce information and documents. However, suspects have the right not to cooperate (see 2.6 Right to Not Co-Operate or Self-Incriminate).

Public Prosecutors may also request information before a judicial investigation formally begins.

Searches and Seizures

Searching private premises requires prior judicial authorisation, unless the occupant consents or the offence is being committed at that moment (in flagrante delicto). The judge may order searches of company offices, professional premises and computer systems where there are sufficient grounds to believe they contain evidence. Any items connected with the offence will be seized and preserved.

Questioning of Suspects and Witnesses

The Investigating Judge may summon suspects and witnesses, as follows.

• Suspects – they must be informed of the allegations against them and of their rights, including the right to remain silent (see 2.6 Right to Not Co-Operate or Self-Incriminate). They must always have a lawyer present when giving evidence. If they fail to appear without a reason, the judge may order their arrest.
• Witnesses: Everyone in Spain is required to give evidence, unless they are protected by professional privilege or a family relationship with the suspect. If a witness refuses to appear or testify, the judge may order their compulsory attendance. They may also face criminal liability for contempt of court.

Powers to trace, freeze and confiscate assets are discussed in 2.7 Pre-Charge Powers.

Use of AI by Judicial Authorities

Instruction 2/2026 of the General Council of the Judiciary Branch regulates the use of artificial intelligence by judges. The key principles are as follows.

• AI must always remain under the effective control of the judge. It cannot replace the judge in decision-making, the evaluation of evidence or the application of law.
• The judge remains personally responsible for every judicial decision.
• Judges may only use AI systems that have been approved and provided by a competent public authority.
• AI may only be used for limited purposes: legal research, document analysis and structuring, internal summaries and outlines (not forming part of any decision) and administrative or organisational support.
• Judges may only use drafts generated by authorised AI systems. Each draft must be subject to the judge’s critical, thorough and personal review before use.
• The following are prohibited: profiling, behavioural prediction, risk assessment and classification of individuals (except where expressly authorised by law). Mass or indiscriminate processing of judicial data is also prohibited.
• Data from judicial proceedings must never be entered into any AI system.

Use of AI by Administrative and Law Enforcement Authorities

Both regulatory authorities and law enforcement deploy analytical technologies in financial crime prevention and investigation. These include mass data analysis, financial intelligence systems, digital forensics and cryptocurrency tracing (some incorporating AI).

The Central Role of Internal Investigations in the Corporate Criminal Liability Framework

Internal investigations are key to the fight against financial crime. Companies have assumed prevention and detection functions traditionally reserved for the State.

Their practical value is twofold:

• they enable rapid fact-finding, evidence gathering and corrective action before regulatory intervention;
• they demonstrate the effectiveness of the compliance programme, a key requirement for exemption from corporate criminal liability.

Legal Professional Privilege

Legal professional privilege protects confidential communications with in-house or external lawyers providing legal advice. For consultants and forensic experts to benefit from privilege, they should be engaged and directed by a lawyer.

Data Protection and Employment Rights

Employers may monitor employees, but must respect their dignity and privacy. Access to corporate email, devices or surveillance systems requires prior notification of usage rules and monitoring practices.

Personal data processing in internal investigations must comply with the principles of purpose limitation, proportionality and data minimisation.

Legal Recognition of Cooperation

Spanish law recognises cooperation with authorities as a mitigating factor in corporate criminal liability. For individuals, the Criminal Code also recognises confession as a mitigating factor (see 6.2 Sanctions and Sentencing).

Arrests and Questioning in Financial Crime Cases

An arrest is exceptional, permitted only where there is evidence of a serious offence and a risk of flight or evidence destruction. Detainees must be brought before a judge within 72 hours for a decision on release or remand.

In practice, suspects typically attend voluntarily before the Investigating Judge without prior arrest.

Right Not to Cooperate and Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Suspects have a constitutional right not to testify against themselves or confess guilt (Article 24.2, Constitution). This includes the right to remain silent during questioning. Silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt or give rise to adverse inferences.

Suspects cannot be compelled to give evidence or cooperate with the investigation. The burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution.

Investigative Powers of the Investigating Judge

The Investigating Judge has broad powers to obtain evidence by reasoned order, without requiring the suspect’s cooperation. Available measures include:

• search of the suspect’s home or offices;
• examination of electronic devices;
• interception of communications; and
• tracking of movements.

The judge may also order precautionary measures (see 2.7 Pre-Charge Powers).

Powers of the Judge to Order Asset Restraint Measures

From the outset of proceedings, the Investigating Judge may order precautionary measures including: asset freezes, judicial administration, charges on property and prohibitions on disposal. The judge may also order confiscation of instruments, proceeds or profits of the offence.

Legal Requirements

The judge must assess whether the following requirements are met:

• there is sufficient evidence of financial offence(s);
• there is a concrete risk of asset concealment, transfer or dissipation; and
• the measure is suitable, necessary and proportionate to the gravity of the offence and harm caused.

Applicable Legal Framework

These powers derive from the Criminal Procedure Act (which cross-references to the Civil Procedure Act) and the Criminal Code.

Cross-Border Effectiveness

Within the EU, Regulation 2018/1805 enables direct transmission of freezing and confiscation orders between judicial authorities. Recognition is largely automatic with short execution deadlines.

Outside the EU, cooperation proceeds through bilateral treaties and multilateral conventions (notably the 1990 Strasbourg Convention) or, failing that, letters rogatory.

Extension to Third Parties

Measures may extend to nominees, beneficial owners, shell companies and recipients of transfers made to evade justice. The Criminal Code provides for confiscation of assets held by third parties who knew or should have known of their unlawful origin.

Fraud

Article 248 of the Criminal Code sets out fraud, one of the most prosecuted financial offences. The offence requires deception capable of inducing the victim to act in error, leading them to dispose of assets to their own detriment, with the intent to profit. The basic sentence is six months to three years’ imprisonment. Aggravated forms carry a maximum sentence of up to six years, when the amount exceeds EUR50,000 or affects numerous victims.

Misappropriation

Article 253 punishes anyone who receives money, goods, securities or other movable property with an obligation to return or apply it to a specific purpose and instead appropriates or diverts it. Unlike fraud, initial possession is lawful and there is no prior deception; the essence is a breach of trust. The offence commonly applies to professionals handling third-party funds (such as lawyers, agents and employees with asset management authority). Sentencing mirrors fraud.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Article 252 punishes anyone with authority to manage another’s assets (conferred by law, public authority or contract) who breaches that authority by exceeding its scope, causing loss. Unlike misappropriation, there is no requirement of possession or intent to profit; knowingly exceeding authority with awareness of harm suffices. This offence commonly applies to company directors and senior executives for harmful management decisions. Sentencing mirrors fraud.

Fraudulent Concealment of Assets

Article 257 punishes debtors who conceal, transfer or fraudulently encumber assets to frustrate creditors’ claims. The offence is complete upon disposal, without requiring actual creditor loss. The basic sentence is one to four years’ imprisonment plus a fine, increased where the amount is significant or the creditor is the Tax Authority or Social Security.

Punishable Insolvency

Article 259 punishes debtors who, when actually or imminently insolvent, dispose of or conceal assets to creditors’ detriment. This offence typically applies to directors of insolvent companies. The basic sentence is one to four years’ imprisonment plus a fine, increasing to six years’ imprisonment where the creditor’s loss exceeds EUR600,000.

Embezzlement of Public Funds

Articles 432 and following punish public officials who misappropriate public funds in their charge or allow third parties to do so, with the intent to benefit themselves or others. Sentences range from two to six years’ imprisonment plus disqualification. Sentences may increase to twelve years when amounts exceed EUR250,000 or serious harm is caused to public services.

Public Procurement Fraud and Illegal Exactions

Article 436 punishes officials who collude with interested parties or use artifice to defraud public administration in contracts or supplies (imprisonment for two to six years plus disqualification). Private individuals who collude with such officials face the same imprisonment sentence and disqualification from public subsidies and aid, public sector contracting and tax or Social Security benefits for two to seven years.

Article 437 punishes public officials who demand, directly or indirectly, fees, tariffs or charges that are either not legally due or exceed the statutory amount (fine of six to twenty-four months plus suspension from public office for six months to four years, without prejudice to any restitution obligations).

Bribery of Public Officials

The Criminal Code defines the offence of bribery in Articles 419 and following. It penalises any public official or authority who receives, requests or accepts a gift, favour or payment of any kind. The offence is complete upon the mere request or acceptance; the corrupt act need not take place. The applicable penalty depends on the nature of the conduct sought:

• conduct against duties, failure to act or unjustified delay: imprisonment of three to six years, fine of twelve to twenty-four months and disqualification from public office for nine to twelve years; and
• lawful conduct within duties: imprisonment of six months to one year and suspension from public office for one to three years.

The Criminal Code also penalises any private individual who attempts to bribe a public official. The penalties are the same as those imposed on the corrupted official, depending on the type of bribery involved.

Private-Sector Bribery

Article 286.bis penalises the offering and acceptance of unjustified benefits in commercial dealings. It covers both active conduct (offering or promising a benefit) and passive conduct (a director, manager or employee who receives or requests one). The purpose of this provision is to protect fair competition by punishing preferential treatment in the procurement of goods and services. Penalties range from six months to four years’ imprisonment, along with fines and professional disqualification.

Bribery in International Business Transactions

Article 286.ter penalises anyone who, by offering, promising or granting any improper advantage, bribes or attempts to bribe a public official or authority. The purpose must be to obtain or retain a contract, a business opportunity or a competitive advantage in international economic activities.

The offence carries a prison sentence of three to six years, fines and disqualification. Those convicted may also be prohibited from entering into contracts with the public sector.

No Standalone Offence for Failure to Prevent Bribery

Spain has no standalone offence for failure to prevent bribery.

Money Laundering

Article 301 of the Criminal Code punishes any person who acquires, possesses, uses, converts or transfers assets knowing that they derive from criminal activity, as well as any act aimed at concealing or disguising their illicit origin or at helping the perpetrator of the predicate offence to evade its legal consequences. The offence does not require a prior conviction or identification of the perpetrator of the predicate offence; it is sufficient to establish that the assets have a criminal origin.

Predicate Offences

Spanish law does not maintain a closed list of predicate offences. Any criminal activity may constitute the antecedent offence, even where it was committed abroad. Self-laundering is also punishable, allowing the perpetrator of the predicate offence to be convicted of laundering his or her own proceeds.

The basic offence carries a sentence of six months to six years’ imprisonment and a fine proportional to the value of the assets. The penalty is aggravated where the assets derive from offences such as drug trafficking, corruption or human trafficking, where the person acts within a criminal organisation or where the perpetrator is an obliged entity acting in the course of professional activities.

Compliance Obligations and Administrative Sanctions

The Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering imposes due diligence obligations on a broad range of obliged entities, including financial institutions, real estate companies, notaries, lawyers and auditors. These obligations include client identification, document retention and the reporting of suspicious transactions to SEPBLAC.

Non-compliance may result in fines of up to EUR10 million or 10% of annual turnover, as well as revocation of the authorisation to operate.

Insider Dealing

Article 285 of the Criminal Code punishes any person who uses inside information obtained by virtue of his or her position or profession to trade in financial instruments or to recommend transactions to third parties. The offence requires that the profit exceeds EUR500,000, that the instruments involved exceed EUR2 million or that serious harm is caused to the integrity of the market. It carries a penalty of six months to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of two to five times the amount of the profit obtained or losses avoided.

Market Manipulation

Article 284 of the Criminal Code punishes any person who distorts the price of products, commodities, financial instruments, spot commodity contracts, benchmark indices, services or movable or immovable property by:

• violence, threats or deception;
• the dissemination of false news or rumours about companies to alter their market price; or
• the execution of transactions or orders creating false or misleading signals as to the supply, demand or price of financial instruments.

The latter two behaviours are only punishable where the profit or loss exceeds EUR250,000, the funds used exceed EUR2 million or serious harm is caused to the integrity of the market.

The offence carries a penalty of up to six years’ imprisonment, a fine and disqualification from participation in the financial markets, with aggravation where the perpetrator acts habitually, the harm is of particular significance or the perpetrator is an employee of a financial institution or a supervisory authority.

Investors Fraud

Article 282 bis punishes directors of issuing companies who falsify economic or financial information in prospectuses or in the periodic reports they are required to publish under securities market legislation, to attract investors or financing. The penalty is one to four years’ imprisonment, rising to six years where particularly serious harm is caused.

Unauthorised Financial Services Activity

The Criminal Code does not expressly criminalise unauthorised financial services. However, such conduct may be prosecuted as professional intrusion or, where deception and harm are present, as fraud.

Tax Fraud

Article 305 of the Criminal Code punishes any person who defrauds the payment of taxes, obtains improper refunds or fraudulently enjoys tax benefits, where the amount exceeds EUR120,000 per tax and tax period. Mere non-payment does not constitute an offence; active concealment must be demonstrated.

The basic penalty is one to five years’ imprisonment plus a fine of up to six times the amount evaded. This increases to six years when the amount exceeds EUR600,000, a criminal organisation is involved or opaque structures are used.

Voluntary regularisation before a tax inspection or criminal complaint exempts the taxpayer from liability.

Falsification of Annual Accounts

Article 290 punishes a director who falsifies the annual accounts or other documents that must reflect the financial position of a company, where such falsification is capable of causing harm to the company, its shareholders or third parties. The basic penalty is one to three years’ imprisonment and a fine, with aggravation where the harm materialises.

Accounting Fraud

Article 310 punishes with five to seven months’ imprisonment any person who, being under a legal obligation to do so:

• (i) entirely fails to maintain accounts under the direct assessment regime;
• (ii) maintains dual sets of accounts;
• (iii) omits transactions or records them at figures other than their true amounts; or
• (iv) makes fictitious accounting entries.

Scenarios (iii) and (iv) only constitute an offence where the relevant tax returns have been omitted or reflect false accounts and the amount of the omitted or falsified entries exceeds EUR240,000 per financial year.

This is a standalone offence, chargeable concurrently with or independently of tax fraud.

Social Security Fraud

Article 307 punishes defrauding the Social Security by evading contributions or obtaining improper refunds, where the amount exceeds EUR50,000 over four years.

The basic penalty is one to five years’ imprisonment plus a fine, rising to six years when the amount exceeds EUR120,000 or aggravating factors (nominees, opaque structures) are present.

Voluntary regularisation before inspection exempts the taxpayer from liability.

Subsidy Fraud

Article 308 punishes obtaining subsidies or grants by falsifying conditions or misapplying funds, where the amount exceeds EUR10,000.

The penalty is one to five years’ imprisonment plus a fine and loss of the right to obtain subsidies and tax benefits.

Voluntary repayment before verification proceedings exempts the offender from liability.

Absence of a Corporate Offence for Failure to Prevent Tax Evasion

Spain has no standalone corporate offence for failure to prevent tax evasion.

Competition Offences

Spanish law does not classify anti-competitive practices as a standalone criminal offence. However, three Criminal Code provisions apply to collusive conduct:

Article 262 punishes price distortion in public tenders and auctions (including bidder collusion, competitor intimidation and fraudulent attempts to frustrate auctions). The penalty is one to three years’ imprisonment, a fine and disqualification from public contracting.

Article 281 punishes withdrawing raw materials or essential goods from the market to cause shortages, distort prices or harm consumers. The penalty is one to five years’ imprisonment.

Article 284 may apply to collusive agreements distorting prices that would otherwise result from free competition (see 3.4 Financial Services Crime).

Administrative Offences

Law 15/2007 on the Defence of Competition empowers the National Markets and Competition Commission to investigate and sanction agreements between competitors to fix prices, allocate markets, limit production or co-ordinate bids in public tenders (bid rigging). Fines may reach 10% of the company’s turnover, with sanctions to directors up to EUR60,000.

Intellectual Property Offences

Article 270 of the Criminal Code punishes reproducing, plagiarising, distributing or commercially exploiting protected works without consent, with the intent to profit and to the detriment of the rights holder. The penalty is six months to four years’ imprisonment plus a fine.

The same penalty applies to facilitating access to protected works via internet links or similar mechanisms.

Penalties increase to six years where the economic benefit is significant or a criminal organisation is involved.

Industrial Property Offences

Article 273 punishes unauthorised manufacture, import or marketing of patented goods or utility models. The penalty is six months to two years’ imprisonment.

Article 274 punishes manufacturing or wholesaling counterfeit trademark goods (one to four years) and retail distribution (six months to three years).

Penalties increase to six years where the economic benefit is significant or a criminal organisation is involved.

Environmental Offences

Article 325 of the Criminal Code punishes any person who, in breach of environmental protection regulations, causes emissions, discharges or other polluting conduct that causes or is capable of causing substantial harm to air quality, soil, water or flora and fauna.

This is an endangerment offence, which is complete upon the creation of the risk, without the need for harm to materialise.

The penalty is six months to two years’ imprisonment, a fine and disqualification. Penalties are aggravated where human health is endangered.

Greenwashing

Spain has no standalone criminal offence for greenwashing.

Investigation and Enforcement

Environmental offences are investigated by local Courts of Investigation, supported by the Coordinating Prosecutor for Environmental Offences and SEPRONA (Nature Protection Service), which acts as a specialist judicial police.

At the administrative level, regional (and where applicable, national or local) environmental authorities hold sanctioning powers and prepare technical expert reports.

Where administrative proceedings reveal potential criminal conduct, authorities must refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor and suspend administrative proceedings pending the criminal outcome.

The distinction between administrative infringement and criminal offence lies in severity: criminal liability is reserved for pollution capable of seriously endangering natural systems or human health.

Routes for Commencing Criminal Proceedings

See 2.2 Initiation of Investigations for details on commencing proceedings.

Summons and Arrest of the Suspect

• The investigating judge typically summons financial crime suspects by formal notification, served through their court agent or at their address.
• Failure to comply with the summons without cause may result in the suspect being brought before the court by the police.
• Arrest is only appropriate where there are rational indications of criminal conduct and a risk of flight, evidence concealment or reoffending.
• Only the investigating judge may summon a suspect, though the Public Prosecutor or private/popular prosecution may request it.

See 6.1 Prosecution and Resolution Mechanisms for the decision to prosecute, discretion and regulatory framework.

Applicable Rules

Criminal proceedings are governed by the Spanish Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Code.

In addition, the decision to prosecute financial offences is frequently contingent upon a breach of a non-criminal provision, as in cases where the criminal law refers to other branches of the legal system, such as tax and environmental offences.

Duration of Financial Crime Proceedings

Financial crime proceedings typically take longer than others, due to their greater technical and evidentiary complexity.

It is common for the investigating judge to request extensive documentation from public and private entities and to appoint accounting, tax or financial experts without prejudice to expert reports commissioned by the parties.

The cross-border dimension of many cases – which requires letters rogatory, European Investigation Orders or mutual legal assistance – and the frequent involvement of multiple suspects and prosecuting parties (public, private and, where applicable, popular), all of which multiply the procedural steps required.

Custody Status of the Suspect

The general rule is that suspects remain at liberty until trial.

Pre-trial detention is exceptional, permitted only where there are rational indications of criminal conduct and heightened risk of flight, evidence concealment or reoffending.

As an alternative to detention, the judge may impose less restrictive interim measures, which are common in financial crime cases. These include:

• posting bail;
• surrendering the passport;
• a prohibition on leaving the country; or
• an obligation to appear periodically before the court.

These measures may be combined and reviewed at any stage at a party’s request.

Duration of Pre-Trial Detention

The maximum duration of pre-trial detention is one year for offences carrying a penalty of three years’ imprisonment or less and two years for offences carrying a higher penalty. In the first case, a single extension of six additional months is permitted; in the second, a two-year extension may be granted.

If these time limits are exhausted without the trial having taken place, the suspect must be released immediately, without prejudice to the imposition of alternative interim measures.

Spain recognises the right of all suspects to free legal assistance, provided they can demonstrate insufficient financial means.

The eligibility threshold is determined by reference to income level, for which the Tax Agency, the Land Registry (Catastro) and the Property Registry are consulted.

Where external signs indicate a financial capacity exceeding that declared, the benefit may be refused. If, within the three years following the conclusion of the proceedings, the beneficiary’s financial circumstances improve, the state may reclaim the amounts paid.

Absence of Specialist Courts or Divisions

Spain has no specialist courts or divisions for financial crime.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is governed by the general rules of the Criminal Procedure Act and is primarily based on the penalty:

• Criminal Courts try offences punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment; whereas
• Provincial Courts hear all other cases; and
• certain financial offences (such as bribery and embezzlement) are tried by the Jury Tribunal (which sits before the Provincial Court and is not a separate specialist jurisdiction).

The sole exception is the National Court, as outlined below.

Article 65 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary Branch confers on it jurisdiction over fraud and schemes to distort prices that have or may have serious consequences for the security of commercial transactions, the national economy or that cause financial harm to a large number of persons.

It also has jurisdiction over offences whose investigation and prosecution are the responsibility of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, particularly fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU.

Right to the Legally Predetermined Judge

Suspects cannot choose their court, jurisdiction or trial type. Article 24.2 of the Constitution enshrines the right to the ordinary judge predetermined by law, which means that jurisdiction is non-extendable and non-waivable, determined by the statutory penalty and place where the offence was committed.

Jurisdiction of the Jury Tribunal in Financial Crime Cases

The only offences with a financial dimension attributed to the Jury Tribunal are those involving public officials: bribery, influence peddling, embezzlement of public funds, fraud and unlawful exactions and prohibited dealings by officials.

Offences attributed to the National Court or whose jurisdiction has been assumed by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office are excluded, subsequently removing the most complex and transnational financial crime cases from jury trial.

Where jury-eligible offences (such as bribery) coincide with non-jury offences (such as money laundering), the jury may hear the connected offences if the connection arises from their simultaneous commission, prior agreement or an instrumental relationship between them. The jury is also competent where a single act constitutes two or more offences, provided at least one falls within its catalogue.

However, the connected offences that can be severed without breaking the unity of the case are excluded from the Jury Tribunal. In practice, this separability means that financial offences connected to bribery or embezzlement are often tried by professional judges.

Defendants cannot choose the trial body or procedure (see 4.4 Venue and Specialisation).

Selection of Jurors

The Jury comprises nine full members and two alternates, selected by lot from the electoral roll among residents of the province where the offence was committed. Each party may challenge up to four candidates without giving a reason and an unlimited number with cause shown.

Prospects for Reform

No proposals currently exist to extend or restrict jury jurisdiction over financial offences.

Simultaneous Prosecution of Companies and Individuals

Companies and individuals may be prosecuted at the same time for the same conduct. Each should have separate legal representation to avoid conflicts of interest.

When a Company May Be Held Criminally Liable

Under Article 31.bis of the Criminal Code, a company may be held criminally liable for offences committed:

• in the company’s name and for its direct or indirect benefit, by its legal representatives or by those with organisational or control powers; and
• by employees, where those responsible for supervision and control have seriously failed in their duties.

A company’s criminal liability is based on its own organisational failings. Liability may be imposed even if the individual wrongdoer has not been identified, has died or is otherwise exempt from prosecution. For this reason, the prevailing legal view is that shell or nominee companies cannot be prosecuted.

Companies may only be prosecuted for offences expressly designated by the Criminal Code as applicable to legal persons.

Liability Within Corporate Groups

Criminal liability applies individually to each company. A parent company is not liable for the offences of its subsidiaries unless three conditions are met:

• an individual acting on behalf of the parent company was involved in the conduct;
• the offence was committed on behalf of and for the benefit of the parent; and
• the parent company has its own organisational failings.

In practice, the less autonomy a subsidiary has, the greater the risk that liability will extend to the parent company.

Corporate Restructuring and Extinction of Liability

A merger, acquisition, de-merger or other corporate restructuring does not extinguish criminal liability. The liability passes to the resulting entity. Liability is also not extinguished by a sham dissolution in which the business continues with substantially the same clients, suppliers and employees.

Implementation of Compliance Programmes

Spanish law does not require companies to implement a criminal compliance programme. However, Article 31bis of the Criminal Code encourages their adoption. An effective programme, put in place before any offence occurs, may exempt a company from criminal liability.

Exemption from Criminal Liability

To qualify for an exemption, the programme must be effective and demonstrate a genuine culture of compliance within the organisation. An independent body, known as the compliance officer, must oversee the programme. The programme must also include:

• a criminal risk assessment tailored to the company’s activities;
• clear decision-making procedures;
• a whistleblowing channel;
• a training programme;
• a disciplinary system; and
• processes for periodic review and updates.

Mitigation of Criminal Liability

Where a compliance programme does not meet all the requirements for full exemption, it may still serve to reduce the company’s criminal liability.

Common Defences in Financial Crime Cases

Beyond procedural challenges, the most common defences in financial crime cases focus on two issues: whether all elements of the offence have been met (particularly the intent element) and whether the defendant actually participated in the conduct.

Intent is central because financial crime offences are generally only punishable if committed intentionally. These offences often sit at the boundary between criminal conduct and administrative violations. An error, a difference of interpretation or mere negligence may be enough to exclude criminal liability.

Many financial crime offences do not fully define the prohibited conduct but instead refer to commercial, administrative or tax regulations, which are sometimes referred to as “blank criminal provisions.” In such cases, presenting expert evidence that demonstrates compliance with the relevant regulations can serve as a strong defence by establishing that the conduct was lawful.

Some financial offences allow for voluntary regularisation as a complete defence. In other cases, compensating the victim may serve as a significant mitigating factor.

Monetary Thresholds

In financial crime, monetary thresholds serve two different purposes, as outlined below.

• First, they may define the boundary between an administrative infringement and a criminal offence. If the amount involved is below the statutory threshold, only an administrative sanction applies; above it, criminal prosecution is possible. This applies to tax fraud, social security fraud, subsidy fraud and accounting fraud (see 3.5 Tax Evasion and Financial Reporting), as well as market manipulation and insider dealing (see 3.4 Financial Services Crime).
• Second, the amount may not determine whether criminal liability arises, but instead affects the severity of the penalty. This is the case for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, punishable insolvency and embezzlement (see 3.1 Fraud and Dishonesty Offences), as well as for tax fraud, social security fraud and subsidy fraud.

Companies with more than 50 employees and public-sector bodies must have an internal whistle-blowing channel. There is also an external channel operated by the Independent Authority for the Protection of Whistle-Blowers.

It is prohibited to engage in any form of retaliation against whistle-blowers. This protection extends to family members, colleagues and workers’ representatives who assist the whistle-blower. If a whistle-blower can show they suffered harm after making a report, the law presumes it was retaliation unless the employer proves otherwise.

A whistle-blower acting in good faith is protected from civil and administrative liability for disclosing information. There are no financial rewards for whistle-blowers in Spain.

Retaliation against whistle-blowers is classified as a very serious infringement. Companies may face fines of up to EUR1 million. Additionally, the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to try to influence, threaten or attack whistle-blowers, witnesses or lawyers in order to change their testimony in legal proceedings.

Anonymous Reporting

The Whistle-Blower Protection Act expressly permits anonymous reports through both internal and external channels. The Supreme Court has confirmed that an anonymous report can be sufficient to trigger a police investigation.

Mandatory Prosecution: No Prosecutorial Discretion

Spain operates a system of mandatory prosecution. The public prosecutor must bring criminal proceedings whenever there are indications that an offence has been committed. There is no discretion to decline prosecution on grounds of expediency or public interest. Unlike some other jurisdictions, Spain has no equivalent to deferred prosecution agreements or non-prosecution agreements.

The public prosecutor cannot agree to drop criminal proceedings in exchange for cooperation or future conduct commitments. However, co-operation is commonly taken into account when determining the sentence.

Conformidad: The Only Route to Early Resolution

Conformidad is the only mechanism for resolving criminal proceedings early. It allows the defendant to accept the facts and the sentence proposed by the Public Prosecutor, avoiding a full trial. This is not a free-form negotiation. The agreed sentence must fall within the legal limits for the offence.

In practice, where the parties agree on the amount of compensation in a financial crime case, the public prosecutor will often seek a significantly reduced sentence. If formal charges have not yet been filed, the prosecutor may even request that proceedings be discontinued.

Penalties for Individuals

The main penalties for individuals are imprisonment, fines and disqualification from practising a profession or holding directorships. The length and severity of these penalties depend on the seriousness of the offence, the amount involved and any aggravating factors. Aggravating factors include membership of a criminal organisation or the use of corporate structures to conceal the offence.

Penalties for Companies

The penalties available for companies are:

• fines calculated in proportion to the benefit obtained;
• dissolution, resulting in the permanent loss of legal personality;
• suspension of activities or closure of business premises;
• a ban on carrying out the activities connected to the offence;
• disqualification from public-sector contracts and from receiving subsidies, tax incentives or Social Security benefits; and
• judicial intervention to protect the rights of employees or creditors.

Mitigating Factors

The main mitigating factors are:

• confessing before the suspect learns that an investigation has begun;
• cooperating with the authorities; and
• compensating the victim.

For companies, implementing a compliance programme may also reduce liability, as explained in 5.2 Compliance Programmes.

Civil Liability Arising from the Offence

Civil liability is governed by Articles 109 to 122 of the Criminal Code and Articles 100 to 117 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It covers three elements: returning the property taken, compensating for the harm caused and paying damages for any losses resulting from the offence.

For efficiency, the civil claim is usually brought together with the criminal case and decided in the same judgment. However, the injured party may choose to pursue compensation separately in the civil courts.

The claim requires proof that the harm was caused by the offence.

To protect the victim’s interests, the investigating judge may require the suspect to provide security or, failing that, freeze sufficient assets. This power arises as soon as there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed (Articles 589 et seq of the Criminal Procedure Act).

Confiscation

Confiscation is ordered in the criminal judgment under Articles 127 et seq of the Criminal Code. It involves the forfeiture of the proceeds, assets, instruments and gains of the offence, including any transformed assets. If the original assets cannot be confiscated, the court may order the confiscation of other assets of equivalent value.

The law also provides for:

• extended confiscation of assets that are disproportionate to a convicted person’s lawful income (for certain profit-driven offences);
• confiscation without a conviction in specified circumstances, such as when the defendant has fled or died; and
• confiscation from third parties who acquired assets knowing of their illicit origin.

Enforcement and Consequences of Non-Payment

Once the judgment is final, it is enforced by the court that issued it. The court will require the convicted person to comply with the penalties, the confiscation order and any civil liability. The court has broad powers to investigate and locate assets, which may be exercised from the early stages of proceedings. It may instruct the State Tax Administration Agency or the Office for the Recovery and Management of Assets to trace assets and income until full payment is made.

Amounts recognised in the judgment bear interest from the date of the first-instance judgment at the statutory rate plus two percentage points.

Returning Recovered Assets to the Victim

Spanish law prioritises compensating the victim. Payments by the convicted person are applied first to compensation and only then to fines and costs. Similarly, confiscated assets go to the public treasury only after the victim has been compensated.

This protection is strengthened by extending the compensation obligation beyond the convicted person. Other parties may also be liable, including: the company where the offence was committed by a director or employee acting in the course of their duties; insurers, up to the policy limit; and third parties who benefited economically from the offence without participating in it (known as “participants for profit”), who are liable up to the amount they received.

Rights Over Misappropriated Assets

If the misappropriated asset can still be identified, the victim has a right to its return under Article 111 of the Criminal Code. This applies even if the asset is now held by a third party who acquired it lawfully and in good faith. That third party may then claim against the person who transferred the asset to them. Alternatively, the victim may bring a civil action to recover the property under Article 348 of the Civil Code.

If the original asset has been sold, reinvested or transformed, the victim may seek confiscation of the transformed assets, as explained in 6.3 Proceeds of Crime Recovery.

Where assets are fungible or funds have been commingled in bank accounts, the original asset cannot be identified. In such cases, the victim’s remedy is compensation for the harm caused.

Corruption, tax fraud and money laundering are the main focus of Spanish enforcement authorities. These offences harm public interests and directly affect the state and citizens, which justifies this priority.

At the same time, the rise of internet fraud and the growing use of crypto-assets is prompting authorities to devote more resources to these offences. Crypto-assets are increasingly used both as tools for committing fraud and for laundering proceeds. The sophistication of these schemes and their cross-border nature require stronger capabilities in digital forensics, asset tracing and international cooperation.

Recent legislation has focused on strengthening prevention and investigation, as outlined below.

• Organic Law 9/2022 made it easier for authorities and SEPBLAC to access and use financial information when preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting serious offences, including money laundering and terrorist financing.
• Law 2/2023 introduced mandatory internal reporting channels for companies and public-sector bodies. This strengthens the early detection of wrongdoing and the protection of whistleblowers.
• Royal Decree 609/2023 established the Central Register of Beneficial Ownership. This register is key to improving transparency about who owns and controls companies and legal structures.
• A reform of the Criminal Code is also underway to transpose Directive (EU) 2024/1226, which will make it a criminal offence to breach European Union sanctions.

In case law, one of the most significant recent decisions is the Supreme Court Judgment 1000/2025 of 9 December. The Court convicted the Attorney General of disclosing confidential data. The offence involved revealing communications between a lawyer and the prosecution during confidential plea negotiations. The judgment underscores the connection between such confidentiality and the right of defence.

Also significant is National Court Judgment 4/2025 of 5 February in the so-called “fire cartel” case. This case concerned companies in the aerial firefighting sector that colluded to divide public contracts among themselves. The court convicted the defendants for, among other offences, distorting prices in public tenders under Article 262 of the Criminal Code. Notably, the judgment applied the statutory exemption under Article 262.3 to the participant who reported the conduct and actively cooperated with the investigation.