Article 250 Spanish Criminal Code: Aggravated Fraud (2026)

Article 250 of the Spanish Criminal Code sets out the circumstances in which basic fraud under Article 248 CP becomes aggravated fraud. The classification is decisive: the basic offence opens the door to a suspended sentence, whereas the aggravated offence starts at one year, which can still be suspended, and above two years ordinary suspension is no longer available (Art. 80.1 CP). As criminal defence lawyers, we explain when it applies, what penalties it carries and where the defence usually focuses.

If You Are Accused of Aggravated Fraud: What It Means and What Happens Next

When the complaint (querella or denuncia) or a court decision speaks of «aggravated fraud», the prosecution is not settling for Article 248 CP: it maintains that at least one of the eight grounds of Article 250.1 CP is present. The consequences are immediate. The penalty becomes imprisonment of one to six years and a fine of six to twelve months. Because the range reaches above five years, aggravated fraud is in every case a serious offence (Arts. 13.4 and 33.2 CP). That same maximum sets the limitation period at ten years (Art. 131.1 CP), compared with five for basic fraud.

The court also changes. The case is investigated by the Investigating Section of the Court of Instance (Tribunal de Instancia) of the place where the events occurred (Art. 14.2 LECrim), but the trial, if there is one, belongs to the Provincial Court (Audiencia Provincial), because the penalty exceeds five years in prison (Art. 14.4 LECrim). The case follows the abbreviated procedure (procedimiento abreviado), which covers offences punishable by imprisonment of up to nine years (Art. 757 LECrim).

From the outset, three things should be put in order: gather the contracts, bank transfers, emails and messages that explain the transaction; do not make a statement without a lawyer, because as a person under investigation you have the right to remain silent (Art. 118 LECrim); and do not negotiate alone with the complainant. The fact that the prosecution classifies the facts as aggravated does not mean the court will do so: each ground has its own requirements, and each must be proved.

The Grounds Under Article 250.1

Fraud is aggravated when any of the following circumstances is present:

• It affects essential goods, housing or other items of recognised social utility.
• It is committed by abusing another person's signature, or by removing or concealing a court file, record or public document.
• It affects goods of historical, artistic, cultural or scientific value.
• It is of special gravity given the loss and the economic situation in which it leaves the victim or their family.
• The value of the fraud exceeds 50,000 euros or it affects a large number of people.
• It involves abuse of personal relations with the victim, or of the offender's business or professional credibility.
• It is procedural fraud (deceiving the court to obtain a ruling that harms a third party).
• The offender had already been convicted by final judgment of at least three less serious or serious offences in the same chapter and of the same nature (multiple repeat offending).

The Eight Grounds of Article 250.1 CP: Requirements and Examples

Each ground works as an aggravation with its own requirements. The table summarises what the law requires, an illustrative example (these are not real cases) and the point on which the defence usually concentrates.

A single ground is enough to move from Article 248 to Article 250.1. If several are present, for example an amount above 50,000 euros together with abuse of trust, the range stays the same, one to six years, and the presence of the others may carry weight when the sentence is set within it. Only certain combinations open up the offence in paragraph 2.

Penalties for Aggravated Fraud

The fine of six to twelve months is not an alternative: it is imposed together with the prison sentence. The judgment also includes civil liability, that is, the return of what was obtained or compensation for the loss (Art. 116 CP). If a company is also liable (Art. 31 bis CP), Article 251 bis CP imposes on it a fine of three to five times the amount defrauded, because the penalty provided for the individual exceeds five years in prison.

When Article 250.2 CP Applies: 4 to 8 Years

Paragraph 2 raises the penalty to imprisonment of four to eight years and a fine of twelve to twenty-four months in two situations, and only in those:

• Combination with ground 1: the fraud concerns housing, essential goods or other property of recognised social utility and, in addition, there is special gravity (ground 4), an amount above 50,000 euros or a large number of victims (ground 5), abuse of personal relations or of credibility (ground 6) or procedural fraud (ground 7).
• An amount above 250,000 euros, with no other circumstance needed.

Two consequences follow. First: if ground 1 is combined with ground 2, 3 or 8, the penalty remains that of paragraph 1, because the law does not include those combinations. Second: if several grounds are present without ground 1, for example a procedural fraud of 80,000 euros, there is no jump to paragraph 2 either, unless the amount exceeds 250,000 euros.

The 50,000-Euro Line and the Continuing Offence

Ground 5 looks at the «value of the fraud», that is, the financial loss actually caused, which the prosecution must prove. Every item counts: payments that did not result from any deceit, amounts counted twice or sums that never left the victim's assets can be disputed to establish whether the total really exceeds 50,000 euros, or the 250,000 euros of paragraph 2.

Are the losses of several victims or several transactions added together? Only if the facts are grouped as a continuing offence. For property offences, Article 74.2 CP requires the penalty to be imposed «taking into account the total loss caused», and that sum can take a series of small frauds into Article 250.1.5 or Article 250.2. If there is no continuity, because there is no preconceived plan and no exploitation of an identical opportunity, each fraud is assessed on its own amount and punished separately, as a real concurrence of offences (Art. 73 CP). If the prosecution relies at the same time on the sum, on the «large number of people» of ground 5 and on the aggravation of Article 74.2 for acts that harm a general group of people, care is needed to ensure the same fact is not counted twice.

Abuse of Personal Relations

Ground 6 refers to «abuse of the personal relations existing between victim and fraudster». A prior relationship is therefore not enough: the law requires that it be abused. How far that abuse must go, beyond the trust that is already part of any deceit, is assessed case by case. The defence usually challenges the double assessment: if the trust is already part of the deceit required by the basic offence, using it again as an aggravating ground may clash with the principle against double punishment (non bis in idem).

The ground has a second form: the offender «takes advantage of their business or professional credibility». Here the law does not mention a personal relationship with the victim: it refers to the offender's credibility as a business or as a professional, and whether that credibility is what made the deceit possible is assessed case by case.

Procedural Fraud

This consists of deceiving the court through false evidence or pleadings to obtain a ruling that harms the assets of the opposing party. It is common in simulated civil litigation, claims over non-existent debts and fraudulent enforcement proceedings.

It is punished with the penalty of Article 250.1 and, if it also concerns a home or an essential good, with that of Article 250.2. The requirements and the most common scenarios are developed in our guide to procedural fraud and deceiving the court.

Multiple Repeat Offending Under Ground 8 After Organic Law 1/2026

Ground 8 aggravates fraud where, at the time of the offence, the offender had already been convicted by final judgment «of at least three less serious or serious offences included in this chapter, provided they are of the same nature». The chapter is Chapter VI of Title XIII (Arts. 248 to 256 CP). Criminal records that have been expunged, or that should have been, are not taken into account (Art. 136 CP).

The current wording comes from Organic Law 1/2026, in force since 10 April 2026. Before that, it was enough to have been convicted of three offences «included in this Chapter», with no further qualification. The reform added two filters: the earlier offences must be less serious or serious, so convictions for minor offences do not count for this ground, and they must be of the same nature. For acts committed before the reform, whichever wording is more favourable to the accused applies (Art. 2.2 CP).

It should not be confused with the general aggravating circumstance of recidivism (Art. 22.8 CP): where criminal records have already been used to apply Article 250.1.8, they cannot aggravate the sentence again as recidivism, because Article 67 CP prevents a circumstance from being assessed again when the law has already taken it into account in defining the offence.

Suspended Sentence, Plea Agreement and Limitation Period

Ordinary suspension requires that the sentence imposed, or the sum of the sentences imposed, does not exceed two years in prison, that the person convicted is a first-time offender and that they have paid the civil liability or undertaken to do so (Art. 80 CP). With a minimum of one year, a conviction under Article 250.1 can fall within that limit, and mitigating factors, such as compensation for the harm (Art. 21.5 CP), together with negotiation with the prosecution, can decide whether the final sentence fits within two years or not. Under Article 250.2, with a minimum of four years, suspension is only possible if the sentence is reduced to two years or less, for example through highly qualified mitigating factors (Art. 66.1.2 CP). Under ground 8, by contrast, the same records that aggravate the fraud normally prevent the first-time offender requirement from being met. The requirements and conditions are explained in our article on suspended sentences.

A plea agreement (conformidad) is available in the abbreviated procedure with no cap on the penalty: it is given at the preliminary hearing (Art. 785 LECrim) or at the start of the trial, before any evidence is taken (Art. 787 ter LECrim).

As for the limitation period, the maximum penalty under Article 250.1 is six years and under Article 250.2 eight years: in both cases the offence becomes time-barred after ten years (Art. 131.1 CP). If the facts are tried as a continuing offence, the period starts to run from the day the last infringement was committed (Art. 132.1 CP).

Defence Strategies

1. Challenging the amount: bringing it below 50,000 or 250,000 euros downgrades the applicable offence.
2. Denying the personal-relations aggravating ground where the trust is already part of the deceit.
3. Disputing "special gravity", an evaluative and arguable concept.
4. Taking apart the Article 250.2 combination: if the property is not a home or an essential good, the penalty returns to the range of one to six years, unless the amount exceeds 250,000 euros.
5. Reviewing the criminal records when ground 8 is relied on: records that have been or should have been expunged do not count, and neither do convictions for minor offences.
6. Compensation before trial to trigger the mitigating factor of Art. 21.5 CP.
7. A strategic plea agreement where the evidence is strong, to agree a lower sentence with the prosecution, for instance with the mitigating factor of compensation.

The difference between Article 248 and Article 250 can be the difference between freedom and prison. With over 15 years of experience in criminal law, we can study your case: see our defence in fraud cases, or call us on +34 91 078 65 74.