What Sentence Does Fraud Carry if You Have No Criminal Record?

It is one of the first questions for anyone summoned as a suspect: what sentence does fraud carry if you have no criminal record? The answer has two parts. On the one hand, the sentencing range set by the Spanish Criminal Code is the same for everyone. On the other, having no prior record is decisive in determining whether that sentence is actually served in prison. As criminal defence lawyers specialising in fraud offences, we explain it step by step.

The Sentencing Range: Arts. 248, 249 and 250 CP

Article 248 CP defines fraud: it is committed by anyone who, with intent to profit, uses sufficient deceit to cause error in another, inducing them to make an act of disposal of assets to their own or another's detriment. From there, the penalty depends on the applicable type:

• Basic fraud (art. 248, second paragraph, and art. 249 CP): six months to three years in prison. To fix the sentence within that range, the court weighs the amount defrauded, the economic harm caused, the relationship between victim and offender and the means used.
• Low-value fraud: if the amount defrauded does not exceed 400 euros, the penalty is a fine of one to three months (a minor offence), unless an aggravating circumstance of art. 250 CP applies or the repeat-offending rule introduced by Organic Law 1/2026.
• Aggravated fraud (art. 250.1 CP): one to six years in prison plus a fine where one of its circumstances applies, such as the value defrauded exceeding 50,000 euros, procedural fraud, or abuse of the personal relationship between victim and offender.
• Hyper-aggravated fraud (art. 250.2 CP): four to eight years in prison in the most serious cases, for example where the amount defrauded exceeds 250,000 euros.

Whether a case falls under art. 249 or art. 250 changes the picture entirely, because it sets the two-year boundary that later becomes key to suspension.

How a Clean Record Comes Into Play

A common misconception is worth clearing up first: having no criminal record is not a mitigating factor and, on its own, does not reduce the sentence. Its real importance lies in the suspension of enforcement of a custodial sentence under Article 80 CP.

Art. 80.1 CP allows courts, by reasoned decision, to suspend enforcement of custodial sentences not exceeding two years where it is reasonable to expect that enforcement is not necessary to prevent the offender from committing further crimes. Art. 80.2 CP sets out the conditions for this:

1. That the convicted person is a first offender (earlier convictions for negligent or minor offences that are not qualified are not counted, nor are records that have been or should have been expunged).
2. That the sentence, or the sum of those imposed, does not exceed two years, excluding any term resulting from non-payment of a fine.
3. That the civil liabilities arising from the offence have been satisfied and any confiscation ordered in the judgment carried out — a requirement deemed met where the offender undertakes to pay them in line with their financial capacity.

So someone facing a first conviction for fraud starts from a favourable position for suspension: the first condition is met. If the sentence can also be kept at or below two years and the civil liability is addressed, the court may order that the offender does not go to prison, normally for a suspension period and on condition of not reoffending.

Common Mitigating Factors: Compensation for the Loss

To reduce the sentence within the statutory range, mitigating circumstances do come into play. The most relevant in property offences is compensation for the loss (art. 21.5 CP): repairing the harm caused to the victim, or lessening its effects, at any point in the proceedings before trial.

In a fraud case, compensating for the loss usually means returning the defrauded amount or depositing it with the court. Its effects are cumulative: it allows the mitigating factor to be applied (and, where particularly intense and early, the highly qualified version, with a reduction of one or two degrees), it is one of the elements art. 80 CP requires the court to weigh when granting suspension, and it improves the bargaining position in a possible plea agreement. Alongside it, others may apply, such as undue delay (art. 21.6 CP) where the proceedings have dragged on extraordinarily.

The Plea Agreement

In many fraud proceedings, the defence considers a plea agreement (conformidad): an agreement with the prosecution on the facts and the sentence that avoids holding a trial. Its appeal is twofold. It allows the parties to agree a sentence, usually a more contained one — often in the lower half of the range — and it combines with compensation for the loss to bring the sentence below two years, clearing the way for suspension under art. 80 CP for someone with no prior record.

A plea agreement is not always the best option: it means giving up the right to contest liability at trial. It should only be decided after a careful review of the prosecution evidence, the strength of the alleged deceit and the amount involved.

A Worked Example (Hypothetical)

To show how these pieces fit together, here is a fictional scenario, purely for illustration and with no predictive value:

A person with no criminal record is charged with a fraud of 9,000 euros. The amount does not exceed 50,000 euros and no circumstance of art. 250 CP applies, so the applicable type is the basic one under art. 249 CP (6 months to 3 years in prison). Before trial, they return the full 9,000 euros, allowing the mitigating factor of compensation for the loss (art. 21.5 CP) to be applied. In this scenario, the sentence could be set around the lower end of the range, below two years. With the conditions of art. 80 CP met — first offence, sentence not exceeding two years and civil liability satisfied — the court could order the suspension of enforcement, so the conviction does not result in actual imprisonment.

We stress that this is an illustrative example only. The real outcome depends on the evidence, the specific amount, the position of the prosecutions and the court's assessment, and no outcome can be guaranteed in advance.

Conclusion

With no prior record, the sentence for fraud is still that of art. 249 or 250 CP, but a first conviction rarely means immediate imprisonment where the sentence does not exceed two years and the loss has been repaired. There are three keys: keeping the charge within the basic type, making use of the mitigating factor of compensation and preparing the suspension under art. 80 CP. Knowing the detail of your case before you give a statement is what makes it possible to work in that direction.