Minor Coercion (Art. 172.3 CP): Minor Offence, Penalty and Defence

Minor coercion is the least serious form of the offence of coercion, punished under Article 172.3 of the Criminal Code. Since the LO 1/2015 reform, which abolished the book of petty offences (faltas), this conduct is a minor offence. As specialist criminal defence lawyers in minor coercion, we explain what is punished, the penalty, and how it is defended.

What Is Minor Coercion

The offence of coercion (Art. 172 CP) consists of preventing another person, without being legitimately authorised to do so, from doing what the law does not prohibit, or compelling them to do something they do not wish to do, whether just or unjust. The minor form under Art. 172.3 covers coercion of limited significance: keeping someone's car keys so they cannot leave, momentarily blocking their path, snatching a mobile phone to stop a call, or changing a lock to make access harder. The line with the serious form under Art. 172.1 lies in the intensity of the violence or intimidation used and the circumstances of the case.

The Penalty: a Fine of One to Three Months

Art. 172.3, first paragraph, punishes minor coercion with a fine of one to three months. This is a much lighter criminal response than the basic form under Art. 172.1, which provides for imprisonment of six months to three years or a fine of twelve to twenty-four months. Being a minor offence, coercion under Art. 172.3 is tried through the procedure for the trial of minor offences (Arts. 962 et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Act), a swift route without a formal investigation phase, usually resolved in a single hearing. The limitation period for the minor offence is one year (Art. 131.1 CP), compared with five years for the gender-violence form under Art. 172.2.

An Offence Only Prosecuted on a Report

An essential feature of Art. 172.3 is that minor coercion can only be prosecuted on a report (denuncia) from the aggrieved person or their legal representative. It is not prosecuted automatically: without a report from the victim, proceedings cannot begin, and the victim's lack of interest carries decisive weight here. This requirement of a prior report marks a significant difference from the more serious forms of coercion, which are prosecuted automatically, and makes the injured party's wishes a central element of these proceedings.

When the Victim Is a Family Member

Art. 172.3 itself, in its second paragraph, increases the response when the victim is one of the persons covered by Article 173.2 CP (spouse or former spouse, partners, ascendants, descendants or other persons in the family or domestic sphere). In these cases the penalty is home confinement of five to thirty days, always at an address different from and away from the victim's, community service of five to thirty days, or a fine of one to four months (the latter only in the cases under Art. 84.2). In these cases the victim's prior report is not required.

A separate matter is gender violence: if the minor coercion is directed against a woman who is or has been the offender's wife or partner in a similar emotional relationship, or against a particularly vulnerable person living with the offender, Article 172.2 CP applies, turning it into a less serious offence with imprisonment of six months to one year or community service of thirty-one to eighty days, plus deprivation of the right to possess and carry weapons. The investigation then falls to the Violence against Women Sections of the Courts of Instance.

Differences from Threats and Stalking

The exact classification matters, because the penalty depends on it. Coercion imposes conduct in the present through violence; threats (Arts. 169 to 171 CP) announce a future harm; and stalking (Art. 172 ter CP) requires repeated, persistent conduct that seriously disrupts the victim's daily life. Reclassifying the facts from one offence to another without giving the defence the opportunity to know of it and challenge it can breach the right to be informed of the charge.

Defence Strategies

The defence against an accusation of minor coercion can be built around showing: the insignificance of the conduct, which does not reach the minimum threshold of the offence; the legitimate exercise of a right (Art. 20.7 CP), for example by an owner or creditor acting through accepted means; the consent of the person allegedly coerced; the absence of the violence required by the offence; or the absence of intent. It is also worth reviewing the requirements for prosecution, in particular the existence of a valid report from the aggrieved person where required, as well as mitigating circumstances (making amends, undue delay) that can reduce the criminal response.