Organic Law 1/2015: The Major Criminal Code Reform Explained

Organic Law 1/2015, of 30 March (BOE-A-2015-3439), amending Organic Law 10/1995, of 23 November, on the Criminal Code, was the broadest reform of Spain's Criminal Code since its enactment in 1995. It touched both the general and the special part, introduced a new penalty —permanent reviewable imprisonment—, abolished misdemeanours and redesigned the criminal law of business. As criminal-defence lawyers, we explain what changed, its practical scope and how it affects those facing an investigation, the accused or victims today. You can also consult our criminal law reforms page to place this law within the evolution of the Criminal Code.

Context: why such a broad reform

The 1995 Criminal Code, known as the "Criminal Code of democracy", had accumulated numerous partial reforms over two decades. Organic Law 1/2015 sought to streamline and modernise the text in a single far-reaching move, responding to several pressures at once: the transposition of European directives, social demand for a stronger response to the most serious offences, the need to relieve courts by removing misdemeanour trials, and the will to reinforce the fight against economic and organised crime.

The result was a cross-cutting reform that affected core institutions: the system of penalties, suspension and substitution, confiscation, the liability of legal persons and numerous offences in the special part. It was not a touch-up: it was a redesign. That is why, even today, analysing any act committed around 2015 requires checking which version of the Criminal Code applied.

Permanent reviewable imprisonment (Art. 140 CP, among others)

The most debated innovation was permanent reviewable imprisonment, a penalty of indeterminate duration reserved for offences of extreme seriousness. Among other scenarios, the law provided for it in certain especially serious cases of murder under Art. 140 CP (for example, where the victim is below a certain age or particularly vulnerable, in a context of gender-based violence, or where the offender belongs to a criminal organisation), as well as for the gravest offences against the Crown, genocide and crimes against humanity.

It is worth clarifying what it is and what it is not:

• It is not life imprisonment without exit. The law sets a minimum period of enforcement (security period) after which the court must review the offender's situation.
• It is reviewable. Once that minimum is served, the court periodically assesses dangerousness and the rehabilitation prognosis to decide whether to suspend enforcement of the remaining penalty.
• It has reinforced controls. Access to leave, to the open regime (third grade) and to parole is subject to stricter requirements than ordinary prison sentences.

The Constitutional Court upheld its fit within the Constitution, but the penalty remains the subject of academic debate because of its tension with the constitutional mandate of rehabilitation. For the defence, the central issue is always the correct classification of the facts: this penalty is only available where the statutory requirements of extreme seriousness are met, which opens a relevant field of legal argument.

The disappearance of misdemeanours: minor offences, administrative and civil tracks

Organic Law 1/2015 abolished Book III of the Criminal Code, which regulated misdemeanours. This decision sought to relieve the courts' workload and dignify the criminal response, reserving it for conduct with genuine relevance. The fate of the old misdemeanours was threefold:

• Conversion into minor offences. Many misdemeanours became minor offences (a new category), retaining low-level penalties —typically a fine— but now with the formal status of a crime. This is the case, for example, of certain thefts, threats, coercion or minor injuries.
• Rerouting to the administrative track. Some conduct was decriminalised and rerouted to administrative sanctioning law (for example, certain breaches of public order).
• Rerouting to the civil track. Other conduct ceased to be prosecutable in criminal law and became a matter to be claimed through the civil courts, by means of the corresponding action for damages.

The change had notable practical consequences: conversion into a minor offence means that this conduct, previously a misdemeanour, can generate a criminal record and count for certain purposes. That is why what looks minor today demands technical defence from the very first moment.

Legal persons and compliance (Art. 31 bis CP)

The reform rewrote Art. 31 bis CP, which governs the criminal liability of legal persons. The most significant development for the business world was the detailed regulation of organisation and management models, that is, compliance programmes.

After Organic Law 1/2015, a legal person may be exempt from criminal liability if it proves, among other requirements, that:

• It adopted and implemented, before the offence was committed, an organisation and management model suitable to prevent offences of the nature of the one committed.
• It entrusted supervision of the model to a body with autonomous powers of initiative and control.
• The offender fraudulently evaded the controls of the model, that is, circumvented it despite its proper operation.
• There was no omission or insufficient exercise of the supervision and monitoring functions.

The key point is that compliance must be effective, not cosmetic. A manual filed away in a drawer exempts nothing. The defence of an investigated company depends on proving the model's real operation: risk assessments, whistleblowing channels, training, internal sanctions and documentary traceability. It is an area where prevention and defence overlap.

Breach of trust: from the repealed Art. 295 to Art. 252 CP

One of the most far-reaching technical changes in economic criminal law was the rearrangement of breach of trust and misappropriation. Organic Law 1/2015 repealed Art. 295 CP, which punished the former corporate breach of trust, and unified the offence into Art. 252 CP, which now governs the unfaithful administration of another's assets in general, and not only within companies.

The new Art. 252 CP punishes anyone who, holding powers to administer another's assets —arising from law, from authority or from a legal transaction—, breaches them by exceeding their exercise and thereby causes harm to the managed assets. Misappropriation in the strict sense, in turn, was relocated to Art. 253 CP.

The change is not merely one of numbering. It extended the scope of breach of trust beyond the corporate sphere and reordered the boundary between unfaithful administration (mismanagement causing harm) and misappropriation (making another's property one's own). For the defence in economic crimes, precisely distinguishing which offence is charged and under which version of the Criminal Code it applied is decisive.

Suspension, confiscation and other reformed offences

Organic Law 1/2015 also modified numerous institutions and offences. Among those of greatest practical relevance:

• Suspension and substitution of penalties (Arts. 80 et seq. CP). The system was redesigned: suspension became a more flexible mechanism and substitution was removed as an autonomous figure, integrated into the suspension regime. The court now assesses in a unified way whether to avoid imprisonment, considering dangerousness and personal circumstances.
• Extended and non-conviction-based confiscation (Art. 127 bis CP, among others). The reform reinforced confiscation, allowing extended confiscation of assets whose lawful origin is not proven in certain offences and, in some scenarios, confiscation without conviction. It is a powerful tool against economic crime that requires a specific defence of the investigated person's assets.
• Corruption offences. Figures of public and private corruption were toughened and reordered, in line with international commitments.
• Intellectual and industrial property. These offences were revised to adapt them to the digital environment and to the unauthorised distribution of content at scale.

Each of these changes can be, depending on the case, a threat or an opportunity for the defence. Extended confiscation, for instance, requires close attention to which assets are targeted and on what basis.

What it means today for investigated persons, the accused and victims

Although the reform is now a few years old, its impact remains a daily reality in the courts:

• For the investigated person or the accused: determining which version of the Criminal Code applies to the facts is the first step. For acts close to 2015, you must compare the previous and the later regimes and claim the more favourable one.
• For the company: Art. 31 bis CP makes compliance an essential defensive element. Having an effective programme can be the difference between being charged and being exempt.
• For the victim: the disappearance of misdemeanours changed the avenues for claiming. Some conduct previously reported in a misdemeanour trial is now channelled as a minor offence, through the administrative or the civil track, which is worth clarifying before acting.

Lines of defence: transitional law and the more favourable rule

The main line of defence against a reform of this magnitude is transitional law and the principle of applying the more favourable criminal rule. Its pillars are:

• Non-retroactivity of unfavourable law (Art. 2.1 CP): acts committed before 1 July 2015 cannot be punished under the new law if it harms the defendant.
• Retroactivity of favourable law: if the reform is more beneficial (for example, by decriminalising conduct or reducing a penalty), it must apply even to earlier acts, and final sentences may be reviewed where appropriate.
• Penalty-by-penalty comparison: provisions from the two regimes are not mixed; the full applicable framework is compared and the more favourable whole is chosen.
• Precise legal classification: in figures such as permanent reviewable imprisonment or the breach of trust of Art. 252 CP, disputing the classification is often the best defence, because the applicable sentencing framework depends on it.
• Compliance defence: for the legal person, proving the real effectiveness of the organisation and management model is the route to exemption under Art. 31 bis CP.
• Control of confiscation: against extended confiscation, it is advisable to document the lawful origin of the assets and to challenge disproportionate impacts on property.

Each case requires individualised analysis. Checking the version of the Criminal Code applicable at each moment, identifying the more favourable rule and building the procedural strategy is a technical task best entrusted to a criminal-defence lawyer.