Spain's Organic Law 1/2026: What Changes in the Criminal Code

On 10 April 2026, Spain's Organic Law 1/2026 on multi-recidivism, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE No. 87) the previous day, came into force. It is the most relevant criminal-law reform of the year and directly affects thousands of ongoing and future proceedings, especially in the area of property crimes. As criminal defence lawyers, we analyse what changes, what implications it has for the defence and how it affects investigated or convicted persons.

Context: Why this Reform?

Since the 2015 reform of the Criminal Code (LO 1/2015), thefts and frauds below 400 euros were treated as misdemeanours punishable only with a fine. The practical consequence was that certain repeat offenders accumulated dozens of misdemeanour convictions without ever facing prison, generating a public-safety problem and a perception of impunity.

LO 1/2026 does not reverse the 2015 philosophy (single low-value thefts are not criminalised), but introduces a mechanism of progressive aggravation for persistent recidivists. It also takes the opportunity to toughen the criminal response to specific phenomena: mobile-phone snatching, theft on agricultural holdings and electricity fraud linked to drug trafficking.

1. Misdemeanour Theft and Recidivism (Arts. 234 and 235)

Previous situation: Theft of goods below 400€ was always a misdemeanour, punished with a fine of 1 to 3 months, regardless of how many times it had been committed before.

What changes with LO 1/2026:

• Misdemeanour theft (<400€) remains a misdemeanour with a fine as a general rule.
• Exception by multi-recidivism: if the offender has at least three previous convictions for offences of the same nature (theft, robbery, fraud or similar), and at least one is for a misdemeanour, the act is upgraded to a less serious offence, punished with 6 to 18 months' imprisonment.
• This is a new subsection in Article 234, which breaks the general misdemeanour rule for multi-recidivists.

2. New Aggravated Type: Mobile-Phone Theft (Art. 235)

One of the most significant innovations. LO 1/2026 introduces in Article 235 a specific aggravated type of theft (when there is no force on things nor violence or intimidation against persons) for the snatching of:

• Mobile phones and other portable electronic devices.
• Devices containing the holder's personal data.

The aggravation is justified by the double harm: the economic value of the device and potential access to sensitive data (banking, health, intimate). Devices in commercial establishments destined for sale are excluded (stolen from stores, not from persons), since these are already regulated by basic theft.

Penalty: 1 to 3 years' imprisonment (compared with 6-18 months for basic theft), regardless of the economic value of the device.

3. Misdemeanour Fraud and Recidivism (Arts. 248 and 250)

The reform applies an identical scheme to fraud:

• Fraud below 400€ remains a misdemeanour (fine).
• If three previous convictions for offences of the same nature concur (at least one for misdemeanour), the penalty rises to 6 months to 3 years' imprisonment, corresponding to basic fraud.

This is particularly relevant for low-value cyberfraud (fraudulent online purchases, low-intensity phishing) that had been accumulating massively.

4. Theft on Agricultural and Livestock Holdings (Art. 235)

The reform simplifies criminal protection of primary-sector holdings:

• Before: The aggravating factor required the theft to occur exploiting the field's unprotected condition, requiring complex interpretation.
• Now: It suffices that the stolen value exceeds 400€ and concerns products or elements of an agricultural or livestock holding to apply the aggravated type (1 to 3 years' imprisonment).

The goal is to protect a sector particularly vulnerable to repeated looting (copper theft, machinery, crops, livestock).

5. Electricity Fraud and "Petaqueo" (Arts. 255 and 568)

Two relevant developments in energy and instrumental matters:

Electricity fraud linked to drug trafficking (Art. 255.3):

• The manipulation of the electricity grid to power marijuana plantations or drug labs (a widespread practice) is criminalised as an autonomous offence.
• It is punished with imprisonment, beyond the ordinary fine for common electricity fraud.
• This allows prosecution of those who supply illegal hook-ups as accomplices to drug trafficking.

"Petaqueo" (Art. 568.2):

• Illegal storage and transport of liquid fuels (gasoline, diesel) destined for illegal activities, especially launches of drug-traffic speedboats from the coast, are criminalised.
• It is a direct response to maritime drug trafficking in the Strait of Gibraltar and the Andalusian coast.

6. Reform of the Recidivism Aggravator (Art. 22.8ª)

The reform modifies the general rule on recidivism with a fundamental technical adjustment:

• General rule maintained: Misdemeanour offences do NOT count for the recidivism aggravator.
• New exception: They DO count when they integrate aggravated types by multi-recidivism in Articles 234 (theft) and 248 (fraud).

7. Suspension of Sentence: New Obstacle (Art. 80.2.1ª)

Another change of great practical significance:

• Before: Misdemeanour convictions did not count for denying the suspension of a prison sentence.
• Now: If previous misdemeanour convictions integrate an aggravated type by multi-recidivism, they do count to bar suspension.

This means a multi-recidivist sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment may not obtain suspension, effectively entering prison.

8. Procedural Reforms (Criminal Procedure Act)

LO 1/2026 does not only modify the Criminal Code. It also reforms the Criminal Procedure Act:

New precautionary measures (Art. 544 bis):

• Prohibition of residing in or attending certain neighbourhoods, municipalities or zones to prevent recidivism.
• Blocking and removal of illegal content on the internet.
• These measures can be imposed at the early stages of investigation, without waiting for trial.

Standing for Municipalities (Art. 105.3):

• Local entities are expressly recognised as having standing to bring criminal action in theft offences affecting local coexistence.
• In practice, municipalities can appear as prosecution in cases of repeated thefts within their territory, without requiring the Public Prosecutor to do so.

9. Implications for Defence Strategy

As criminal-defence lawyers, LO 1/2026 requires rethinking several habitual strategies:

1. Urgent review of criminal record:

If your client has two previous convictions for theft or fraud, a third act—even a 20€ theft—may carry imprisonment. Requesting the criminal-record certificate before any plea bargain is essential.

2. Challenge previous convictions:

• Are they cancelled? A conviction already expunged from the Central Register of Convicts should not count.
• Are they "of the same nature"? The law requires previous convictions for offences within the same Title of the Criminal Code. An assault conviction does not count for the theft threshold.
• Were they issued with full guarantees? Many misdemeanour convictions are issued in absence of the accused. If there was procedural defect, nullity can be requested.

3. Avoid "automatic" plea bargains:

It is no longer advisable to accept the first offer from the Public Prosecutor in misdemeanour offences. A conviction accepted for convenience may be the third antecedent that, months later, leads the client to prison.

4. Application of the law in time:

• LO 1/2026 has no retroactive effects against the defendant (Art. 2.1).
• It only applies to facts committed from 10 April 2026 onwards.
• Previous convictions before that date do count as antecedents, but the new fact must be after entry into force.

10. Before and After: Summary Table