Handling Stolen Electronics (Art. 298 CP): Laptops, Consoles and Components

The resale of second-hand electronic devices is a huge market and, overwhelmingly, a legitimate one. The problem arises when the device comes from a theft: whoever acquires or resells it can end up under investigation for handling stolen goods (receptación) under Article 298 of the Criminal Code, even without having taken part in the theft itself. As criminal defence lawyers specialising in handling stolen technology, we explain the scope of this offence beyond mobile phones, which have their own dedicated treatment.

What handling stolen electronics means

Article 298 CP punishes anyone who, with intent to profit and knowledge that a property or economic offence has been committed in which they did not take part, helps those responsible profit from its proceeds, or receives, acquires or conceals them. Applied to technology, whoever buys or resells laptops, tablets, games consoles, computer components (graphics cards, processors) or wearables knowing they come from a prior theft commits handling of stolen goods. It is a standalone, subsequent offence: it does not punish the theft, but the profiting from the loot once the theft has taken place.

The penalties under Article 298 CP

The basic form is punished with six months to two years' imprisonment. The penalty rises to one to three years' imprisonment where the facts are especially serious, having regard to the value of the goods or the foreseeable harm from the theft (Art. 298.1.c), or where they involve components of power supply or telecommunications infrastructure (Art. 298.1.b), a relevant scenario in the theft of network equipment. Where the goods are received to be trafficked, the penalty is imposed in its upper half; and if the trafficking takes place through a commercial business or premises, a fine of twelve to twenty-four months is added, along with possible disqualification from practising the trade or business for two to five years and temporary or permanent closure of the premises (Art. 298.2). There is also an essential cap: the prison term can never exceed the one set for the offence the devices came from (Art. 298.3).

Traceability beyond the IMEI

Identifying the devices is the key evidential issue. While phones are traced by their IMEI, computers and tablets carry a serial number, networked equipment has a MAC address, and many devices are linked to a user account with an activation lock (which prevents reuse without the owner's credentials). These identifiers allow a seized device to be matched against a theft report. Techniques such as wiping, reinstalling or bypassing those locks, when present, reinforce the indication of knowledge of the unlawful origin.

Proving knowledge, and good faith

Since knowledge is an internal state, it is rarely proven directly: courts infer it from objective, consistent indicators. The most common are a rock-bottom price (well below market value for the model), the absence of an invoice, box or accessories, an anonymous seller, and the circumstances of the transaction. The counterpart is the good faith of a diligent buyer: keeping the listing, the conversation and proof of payment, having checked the serial number or the status of the activation lock, holding the seller's details, and having paid a price in line with the real value are all elements that undermine the inference of knowledge.

Second-hand shops and online sales

Second-hand goods dealers are subject to obligations to identify the seller, keep a register of transactions and retain the documentation. Systematic breach of these obligations is an indicator of handling stolen goods with the business-premises aggravation (Art. 298.2). In private sales between individuals online, liability is individual: buying or reselling devices that are manifestly stolen — because of their price, their origin or their lock status — can amount to handling stolen goods, while platforms have a duty to cooperate and remove listings, with limited direct liability.

Defence strategies

The defence is built mainly around the absence of the subjective element: showing there was no knowledge, nor reasonable grounds to suspect the unlawful origin. Added to this are challenging the prosecution's chain of indicators, examining the chain of custody and the correct identification of the device (serial number or MAC), applying the cap under Art. 298.3 relative to the penalty for the originating offence, and assessing mitigating circumstances such as reparation of the damage through return of the device. An early analysis of the file helps decide whether to pursue acquittal or negotiate an outcome tailored to the available evidence.