Buying a stolen phone in Spain: what Article 298 of the Criminal Code says about receiving stolen goods and how it is defended

Buying a second-hand phone at a good price is an everyday transaction on forums and marketplace apps. The problem arises when the handset turns out to come from a theft or robbery: in that case, whoever buys it may find themselves investigated for the offence of receiving stolen goods under Article 298 of the Spanish Criminal Code, even though they took no part in the theft itself. We explain exactly what the law punishes, the penalties involved, how knowledge of the illicit origin is proved and why the buyer's good faith is the centrepiece of the defence.

What receiving stolen goods is (Art. 298 CP)

Article 298 CP punishes anyone who, for profit and with knowledge of the commission of a crime against property or the socio-economic order in which they took part neither as a perpetrator nor as an accomplice, helps those responsible to profit from the proceeds, or receives, acquires or conceals those proceeds. Applied to the buying and selling of phones, receiving is committed by anyone who acquires a handset knowing that it comes from a prior theft or robbery.

The key point is that receiving is a separate, later offence: the receiver does not steal the phone but profits from the loot once the theft has been committed. That is why the law requires two elements worth keeping in mind from the outset: an intent to profit and, above all, knowledge that the item comes from a crime against property.

The elements of the offence

For a purchase to fall under Article 298 CP, several elements must be present together:

• A prior crime against property: the phone must come from a theft, robbery or other property offence committed by a third party.
• No involvement in that crime: the receiver cannot be a perpetrator or accomplice of the theft; if they were, they would answer for that offence, not for receiving.
• Intent to profit: the purchase seeks a benefit, typically keeping a handset for less than its real value or reselling it.
• Knowledge of the illicit origin: the buyer must know that the phone comes from a crime. This is the decisive subjective element and the one that dominates the argument in almost every case.

If any of these is missing, there is no receiving. Of the four, the one genuinely contested at trial is knowledge: no one openly admits to having knowingly bought a stolen phone, so the case turns on whether the prosecution manages to establish that fact.

It is also worth noting that the predicate offence need not have resulted in a prior final conviction against its perpetrator: it is enough for the proceedings to establish that the earlier criminal act from which the goods come actually took place. Receiving rests on the reality of the prior taking, not on identifying or putting on trial whoever actually committed it.

The penalties: six months to two years (and the statutory cap)

Article 298 CP sets a base penalty of six months to two years' imprisonment. That range rises to one to three years' imprisonment in aggravated cases, including:

• Where the goods received have artistic, historical, cultural or scientific value.
• Where they are of particular gravity, having regard to the value of the goods or the harm caused.
• Where the goods are trafficked, that is, where there is an activity of commercialisation.

There is also a very relevant limit in practice: the penalty imposed on the receiver cannot exceed the one set for the offence the goods come from. Since the taking of a phone usually falls within the brackets for theft or robbery, that cap often acts as a real brake on the penalty applicable to the buyer. Applying it correctly is one of the technical points the defence examines when arguing the precise length of any sentence.

The habitual receiver (Art. 299 CP)

Alongside the occasional receiving of Article 298, Article 299 CP provides for the figure of the habitual receiver: anyone who, knowing their origin, repeatedly receives or acquires goods coming from property offences. What is punished here is not an isolated purchase but a recurring dedication to profiting from goods of illicit origin.

It is aimed at those who turn receiving into a steady activity or a business, such as certain outlets that systematically deal in stolen handsets. Classification as habitual aggravates the criminal response and, by its very nature, requires proof of that repetition rather than a single act.

Proving knowledge: low price, IMEI and circumstances

Because knowledge is a state of mind, it is rarely shown by direct evidence. Courts infer it from circumstantial evidence: objective facts that, assessed together, reasonably support the conclusion that the buyer knew, or at least could not have been unaware, that the phone came from a crime. The most recurrent indicators in these cases are:

• A suspiciously low price: a price strikingly below market value for a handset of those characteristics is the leading indicator. A high-end phone sold for a fraction of its worth is hard to explain as a normal transaction.
• No invoice, box or accessories: the absence of proof of purchase, the original packaging or the charger may point to an irregular origin.
• The state and data of the IMEI: an IMEI that is reported, deregistered or blocked by the network operator is one of the weightiest indicators, because it shows the handset is recorded as stolen.
• The circumstances of the purchase: the place, the time, the anonymity of the seller, haste in closing the deal or a refusal to provide full identification round out the circumstantial picture.

The defence's task is to examine, one by one, the strength of those indicators and the legitimacy of the inference. A single isolated fact is not enough to convict; circumstantial proof requires a plurality of consistent indicators and a conclusion that leaves no room for reasonable alternative explanations. This is where the involvement of lawyers who specialise in receiving stolen phones proves decisive in challenging the logical chain on which the prosecution rests.

The good-faith defence in second-hand purchases

The flip side of proving intent is the buyer's good faith. Anyone who acquires a phone while reasonably trusting its lawful origin does not commit receiving, because the element of knowledge is missing. And the second-hand market — forums, private marketplace apps, refurbished-goods stores — is built precisely on legitimate transactions in which the buyer has no reason to be suspicious.

To support that good faith, the precautions a diligent buyer typically takes are especially useful and, if needed, serve as exculpatory evidence:

• Keeping the listing, the conversation and the proof of payment, which document a market price and market conditions.
• Having checked the IMEI of the handset in the available registers before buying.
• Holding the seller's identification details and, where applicable, an invoice or receipt.
• Having paid a price in line with the real value of the device.

These elements not only strengthen the honest buyer's position: they help dismantle the inference of knowledge on which the prosecution relies. For that reason, if you are summoned, the wisest step is to gather and preserve all that documentation before the first statement.

The link with Organic Law 1/2026 and phone theft

Organic Law 1/2026, in force since 10 April 2026, toughened the criminal treatment of mobile-phone theft, a phenomenon with a heavy impact in tourist areas and on public transport. That reform bears directly on the underlying offence — the theft or robbery of the device — rather than on receiving as such.

That said, a tougher predicate offence indirectly intensifies the interest in pursuing the whole chain, from whoever takes the phone to whoever later acquires it. Against a backdrop of greater severity and police attention to phone theft, caution on the part of the second-hand buyer makes even more sense.

Specialist defence with Alonso Sala

An investigation for receiving a stolen phone is almost always decided on the ground of proving knowledge. At Alonso Sala, a criminal defence firm based in Madrid (calle Velázquez 27) with coverage throughout Spain, we analyse in detail the chain of circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution is built and the strength of the buyer's good faith. Each matter is studied individually, in light of its specific circumstances and the legal framework in force, in order to build the defence strategy that best fits the facts.