
Criminal Lawyers in Denial of Rights
Defense against obstruction of the partner's right to information and participation (Art. 293 CP)
The offence of denying a partner's rights under Art. 293 of the Spanish Criminal Code (CP) punishes with a fine of 6 to 12 months the director who prevents or obstructs the right to information, participation and control that the Spanish Corporate Enterprises Act grants to partners (Arts. 196, 197 and 272 LSC). An isolated delay or a defective disclosure is not enough: case law requires repeated obstructive conduct —notarial demands or certified letters systematically ignored— or an express refusal. Although it carries no imprisonment, it does create a criminal record, and it often coincides with unfair administration or falsification of accounts. Our defence shows that the information requested was abusive or unrelated to the agenda, or that there was a formal abstention.
Opacity as a Crime
The offence of denial of partner rights, regulated in Art. 293 of the Spanish Criminal Code, protects the right of information, participation and control that the Spanish Corporate Enterprises Act (LSC) recognises to the partner (Arts. 196, 197, 272 and 287 LSC). Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has precisified the contours of the type: an isolated delay or defective delivery of information is not enough; repeated obstructive conduct, express refusal or systematic impediment to the exercise of corporate rights legally recognised is required. As criminal lawyers specialising in corporate offences, we articulate the dual criminal-commercial route to force the transparency demanded by corporate legality.
Forms of Denial of Rights
The typical modalities are varied. The refusal to exercise the pre-meeting information right (Art. 196 LSC): not delivering the accounting documentation requested before the ordinary general meeting. The denial of the information right during the meeting (Art. 197 LSC): not answering questions on the agenda items. The obstruction to the audit requested by 5% of the capital (Art. 265 LSC). The refusal to convene a general meeting after formal request from partners holding 5% (Art. 168 LSC). The impediment to attendance rights through defective notices or unannounced changes of time or place. The denial of separation rights in legally provided cases. And the obstruction to pre-emptive subscription rights in capital increases through abusive deadlines or incomplete information.
Penalties and Concurrence
The penalties under Art. 293 CP comprise fine of 6 to 12 months. Although it does not include mandatory prison, the type's impact should not be underestimated: it generates a criminal record in the convicted administrator, applies to any entity that participates permanently in the market under the broad concept of company in Art. 297 CP, legitimates civil liability for proven damages and, above all, operates as a decisive negotiating lever in the underlying corporate conflict. Concurrence with other corporate offences is common: the partner who has refused to deliver information frequently does so to conceal conducts that may constitute account falsification (Art. 290), unfair administration (Art. 252), abusive resolutions (Art. 291) or, where applicable, punishable insolvencies (Arts. 257-261). The real concurrence significantly amplifies the criminal scope.
Defence and Prosecution
The technical defence and prosecution strategy articulate several lines. When representing the harmed partner, we build the documentary evidence of the obstructive pattern: repeated notarial requests, certified letters with delivery receipt, e-mails with read receipt, notarial deeds documenting attendance at the meeting and questions raised, Commercial Registry certifications on breach of registry obligations. We articulate the criminal complaint under Art. 293 CP in parallel with the judicial request to convene a meeting (Art. 169 LSC) and, where applicable, the challenge of vitiated corporate resolutions (Arts. 204-208 LSC). When defending the charged administrator, we articulate the legitimate exception to the duty of information faced with abusive or irrelevant requests or those seeking trade secrets (Art. 197.6 LSC), the exception of grave harm to the corporate interest and the isolated conduct vs. systematic obstructive pattern.
Current Forensic Practice
In current forensic practice we observe sustained growth in proceedings for denial of partner rights, especially in closed family companies after succession conflicts, in start-ups with founding partners in dispute after investment rounds, and in joint ventures with foreign partners claiming standardised information under international standards. Act 5/2021 on long-term shareholder engagement, Crea y Crece Act 18/2022, Royal Decree-Law 2/2023 on remote meetings and Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency have reinforced corporate transparency mechanisms. At Alonso Sala, we approach each corporate conflict with a multidisciplinary criminal-commercial team: we exhaustively document the obstructive pattern, articulate tiered notarial requests, exercise the compatible criminal and commercial actions and, where appropriate, negotiate the orderly exit of the blocked partner with objective valuation of the stake.
Defense and Prosecution Strategy
Administrator Defense: We demonstrate that the requested information was abusive, irrelevant to the agenda, or harmful to social interests (trade secrets), supporting the refusal under the Capital Companies Act.
Partner Accusation: We prove through ignored notarial requests and burofaxes the systematic pattern of concealment, demonstrating that opacity seeks to hide unfair administration.
Why Alonso Sala for Rights Denial?
Specialized partner rights defense. Dual criminal-commercial strategy to force transparency
- Prosecution: notarial requests + certified letters to prove systematic obstructive pattern.
- Administrator defense: abusive information vs. trade secrets (LSC Art. 230).
- Non-convened meeting experience: 5%+ capital partner = notarial request right.
- Pressure strategy: Art. 293 complaint as leverage in corporate conflict negotiation.
Corporate Crimes in Spain: Director Liability and Shareholder Protection (Arts. 290-297 CP)
Corporate crimes (delitos societarios) are a specific category of economic offenses that protect the proper functioning of commercial companies and the rights of their shareholders. Regulated in Articles 290 to 297 of the Spanish Criminal Code, they encompass offenses ranging from false accounting to abuse of majority power and obstruction of regulatory inspections. These are crimes that can only be committed by company directors or partners in their corporate capacity.
Penalty Overview: Corporate Offenses
| Offense | Article | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| False Accounts | Art. 290 CP | 1 – 3 years + fine |
| Abusive Agreements | Art. 291 CP | 6 months – 3 years |
| Harmful Agreements | Art. 292 CP | 6 months – 3 years |
| Denial of Rights | Art. 293 CP | 6 months – 3 years |
| Obstruction of Inspection | Art. 294 CP | Fine 12-24 months + disqualification |
| Unfair Administration | Art. 252 CP | 1 – 6 years |
Key Defence Strategies
Business Judgment Rule
Demonstrate that the director's decision was made within reasonable business parameters, with adequate information, and in good faith — even if the outcome was unfavorable.
Absence of Economic Harm
Corporate crimes under Arts. 290-295 require actual financial damage to the company or its shareholders. If harm was speculative or non-existent, the offense is not complete.
Shareholder Consent / Ratification
If the general meeting ratified the director's actions or all shareholders consented, certain corporate offenses may lack the required element of acting against corporate interest.
Statute of Limitations
Corporate crimes carry relatively short prescription periods (5 years). Complex corporate investigations often exceed these timeframes, providing a strong procedural defence.
FAQs
What information can I request as a partner?
Is it a crime not to answer a burofax?
What if I ask for sensitive information (secrets)?
Is it a crime not to convene the meeting I requested?
What is the penalty for this crime?
If I am acquitted, do I have to provide the information?
Is denying a partner's right to information a crime?
Can a minority partner force an audit of the accounts?
Is excluding a partner from the general meeting without cause a crime?
Does an administrator who assigns themselves an excessive salary violate partners' rights?
Looking for a Denial of Rights Lawyer in Spain?
As a national law firm, we offer specialized criminal defense in courts across Madrid and the rest of Spain. We handle each Denial of Rights case with the urgency and technical rigor it requires from day one.
Need urgent criminal defence?
Contact our specialist criminal defence lawyers. We evaluate your case confidentially.
Tools for your case
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.