Skip to content

Criminal Lawyers in Falsification of Accounts

Technical defence against accounting manipulation accusations (Art. 290 CP). Forensic audit to prove true and fair view

Falsification of annual accounts is the offence under art. 290 CP: it is committed by de facto or de jure directors who falsify the annual accounts or other documents that must reflect the company's legal or economic position, in a manner apt to cause economic harm to the company itself, to a shareholder or to a third party. The penalty is 1 to 3 years' imprisonment plus a fine of 6 to 12 months; if the harm actually materialises, it is imposed in its upper half. Not every accounting inaccuracy is a crime: intent is required, and a technical difference of accounting criteria does not qualify. At Alonso Sala we defend directors, shareholders and executives facing these charges before any court in Spain.

The Battle for the True and Fair View

The offence of falsification of annual accounts and other corporate documents, regulated in Art. 290 of the Spanish Criminal Code, protects the truthfulness of corporate information and the trust of legal-economic traffic in the financial statements filed with the Commercial Registry. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has precisified the contours of the type: not every accounting inaccuracy is a crime, only those that alter the true and fair view of the assets, financial situation or results with intent and capacity to cause economic harm. As criminal lawyers specialising in account falsification, we intervene from the first procedural step to articulate the dual technical-accounting and procedural defence.

Typical Forms (Art. 290 CP)

The typical modalities are recurring in forensic practice. The concealment of liabilities (not provisioning supplier debts, not reflecting contingent liabilities from litigation, omitting guarantees granted to group companies) to artificially improve solvency. The overvaluation of assets (real estate, obsolete inventory, uncollectible receivables without impairment, intangibles without recoverability) to inflate net assets. The improper capitalisation of expenses that should be taken to the income statement, such as non-recoverable R&D expenses or current financial expenses. The non-recording of real income or, conversely, the premature recognition of unaccrued income. And, in serious cases, the B accounting in concurrence with the tax offence under Art. 305 CP.

Penalties and Concurrence

The penalties under Art. 290 CP comprise prison from 1 to 3 years and fine from 6 to 12 months. When economic harm has actually been caused to the company, the shareholders or third parties (creditors, investors, Administration), the penalty is applied in its upper half. If the falsification is instrumentally used to commit other economic offences (fraud, tax evasion, asset stripping, unfair administration), real or instrumental concurrence is appreciated, multiplying the criminal reach. The legal entity is not criminally liable under Art. 290, which is not among the offences covered by Art. 31 bis CP; it can only be so where the facts also amount to an offence that does provide for it (fraud, tax fraud, money laundering). To custodial penalties are added the fine, special disqualification as an accessory penalty where the office was directly connected with the offence (Art. 56 CP), the bar on acting as a director that company law attaches to the conviction (Art. 213 LSC), reparative civil liability and, where applicable, the nullity of the approved accounts with commercial registry implications.

Technical Defence Strategy

The technical defence articulates several complementary lines. First, the technical-accounting discussion: not every discrepancy with the General Accounting Plan or IFRS integrates criminal falsehood; the reasoned choice between alternative methods covered by the rule (valuation criteria, useful lives, impairments, risk provisions) is accounting opinion, not fraudulent falsehood. Second, the absence of capacity to cause relevant economic harm: the principle of minimum intervention excludes from Criminal Law the minor inaccuracies that do not alter the overall true and fair view. Third, the effective delegation to the financial team and auditors: the signing administrator can benefit from the principle of trust and of mistake as to the falsity (mistake of fact, Art. 14.1 CP) when they have acted after a favourable external auditor's report. Fourth, the separation between de facto and de jure administrator to neutralise crossed charges. Fifth, the challenge of the evidentiary chain and the party expert appraisal recharacterising the discrepancies.

Current Forensic Practice

In current forensic practice we observe sustained growth in accounting-falsification proceedings, especially linked to shareholder conflicts, punishable insolvencies under Arts. 257-261 CP, culpable bankruptcy, banking financing operations backed by over-optimistic accounts, and company-sale transactions where the buyer discovers material deviations in due diligence. Act 11/2021 on anti-fraud measures, EU Directive 2017/1371 on the protection of financial interests and recent Supreme Court case-law have reinforced the institutional response. Organic Law 1/2025 on the efficiency of the Public Justice Service is a procedural and organisational statute: it does not amend the Criminal Code or its penalties. At Alonso Sala, we tackle each file with a multidisciplinary criminal-commercial-accounting team: we conduct reverse audit, articulate party economic expertise neutralising or modulating the charge, manage coordination with the client's external auditors and build a comprehensive defence protecting the charged administrator and, where applicable, the company itself as a legal entity.

Defence Strategy: Accounting vs. Intent

Not every accounting error is a crime. The Criminal Code requires intent (intention to deceive). Our defence is based on accounting expert reports demonstrating that discrepancies are due to:

  • Valuation Criteria: Technical discrepancies on how to amortize an asset or provide for a risk, supported by accounting regulations (GAAP).
  • Absence of Relevant Harm: Even if there is an error, if it does not substantially alter the patrimonial image of the company in a way that deceives an average investor, there is no crime (principle of minimum intervention).

Why Alonso Sala for Falsification?

Specialized technical defence in account falsification. Accounting expert to distinguish intent from GAAP error

  • Accounting experts: true and fair view analysis vs. technical GAAP valuation discrepancies.
  • Intent vs. error strategy: minimum criminal intervention (minor errors = administrative).
  • De facto vs. de jure administrator defence: proof of lack of executive control.
  • Crime concurrence experience: B accounting (falsification + tax fraud).

Corporate Crimes in Spain: Director Liability and Shareholder Protection (Arts. 290-297 CP)

Corporate crimes (delitos societarios) are a specific category of economic offences 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 offences ranging from false accounting to abuse of majority power and obstruction of regulatory inspections. They are generally committed by company directors (de facto or de jure) or by partners in their corporate capacity, although Art. 292 also reaches whoever takes advantage of the harmful resolution.

Penalty Overview: Corporate Offences

OffenceArticlePenalty
False AccountsArt. 290 CP1 – 3 years + fine
Abusive AgreementsArt. 291 CP6 months – 3 years or a fine of one to three times the benefit
Harmful AgreementsArt. 292 CP6 months – 3 years or a fine of one to three times the benefit
Denial of RightsArt. 293 CPFine of 6 to 12 months
Obstruction of InspectionArt. 294 CPPrison 6 months-3 years or fine 12-24 months
Unfair AdministrationArt. 252 CP6 months – 3 years (1 – 6 or 4 – 8 years if aggravated, Art. 250)

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 Harm or of Capacity to Harm

Art. 290 requires the falsehood to be capable of causing economic harm (if the harm occurs, the penalty rises to its upper half) and Arts. 291 and 292 require the resolution to be imposed to the detriment of the shareholders or the company. If the falsehood could not cause harm or the resolution harmed no one, the offence is not made out; Arts. 293 and 294, by contrast, require no economic harm.

Shareholder Consent / Ratification

If the general meeting ratified the director's actions or all shareholders consented, certain corporate offences may lack the required element of acting against corporate interest.

Statute of Limitations

Corporate crimes (Arts. 290-294) become time-barred 5 years after they are committed (Arts. 131.1 and 132.1 CP). The period is interrupted once proceedings are directed against the suspect (Art. 132.2), so the defence turns on the time elapsed up to that point, not on the length of the investigation.

FAQs

Is a simple accounting error a crime?
No. The crime requires intent, i.e., the intention to falsify to deceive and cause harm. A technical error, a miscalculated provision, or a difference in accounting criteria is not a crime, it's an audit issue.
What is the 'true and fair view'?
It is the supreme accounting principle. It means that the accounts must reflect the company's economic reality completely and truthfully. The crime is committed when debts are hidden ('B accounting') or assets are inflated to give a false appearance of solvency.
Does the auditor have criminal liability?
Yes. If the auditor knows about the falsehood and covers it up by issuing a favorable report, they can be convicted as a necessary cooperator in the crime of falsifying accounts.
If I didn't sign the accounts, am I in the clear?
It depends. If you are the 'de facto administrator' (the one who really calls the shots), you can be convicted even if someone else signed as a figurehead. If you are a formal administrator but had no control, your defence is to prove you were deceived by the executive management.
What is the penalty for this crime?
Imprisonment from 1 to 3 years and a fine of 6 to 12 months. If the harm actually occurs, the penalties are imposed in their upper half. A conviction also bars the person from acting as a company director (Art. 213 LSC), and the court may impose special disqualification as an accessory penalty (Art. 56 CP).
Why are accounts falsified?
To deceive banks and obtain financing, to attract investors, to hide losses and avoid the legal cause for dissolution, or to not distribute dividends to minority shareholders.
Can unaudited annual accounts be false?
Yes. The offence of accounting falsification does not require the accounts to be audited. The obligation to reflect a true and fair view exists independently of the audit obligation.
Is an auditor who fails to detect the falsification liable?
Only if they knowingly took part in the falsification, as a necessary cooperator or accessory. Mere negligence in applying auditing standards does not make them criminally liable, because Art. 290 has no negligent form (Art. 12 CP), although it may lead to civil liability or audit-supervision sanctions.
Is failing to file the annual accounts with the Commercial Registry a crime?
Failing to file them is a commercial infringement with consequences such as the closure of the registry sheet, but it is not a criminal offence per se. If they are deliberately concealed to cover up fraud, it can be linked to other offences.
Can accounting falsification be reported without being a partner?
Art. 290 can only be prosecuted upon a complaint (denuncia) by the aggrieved party (Art. 296 CP), which may be the company, a shareholder or a harmed third party such as a creditor. The Public Prosecutor can act without it only where the offence affects general interests or a plurality of persons, or file it on behalf of a minor, a person with a disability in need of special protection or a helpless person.
How much does a lawyer for a false accounting case cost?
There is no single fee: it depends on the procedural stage, the complexity of the case (the volume of accounting records and financial years to review, or the need for a party-appointed forensic accountant) and the court that will hear it. We set a fixed fee after studying the case, so you know from the outset where you stand.
Do you act throughout Spain?
Yes. Although the firm is based in Madrid, we take on the defence before any court or tribunal across the national territory.

Looking for a Falsification of Accounts Lawyer in Spain?

As a national law firm, we offer specialized criminal defence in courts across Madrid and the rest of Spain. We handle each Falsification of Accounts 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.

This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice: every case requires individual assessment. How this content is produced and verified: editorial policy.

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.