Criminal Lawyers in Embezzlement

Embezzlement of public funds (Arts. 432-435 CP) is one of the most serious offences against the Public Administration because it protects a dual legal interest: the public patrimony and citizens' trust in the integrity of public management. After the reform under Organic Law 14/2022, the offence clearly distinguishes appropriation with intent to personal profit (Art. 432 CP, 2 to 6 years' prison and 6 to 10 years' absolute disqualification) from mere temporary private use or application of funds with restitution (Art. 432 bis CP, mitigated penalty). Supreme Court case-law has refined the typical elements: status as public official, possession or availability of funds by reason of office, conduct of patrimonial disposition, and intent of profit or private application.

The modalities are multiple and of increasing sophistication. Direct subtraction of funds (transfers to personal accounts, cash withdrawal) is the classic conduct. Accounting embezzlement through manipulation of items, fictitious expenses or inflated invoices requires technical public-audit knowledge. Irregular contracting with overcost or awards to related companies generates concealed patrimonial damage. Embezzlement by omission (Art. 432.3 CP) punishes the official who, through gross negligence or collusion, allows third-party appropriation. Application to different purposes of subsidies, European funds or earmarked budget items is a heavily prosecuted modality. And systematic private uses of public goods —official vehicles, corporate credit cards, trips— can cross the criminal threshold when their magnitude and recurrence are significant.

The penalties reflect the gravity of the offence. Basic embezzlement with intent of profit (Art. 432.1 CP) carries 2 to 6 years' prison and 6 to 10 years' absolute disqualification. The aggravated form (Art. 432.2 CP) raises the penalty to 4 to 8 years' prison and 10 to 20 years' disqualification when damage exceeds €250,000 or affects essential public services, historical heritage or disaster relief. Improper embezzlement for temporary private use (Art. 432 bis CP) is punished with 3 to 12 months' fine or suspension of office and fine, depending on the magnitude. Accessory penalties include disqualification from public office, loss of officer status, and accounting liability before the Court of Auditors, which is autonomous from criminal liability and requires full restitution of embezzled funds plus statutory interest.

Technical defense in embezzlement is articulated on four axes. First, official status and typical availability: the active subject must be an authority or official with effective disposition over the funds by reason of office; mere administrative processing without patrimonial disposition capacity excludes authorship. Second, the dogmatic distinction between embezzlement and other offences: correct qualification as embezzlement, unfair administration (Art. 252 CP), fraud (Art. 436 CP), administrative prevarication or bribery determines radically different penalties and requires fine dogmatic analysis. Third, effective patrimonial damage: not every accounting irregularity causes typical damage; intent of personal profit or private application must be proven with direct evidence or solid indicia. Fourth, restitution and mitigating circumstances: full repayment before trial (Art. 21.5 CP) operates as a highly qualified mitigating factor allowing penalty reduction by one or two degrees (Art. 66 CP), decisive to avoid imprisonment.

In current forensic practice we detect an intensification of embezzlement proceedings stemming from three focuses: the reinforced control of Next Generation EU funds, the Court of Auditors' investigations on regional and local subsidies, and the proceedings opened by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor on public procurement with overcosts or directed awards. Organic Law 14/2022 transposing European directives and Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency have modified both the criminal type and the procedural tools for patrimonial securitization. At Alonso Sala, our criminal lawyers in embezzlement work with public accounting experts, auditors and administrative law specialists to build technical defenses that challenge typical qualification, demonstrate the absence of damage or the effective public destination of funds, and articulate restitution strategies that mitigate or avoid imprisonment. Defense requires knowledge not only of the Criminal Code but also the Public Sector Contracts Act, the General Subsidies Act, the Court of Auditors Organic Law, and regional and local budget management regulations.