Criminal Organisation and Criminal Group Lawyers (Art. 570 bis & 570 ter CP)
Specialist criminal defence in criminal organisation (Art. 570 bis CP) and criminal group (Art. 570 ter CP): the difference between stability and structure, penalties by number of members and aims, membership versus collaboration, and dissolution (Art. 570 quáter).
Last updated: · How we verify this content
Chapter VI of Title XXII of the Spanish Criminal Code, devoted to offences against public order, criminalizes criminal organisations and groups in articles 570 bis, 570 ter and 570 quáter CP. These offences target the associative and ongoing dimension of crime, independently of the specific offences committed. At Alonso Sala we build the defence of those investigated or charged with belonging to, directing, or cooperating with a structure of this kind.
Organisation versus criminal group: the key difference
Art. 570 bis CP defines a criminal organisation as a grouping of more than two people with a stable or indefinite character that, in a concerted and coordinated manner, divides various tasks or functions in order to commit offences. Its two core features are stability and a structured division of functions.
Art. 570 ter CP regulates the criminal group as the union of more than two people that, without meeting one or more of the features of a criminal organisation, has as its aim or purpose the concerted commission of offences. In other words, a group requires neither stability nor a hierarchical structure with a division of tasks: a plural union with a concerted purpose suffices. Spanish Supreme Court doctrine has stressed that this distinction prevents confusing mere occasional co-perpetration or joint offending with membership of a group, and that the boundary between the two is one of degree: the greater the permanence and division of roles, the more it resembles an organisation; otherwise, a group.
Penalties by aim and the member's role
For a criminal organisation (Art. 570 bis CP), those who promote, constitute, organise, coordinate, or direct it face 4 to 8 years' imprisonment where the aim is to commit serious offences, and 3 to 6 years in other cases. Those who actively participate, form part of it, or cooperate financially or in any other way face 2 to 5 years (serious offences) or 1 to 3 years (other cases).
For a criminal group (Art. 570 ter CP) penalties are graded by aim: 2 to 4 years where the aim is to commit serious offences against life, integrity, liberty, sexual freedom, or human trafficking (1 to 3 years where those offences are less serious); 6 months to 2 years for other serious offences; and 3 months to 1 year where the aim is to commit less serious offences or the repeated commission of minor offences.
In both offences, penalties are imposed in their upper half where the organisation or group comprises a large number of people, has weapons or dangerous instruments, or advanced technological means of communication or transport; where two or more of these circumstances concur, the next higher penalty applies.
A standalone offence: concurrence of offences
Membership of the organisation or group is a standalone offence punished in addition to the offence actually committed by the structure (drug trafficking, fraud, money laundering, etc.). This is a real concurrence of offences: the sanction for belonging to the network is added to that of the specific act, subject to the non bis in idem principle, which prevents the same reality from being counted twice. The correct framing of this concurrence is a frequent battleground for the defence.
Membership versus collaboration
Not every contribution falls within the offence. It is necessary to distinguish membership — joining the structure with an intention of permanence — from occasional collaboration or cooperation, as well as from simple co-perpetration of the underlying offence by someone outside the network. Showing that the involvement was isolated, unconnected to the structure, or lacking the associative element neutralizes a conviction under this heading.
Dissolution and ancillary consequences (Art. 570 quáter)
Art. 570 quáter CP requires judges and courts to order the dissolution of the organisation or group and, where appropriate, any of the ancillary consequences of Arts. 33.7 and 129 CP. It also contains rules for prosecuting acts committed outside Spain.
This area forms part of our practice in offences against public order, alongside defence in assault on authority, public disorder, illegal weapons possession. From our office at Velázquez 27 (Madrid) we act throughout the investigation and trial.
Penalties & Consequences: Criminal Organisation and Criminal Group Lawyers (Art. 570 bis & 570 ter CP)
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Prison sentences | Up to 4 to 8 years for promoters and directors of an organisation aimed at serious offences; 2 to 5 years for active participants; and from 3 months to 4 years for a criminal group depending on the aim. |
| Concurrence with the underlying offence | The penalty for belonging to the organisation or group is added to that of the offence actually committed (trafficking, fraud, money laundering), in real concurrence of offences. |
| Dissolution and ancillary measures | The court orders the dissolution of the organisation or group (Art. 570 quáter) and, where appropriate, the ancillary consequences of Arts. 33.7 and 129 CP. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Defense Strategy: Criminal Organisation and Criminal Group Lawyers (Art. 570 bis & 570 ter CP)
Deny the associative element
Show that neither the structure of Art. 570 bis nor the concerted union of Art. 570 ter is present, but rather an occasional co-perpetration or joint offending unconnected to any stable or concerted network.
Reclassify organisation as group
Where stability or a structured division of functions is missing, argue for Art. 570 ter (markedly lower penalties) over Art. 570 bis, or for atypicality as mere joint offending.
Control concurrence and non bis in idem
Ensure that the reproach for membership does not duplicate elements already punished in the underlying offence and litigate the correct framing of the real concurrence to avoid a disproportionate sentence.
Illegal Weapons Possession in Spain: Arts. 563-568 CP — Defense Guide
Weapons offenses in Spain are governed by Articles 563 through 568 of the Criminal Code and the Weapons Regulations (Royal Decree 137/1993). Penalties vary dramatically depending on the weapon category — from fines for minor regulatory infractions to up to 6 years' imprisonment for war weapons. The classification of the weapon and the existence of a valid license are the two decisive factors in every case.
Penalty Table: Weapons Offenses
| Offense | Article | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Regulated firearms without license | Art. 564 | 1 – 2 years |
| Short firearms (pistols) without license | Art. 564.1.1° | 1 – 2 years |
| Long firearms (rifles) without license | Art. 564.1.2° | 6 months – 1 year |
| Prohibited weapons / modified weapons | Art. 563 | 1 – 3 years |
| War weapons possession | Art. 566 | 3 – 6 years |
| Manufacturing without authorization | Art. 568 | 1 – 3 years |
| Weapons trafficking | Art. 566.1 | 5 – 10 years |
| Weapons stockpiling (depósito) | Art. 566.1 | 5 – 10 years |
Core Defense Strategies
Weapon Classification Challenge
The difference between a 'prohibited weapon' (Art. 563, 1-3 years) and a 'regulated weapon without license' (Art. 564, 6 months-2 years) can halve the sentence. Expert ballistic assessment is critical to reclassify the weapon.
Licensing & Regulatory Defense
Expired licenses, pending renewal applications, or inherited weapons without updated paperwork can negate criminal intent. We prove the administrative nature of the situation to avoid criminal prosecution.
Lack of Criminal Intent (Dolo)
Possessing an inherited, inoperative, or decorative weapon without knowledge of its illegality can constitute an absence of criminal intent — the essential element for conviction under Arts. 563-564 CP.
Chain of Custody & Search Legality
Weapons seized during illegal searches, without warrant, or with broken chain of custody are inadmissible evidence. We challenge every procedural irregularity to secure acquittal or exclusion of evidence.
Why Choose Us?
Need a criminal defense lawyer for this type of offense? Here's how we work:
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.