Crypto-Asset Criminal Offenses: Specialized Defense
Family macro landing: defense in crypto fraud, stablecoin and NFT fraud, rug pulls, crypto laundering, wallet forfeiture and DAO liability under MiCA.
Last updated:
The New Criminal Map
The mass adoption of crypto-assets and the entry into force of MiCA Regulation (EU 2023/1114) have transformed the criminal landscape. Spain is the fourth European country in crypto scam complaints, with €280M defrauded in 2024 alone. The Economic Crime Prosecutor's Office created a specific crypto offenses unit and the National Court handles cross-border cases.
This is the macro landing of our service family. For specific topics see our specialized pages on general crypto criminal defense, on-chain fraud tracing, MiCA traceability, stablecoin and rug pull fraud, crypto fund forfeiture and DAO criminal liability.
Most Frequent Typologies
- Crypto romance scams.
- Rug pulls in DeFi projects.
- Honeypots and exit scams.
- Stablecoin fraud with guaranteed returns.
- Organized pump and dump.
- Advanced phishing on DEX.
- Crypto SIM swapping.
- Laundering with mixers and privacy coins.
- Tax offense for undeclared gains.
MiCA and Platform Liability
MiCA Regulation imposes on Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) obligations of authorization, capital, conduct, conflicts of interest and AML. Non-compliance may trigger criminal liability when concurring with criminal conduct: operating without license, knowing AML breach, defrauding clients through opaque conditions.
Forfeiture and Tracing
Crypto-asset forfeiture is legally possible when effective control by the investigated party is established. Judges direct orders to custodian exchanges based in Spain or EU to freeze balances, and to analytics firms to trace on-chain transactions. Technical defense requires challenging wallet attribution, digital chain of custody and, in cross-border cases, jurisdiction.
Our Crypto Defense Methodology
We apply a four-part methodology: on-chain forensic analysis with chain analysis tools to reconstruct flows; expert evidence challenge when there are attribution or custody errors; jurisdictional strategy for cross-border cases; asset recovery for victims through exchange orders and international cooperation.
Penalty Chart
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Crypto fraud (Art. 248 CP) | 6 months to 3 years' imprisonment; aggravated up to 6 years when exceeding €50,000. |
| Crypto laundering (Art. 301 CP) | 6 months to 6 years' imprisonment and fine up to threefold the laundered value. Forfeiture. |
| MiCA sanction | Up to 12.5% of annual turnover or €12.5M for serious CASP breaches. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Our Defense Strategy
Immediate technical triage
Forensic capture of wallets, keys, devices and communications before any alteration.
Coordinated recovery
Orders to custodian exchanges and cooperation with FinCEN/Europol when international nexus exists.
Exchange/CASP defense
Establish MiCA and AML compliance to avoid corporate imputation.
Victim settlement
When defensible, exploration of partial reparation to activate mitigations.
Crypto Fraud Defence: Scams, On-Chain Tracing, MiCA & Asset Seizure
Crypto-related criminal cases combine classical offences — fraud (Arts. 248-250 CP), money laundering (Art. 301 CP), tax fraud (Art. 305 CP) and criminal organisation (Art. 570 bis CP) — with the technical reality of blockchain: pseudonymous wallets, mixers, cross-chain bridges, stablecoins and DeFi protocols. There is no autonomous "crypto offence": prosecutors must fit the facts into an existing criminal type and prove the on-chain flow with admissible expert evidence. Defence therefore demands both criminal-law expertise and independent blockchain forensics.
Penalty Table: Crypto-Asset Offences
| Offence | Article | Description | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic crypto fraud | Arts. 248-249 | Deception inducing the transfer of crypto-assets (fake broker, fake platform) | 6 months – 3 years |
| Aggravated fraud | Art. 250 | Special gravity, multiplicity of victims or high amount | 1 – 6 years |
| Money laundering with crypto | Art. 301 | Concealing illicit origin via mixers, bridges or exchanges | 6 months – 6 years + fine |
| Crypto tax fraud | Art. 305 | Evaded quota over €120,000 per fiscal year (Form 721) | 1 – 5 years + fine |
| Computer damage / DeFi exploit | Art. 264 | Exploit damaging systems or data (smart-contract attack) | 6 months – 3 years |
| Criminal organisation | Art. 570 bis | Structured group running crypto fraud at scale | 2 – 8 years |
Key Defence Strategies
Independent Blockchain Counter-Expert
Chainalysis, Elliptic or TRM tracing graphs are interpretations, not certainties. An accredited own expert can challenge address clustering heuristics, mixer assumptions and the attribution of a wallet to a specific person.
Market Contingency vs. Deception
A loss is not a crime. Many crypto disputes are investment risk, protocol failure or contractual breach — civilly reproachable but criminally atypical. The defence isolates genuine deception (Art. 248) from ordinary market loss.
Good Faith & KYC Diligence
Documented KYC, lawful source of funds, Form 721 reporting and declared capital gains rebut the knowledge element of laundering and fraud. Willful blindness must be proven, not presumed.
Criminal-Tax Bifurcation
Voluntary tax regularisation can activate the Art. 305.4 CP exemption, while the administrative track (CNMV/SEPBLAC) is handled separately from the criminal process, where defences may diverge.
Key Case Law
The Supreme Court accepts that the appearance of a legitimate trading platform or broker can constitute the 'sufficient deception' of Art. 248: the victim's error is measured against the credibility of the staged operation, not against the abstract diligence of an expert investor.
On-chain tracing is valid evidence but subject to expert contradiction. Traceability of a flow to a wallet does not, by itself, prove the intent (dolo) of its holder; the prosecution must still establish knowledge and control.
Using undeclared crypto gains to make further investments may integrate self-laundering (Art. 301.1) in concurrence with tax fraud (Art. 305), creating double criminal exposure that the defence must dismantle element by element.
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.