Criminal Lawyers for Family Coercion

Family Coercion: Concept, Modalities and Penalties (Art. 172 CP)

The offence of coercion typified in Art. 172 CP is one of the most frequent in couple crises, family conflicts and family real-estate disputes. It protects the legal interest of personal freedom of action —the faculty to act according to one's will without being compelled by third parties— and is configured as a result-based offence consisting of preventing another from doing what the law does not prohibit or compelling them to do what they do not want, just or unjust, through physical violence or intimidation. Supreme Court case-law has consolidated three essential typical elements: the restrictive conduct on another's freedom, the use of violence or intimidation and the causal relation between force and restrictive result, together with intent to constrain another's will.

The methods of commission in the family sphere are extraordinarily varied and case-law has consolidated extensive catalogues. Real-estate coercion includes unilateral lock change at the common home, cut-off of basic supplies (electricity, water, gas, internet), blocking access to shared rooms, imposing schedules for use of common areas and destruction or retention of personal items. Physical coercion covers bodily interposition at access points, momentary retention, gripping the arm to prevent exit, blocking doors. Intimidating coercion operates through conditional threats ("if you don't sign, you won't see the children"), display of weapons or dangerous objects, showing physical superiority. Coercion through interposed person instrumentalises relatives, friends or service personnel to pressure the victim.

The penalties are graduated according to the seriousness of the means used and the victim. The basic offence of Art. 172.1 CP punishes serious coercion with 6 months to 3 years' prison or 12 to 24 months' fine; when coercion is exercised to impede the exercise of a fundamental right (freedom of expression, assembly, religion) or the lawful enjoyment of the home, the penalty is applied in its upper half. Minor coercion in gender violence under Art. 172.2 CP, exercised against the offender's wife or female partner, current or former (or a particularly vulnerable person living with him), carries 6 months to 1 year prison or 31 to 80 days community service with deprivation of the right to bear arms. Minor coercion under Art. 172.3 CP is sanctioned with 1 to 3 months' fine, constituting a minor offence; where the victim is a relative or household member listed in Art. 173.2, the penalty is 5 to 30 days of permanent location or community service, or a fine of 1 to 4 months only where Art. 84.2 applies, and no complaint is needed. As accessory penalties, where the victim is a partner or a relative listed in Art. 173.2, the ban on approaching the victim is mandatory in less serious offences (Art. 57.2 CP) and a ban on communication may be added, for up to 5 years or, if prison is imposed, 1 to 5 years longer than the prison term; in the minor offence, the bans are discretionary and last up to 6 months (Art. 57.3). Art. 172.2 adds loss of the right to bear arms and, where the judge considers it appropriate in the child's interest, disqualification from parental authority for up to 5 years.

The technical defence in family coercion articulates four axes consolidated by case-law. First, insufficient coercive intensity: the Supreme Court demands violence or intimidation with objective capacity to bend the will of an average person; heated arguments, shouting, door slams or emotional pressure typical of family conflicts do not necessarily integrate the offence. Second, the legitimate exercise of a right under Art. 20.7 CP: the owner or rights-holder may exercise dominical or use faculties provided they do not incur in factual ways; case-law has excluded typicity when proving that the victim had voluntarily abandoned the home before the lock change. Third, absence of intent: cut-off of supplies due to non-payment of bills attributable to the contracting holder, or lock change due to lost keys, do not constitute coercion when there is no will to constrain. Fourth, the priority of the civil route: in possession or home use conflicts, the criminal response must yield to eviction proceedings or civil measures when these are sufficient.

In current forensic practice, family coercion proceedings have multiplied linked to several typical scenarios: conflictual de facto separations where one party seeks to accelerate the other's exit through factual means; conflicts between siblings over use of the family home after parents' death; disputes with tenants linked by family relationship (free assignments to relatives); and, increasingly, "real-estate harassment" situations linked to divorce processes. Where real-estate coercion is proven, precautionary measures of re-entry into the home can be sought, and the application of the offence depends heavily on the specific family context. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we articulate defence strategies adapted both for those defending a legitimate possessory position and for victims suffering factual ways, always ensuring the most effective procedural response: urgent precautionary measures, criminal complaint, criminal lawsuit, civil measures modification or personation as private prosecution.

Coercion vs. Threats: The Boundary

The distinction between coercion (Art. 172 CP) and threats (Arts. 169-171 CP) is one of the most recurring debates in the family sphere. A threat consists of the announcement of a future harm aimed at frightening the victim, whereas coercion imposes in a present manner a conduct —to do or not to do— through violence or intimidation that takes effect in the present. When the pressure materialises in a specific and immediate conduct (preventing exit, forcing a signature) we are facing coercion; when it merely conditions future behaviour under threat of harm, threats. The correct classification conditions the applicable penalty and thus constitutes a central axis of the defence.

Minor Coercion Offence (Art. 172.3 CP)

Not every coercion reaches the seriousness of the basic offence. Art. 172.3 CP provides a minor offence for coercion of lesser entity, punished with a fine of 1 to 3 months, prosecutable only upon complaint of the aggrieved person (semi-public nature) and time-barred after one year. Where the victim is a relative or household member listed in Art. 173.2 CP, the penalty becomes 5 to 30 days of permanent location or community service, or a fine of 1 to 4 months only where Art. 84.2 applies, and no complaint is needed. This classification is relevant in low-intensity family conflicts, where an occasional argument or isolated pressure does not justify the response of the serious type. The defence seeks, where appropriate, the downgrade to a minor offence, with a radically lower penalty and no prison sentence; in the gender-violence context, however, this downgrade does not operate, as the specific type of Art. 172.2 CP governs.

Family Coercion Charges

Our criminal defence focuses on challenging the intensity of the coercion and proving the absence of intent or the legitimate exercise of a right, always seeking acquittal or dismissal of the case.

Gender Violence vs Domestic Violence

The legal classification changes depending on who the victim is:

• Minor coercion of the wife/female partner: Art. 172.2 applies, with 6 months to 1 year in prison or 31 to 80 days' community service (gender violence). The same applies where the victim is a particularly vulnerable person living with the offender.
• Minor coercion of the husband or another relative: It is the minor offence of Art. 172.3, second paragraph (5 to 30 days of permanent location or community service, or a fine of 1 to 4 months only where Art. 84.2 applies), with no prison and no complaint required (domestic violence).
• Serious coercion: The basic offence of Art. 172.1 applies (6 months to 3 years in prison or a fine of 12 to 24 months), whoever the victim is.