Food Safety Crimes
Defense in food fraud, product adulteration and food safety crimes under Spanish criminal law.
Last updated:
Food crimes punish conduct that endangers consumer health through the production, distribution or sale of harmful or adulterated food. Regulated in Articles 363-367 of the Criminal Code, within offenses against public health, they protect food safety as a collective legal interest.
Legal Framework
Food crimes are regulated in Articles 363-367 of the Criminal Code, within the offences against public health, and protect food safety as a collective legal interest. A defining feature is that they are abstract-danger offences: no actual harm to a consumer's health is required, only that the conduct be capable of causing it.
Main Criminal Conducts (Art. 363 CP)
Article 363 CP punishes with imprisonment of 1 to 4 years, fine and disqualification producers, distributors and traders who:
- Offer food products on the market omitting or altering established requirements regarding expiry or composition.
- Manufacture or sell beverages or food for public consumption that are harmful to health.
- Traffic in spoiled goods.
- Produce items whose use is not authorized and is harmful to health, or trade in them.
- Conceal or remove items intended for destruction or disinfection in order to trade them.
Food Adulteration (Art. 365 CP)
Article 365 CP punishes with imprisonment of 2 to 6 years anyone who adulterates with unauthorized additives or agents capable of causing harm to health, food, substances or beverages destined for food commerce.
Responsible Parties
Liability runs along the whole food chain: producers, manufacturers, distributors, traders and hospitality workers. Within a company, it falls on those with decision-making power over food safety —the director, the quality manager, the head of production— rather than on every employee. In addition, the company itself, as a legal person, may be convicted (Art. 366 CP), with sanctions including fines, the suspension of activities, the closure of the establishment and disqualification from obtaining public subsidies.
Defense Strategies
The main lines are: the absence of harmfulness, demonstrated through expert evidence that the product posed no real risk to consumers —decisive, because mere expiry does not by itself constitute a danger—; regulatory compliance, proving that the company observed its HACCP protocols and the applicable health rules; the mistake of fact, especially for distributors and retailers unaware of the adulteration; and the challenge to the inspection, scrutinising the sampling, the chain of custody, the laboratory's accreditation and the analytical methodology.
Criminal Consequences
The basic offence (Art. 363 CP) carries prison of 1 to 4 years, a fine of 6 to 12 months and disqualification of 3 to 6 years. Adulteration with unauthorized additives capable of causing harm (Art. 365 CP) rises to 2 to 6 years. The company faces the corporate sanctions of Art. 366 CP, and a conviction entails the civil liability to compensate affected consumers and the mandatory product recall. Given this exposure, legal counsel from the very moment of an unfavourable health inspection is crucial.
Penalty Chart
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Basic offense (Art. 363 CP) | Imprisonment 1-4 years, fine 6-12 months and special disqualification 3-6 years. |
| Aggravated adulteration (Art. 365 CP) | Imprisonment 2-6 years when using unauthorized additives or agents capable of causing health damage. |
| Corporate liability (Art. 366 CP) | Fines, establishment closure, activity suspension and disqualification from subsidies. |
| Civil liability | Compensation to affected consumers and mandatory product recall. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Our Defense Strategy
Absence of Harmfulness
Demonstrate through expert testimony that the product was not harmful to health nor posed a real risk to consumers.
Regulatory Compliance
Prove that the company complied with all HACCP protocols and current health regulations.
Mistake of Fact
Demonstrate ignorance of the adulteration or harmful nature of the product, especially for distributors and retailers.
Inspection Challenge
Challenge the validity of the inspection procedure: sample collection, chain of custody, laboratory accreditation and analytical methodology.
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.