Criminal Lawyers in Real Estate Fraud

Real estate fraud is one of the most serious and socially harmful modalities of the common fraud offence of Art. 248 CP, intensified by the specific aggravator of Art. 250.1.1ª CP when it falls on habitual housing or other goods considered basic necessities. The protected legal interest is the victim's patrimony, but the special regulatory protection attends to the fact that housing usually concentrates the vital savings of households and constitutes the substrate of the fundamental right of Art. 47 of the Constitution to dignified housing. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has clarified that aggravation applies both to housing in the physical sense and to rights over future housing in off-plan operations or cooperatives. Alongside the main offence, Art. 251 CP sanctions specific modalities: alienation of another's property, double sale and hidden encumbrance.

The most recurrent methods of commission in real estate fraud are six. Double sale (Art. 251.2 CP) consists of transmitting the same property to two or more buyers collecting from all; case-law has consolidated that it is consummated with the perfection of the second contract or, where appropriate, with the registry inscription of the first buyer to the detriment of the second. Alienation of another's property (Art. 251.1) consists of selling or encumbering a property of which the author is not titular nor has power of disposition. Concealment of charges (Art. 251.2) sanctions the seller who wilfully hides mortgages, seizures, easements, preventive annotations or urban affections substantially diminishing the property's value or usefulness. Cooperatives and off-plan housing integrate aggravated fraud when managers collect advances without project viability, administrative licenses or the legal guarantees of guarantee or insurance required by Act 38/1999. Vacation or residential fraudulent rentals usurp ownership of others' properties to collect deposits and advance rents. Simulation of transfers instrumentalises fictitious sales between relatives to defraud creditors or evade seizures.

The penalties are severe, since the aggravation of Art. 250 CP almost always concurs. Aggravated fraud for falling on habitual housing carries 1 to 6 years' prison and 6 to 12 months' fine. If the amount exceeds €250,000, the hyper-aggravated type of Art. 250.2 applies with 4 to 8 years' prison. The specific modalities of Art. 251 CP (double sale, alienation of another's property, concealment of charges) carry 1 to 4 years' prison, without prejudice to their cumulative application with Art. 250 when aggravating circumstances concur. Civil liability ex delicto demands full restitution of the collected price plus legal interest, compensation for moral damages (frequent and substantial in loss of habitual housing), notarial, registry and tax expenses paid, and financing expenses (mortgage interest paid). Registry precautionary measures (preventive annotation of complaint, prohibition to dispose) are decisive tools to preserve the possibility of recovery.

The technical defense in real estate fraud rests on four axes consolidated by case-law. First, the nature of the affected property: aggravation of Art. 250.1.1ª demands proof of habitual housing status at the time of the operation; when the property was investment, second home or commercial premises, the specific aggravation fails and the penalty is substantially reduced. Second, registry publicity: when charges were inscribed in the Land Registry —public and accessible— and the buyer did not perform the basic due-diligence consultation, the Supreme Court has admitted mitigation or exclusion of "sufficient" deceit under Art. 248 CP for insufficient victim self-protection. Third, the initial viability of the project in cooperatives and off-plan housing cases: economic and technical expert evidence proves that there was a reasonable business plan, licenses in process and sufficient financial capacity at the start; subsequent failure due to market contingencies (2008 crisis, cost increases, financing withdrawals) does not integrate fraud. Fourth, subsequent intent: subsequent non-compliance due to supervening causes, not preconceived at contracting, redirects the case to the civil route of contractual non-compliance or developer liability.

In current forensic practice, real estate fraud has evolved with four typical scenarios: failed cooperative and off-plan promotion macro-cases with hundreds of affected; fraud in vacation or long-term rentals through digital platforms (Idealista, Booking, Airbnb usurped); double sale operations or fraudulent transfer in areas with real estate pressure; and simulation of transfers to defraud creditors in cases linked to insolvency proceedings. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, Act 38/1999 on Building Regulation with its mandatory guarantees, Act 12/2023 on the right to housing and consolidated Supreme Court doctrine have reinforced both prosecution mechanisms and victim guarantees. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we undertake technical defence of developers, cooperative managers and individual sellers accused, as well as private prosecution of buyer and tenant victims, articulating procedural strategies with preventive annotation of complaint, precautionary seizure of the fraudster's assets, international prosecution where appropriate, and full civil claim including moral damages.