Criminal Lawyers in Civil Status Usurpation

Civil status usurpation typified in Art. 401 CP is the offence sanctioning whoever usurps the civil status of another, that is, whoever integrally and permanently substitutes the legal personality of a real person to exercise their rights, assume their obligations or appear before third parties as if they were that person. The protected legal interest is double: the security of legal traffic (that personal identities be reliable) and the right to personal identity of the victim as inalienable attribute. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has clarified the typical elements: usurpation must be complete (not partial), persistent (not punctual or episodic) and aimed at the exercise of rights or obligations proper of the victim. Sporadic action using the name or documents of another person may integrate other offences (document forgery, fraud) but not civil status usurpation.

The methods of commission are diverse. The classic modality consists of personal substitution in family, professional or administrative relations: appearing before the Administration or financial institutions with the identity of a third party to perform continuous transactions, manage another's salaries or pensions, or assume affective or professional relations under another's identity. The digital modality has gained special relevance: creation of complete profiles on digital platforms with the real identity of a third party, generation of online bank accounts in the victim's name, management of crypto-assets or digital services. The concurrence with other offences is frequent: fraud (Art. 248 CP) when economic benefits are obtained, document forgery (Arts. 390-395 CP) when falsified documents are used as support, discovery of secrets (Art. 197 CP) when prior data are unlawfully accessed, money laundering if the destination of funds integrates another plot.

The penalties are 6 months to 3 years prison, without provision of fine. The penalty, although lower than that of other offences against patrimony or public faith, is significant due to the custodial sentence and the criminal record generated, with effects on public employment, regulated professions, immigration and competitive examinations. Civil liability ex delicto demands full restitution of the damages caused to the victim: patrimonial damages for debts contracted in their name, expenses of identity restoration and challenge of fraudulently signed contracts, moral and reputational damages, legal defence expenses if the victim had to oppose proceedings opened in their name. The civil nullity of full right of all legal acts performed through usurpation protects the victim against obligations they never consented. Concurrence with fraud raises the penalties: 6 months to 3 years prison in the basic offence, up to 6 years in the aggravated form of Art. 250 CP when exceeding €50,000.

The technical defense in civil status usurpation is built on four axes consolidated by case-law. First, the absence of persistence or integrity of the impersonation: the sporadic use of another's name or documents does not integrate the offence of Art. 401 CP; the Supreme Court demands proof of stable, prolonged conduct aimed at the effective exercise of rights or obligations of the victim. Second, the error of prohibition of Art. 14.3 CP when the subject believed they were acting legitimately under representation or mandate (especially in family cases where the identity of a relative is used for administrative procedures wrongly believing one can do so). Third, the controversy on authorship: in digital cases, mere linkage of an IP address does not prove material authorship; computer expert evidence may prove that the IP was shared, hacked or improperly attributed. Fourth, the absence of effective harm to the victim or legal traffic: when no rights, obligations or effective legal acts materialise under the usurped identity, typicity may fail.

In current forensic practice, civil status usurpation proceedings have multiplied linked to the digitalisation of services: contracting telephony or supply services with stolen identities, fraudulent online opening of bank accounts, management of crypto-assets in third-party names, and fraud linked to deficient biometric or KYC verifications. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, Organic Law 3/2018 on Personal Data Protection, the eIDAS Regulation on electronic identification and consolidated Supreme Court case-law configure the normative framework. Victims usually detect the usurpation when they receive claims for debts not contracted, administrative notifications or judicial procedures for foreign facts, or when services are denied for improperly appearing in delinquency files. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we undertake both the technical defence of the accused articulating calligraphic and computer expert evidence, typicality and error of prohibition analysis, and the representation of the victim through criminal complaint, civil nullity of fraudulent acts, removal from delinquency files and full damages claim.