Online Threats and Coercion via Social Media (Art. 169-172 ter CP)
Specialist criminal defence for threats and coercion committed through social media and messaging apps: challenging digital evidence, authorship, dissemination, the overlap with stalking and hate crime, and the aggravating factor for the use of technological means.
Last updated:
What the Criminal Code punishes when you threaten or coerce online
Threats and coercion made through social media, instant messaging, comments or e-mail are treated in exactly the same way as those made in person, although the technological medium introduces decisive particularities. Article 169 CP punishes serious threats, that is, announcing to another person a harm that amounts to a crime (homicide, injury, offences against liberty, moral integrity, sexual freedom, privacy, honour or property). Where the threat is conditional and the offender achieves their aim, the penalty is imprisonment of one to five years; if not achieved, six months to three years. A non-conditional threat carries imprisonment of six months to two years.
The key point for the digital sphere is the final paragraph of Art. 169 CP: penalties are imposed in their upper half where threats are made in writing, by telephone or by any means of communication or reproduction, or in the name of real or supposed entities or groups. A WhatsApp message, a social media post or an e-mail fall squarely within that aggravation.
Article 170 CP covers threats aimed at frightening the inhabitants of a town or an ethnic, cultural, religious, social or professional group, with a penalty one degree higher than that of Art. 169; it also punishes publicly calling for violent acts by gangs or organisations. Article 171 CP defines the minor threat of a harm that does not amount to a crime: where it is conditional and the condition is not a due conduct, it carries imprisonment of three months to one year or a fine of six to 24 months; its sections 4 to 7 also govern minor threats in the context of gender-based and domestic violence and against vulnerable persons, and blackmail by threatening to reveal private matters.
Coercion and stalking
Article 172 CP punishes coercion: preventing another, through violence, from doing what the law does not prohibit, or compelling them to do what they do not wish, with imprisonment of six months to three years or a fine of 12 to 24 months. Online, the requirement of «violence» is often disputed, since case law demands physical force or intimidation of sufficient weight, which opens a relevant line of defence.
Where the conduct is insistent and repeated and seriously disrupts the victim's daily life, stalking under Article 172 ter CP comes into play: watching, pursuing or seeking proximity; establishing or attempting to establish contact by any means or through third parties; misusing their personal data; or attacking their freedom or property. The basic penalty is imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of six to 24 months; it rises to imprisonment of one to two years or community service of 60 to 120 days where the victim is or has been a partner, and to imprisonment of six months to two years where the victim is particularly vulnerable. Art. 172 ter further punishes with imprisonment of three months to one year or a fine of six to 12 months anyone who uses another person's image, without their consent, to create false profiles or advertisements that cause harassment. Save for the aggravated cases, this offence is only prosecutable upon a complaint by the aggrieved person or their representative.
Digital evidence, authorship and hate crime
The main battleground in these proceedings is the evidence. Screenshots are easily manipulated and, on their own, are usually insufficient: the case law of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court requires verification of the authenticity and integrity of the conversation when it is challenged, through comparison, metadata or computer forensics. Added to this is the problem of authorship: the fact that a message comes from an account does not prove who wrote it, especially with shared devices, impersonated accounts or fake profiles. If the content targets a group on racist, antisemitic, sexual-orientation, gender, illness or disability grounds, it may overlap with the hate crime of Article 510 CP, which carries its own penalties, so a correct distinction is essential. In every case, defining whether we are dealing with a serious threat, a minor threat, coercion, stalking or merely an angry remark protected by freedom of expression entirely determines both the penalty and the defence strategy.
Penalties & Consequences: Online Threats and Coercion via Social Media (Art. 169-172 ter CP)
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Serious threats aggravated by the medium | Imprisonment of six months to five years depending on whether they are conditional and whether the aim is achieved (Art. 169 CP), imposed in its upper half where made in writing or by any means of communication, as on social media and messaging. |
| Coercion | Imprisonment of six months to three years or a fine of 12 to 24 months (Art. 172 CP), according to the seriousness of the coercion, with the added question of whether violence is present in the digital medium. |
| Stalking | Imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of six to 24 months (Art. 172 ter CP); one to two years where the victim is or has been a partner, and six months to two years where the victim is particularly vulnerable. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Defense Strategy: Online Threats and Coercion via Social Media (Art. 169-172 ter CP)
Challenging the digital evidence
We dispute the authenticity and integrity of screenshots, conversations and messages where they are not accompanied by metadata, the original data dump or computer forensics, in line with the case-law requirement to verify challenged digital evidence.
Disputing real authorship
We work on the lack of proof as to who sent the message: impersonated accounts, fake profiles, shared devices or networks, and the absence of reliable identification of the user behind the IP address or the device.
Reclassification and message context
We assess whether the content is a punishable threat or venting, an outburst or criticism protected by freedom of expression, and argue for the lesser offence (minor threat, non-violent coercion or no offence) against the more serious classification.
Crimes Against Persons in Spain: Homicide, Assault and Threats — Defense Guide
Crimes against persons — homicide (Art. 138 CP), murder (Art. 139 CP), assault/bodily harm (Art. 147-156), and threats (Art. 169-171 CP) — are among the most severely punished offenses in Spain, frequently resulting in substantial prison sentences. A robust forensic and legal defense is critical from the first moments of arrest.
Penalty Table: Crimes Against Persons
| Offense | Article | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Reckless Homicide | Art. 142 | 1 – 4 years |
| Intentional Homicide | Art. 138 | 10 – 15 years |
| Murder (Asesinato) | Art. 139 | 15 – 25 years |
| Aggravated Murder | Art. 140 | Permanent Revisable Prison |
| Minor Assault | Art. 147.2 | Fine 1-3 months |
| Serious Bodily Harm | Art. 149 | 6 – 12 years |
| Criminal Threats | Art. 169 | 1 – 5 years |
Core Defense Strategies
Self-Defense (Art. 20.4 CP)
The three legal requirements are: unlawful aggression, proportional response, and no provocation. Documenting prior threats and injuries is paramount from day one.
Reclassification: Murder → Homicide
The difference between Art. 138 and 139 CP means up to 10 years' additional prison. Defense focuses on disproving premeditation, treachery, or cruelty — the three murder qualifiers.
Psychiatric Defense / Diminished Responsibility
If the accused had a mental disorder at the time of the act, total or partial irresponsibility (Art. 20.1) or diminished responsibility (Art. 21.1) significantly reduce or eliminate the sentence.
Forensic Medical Evidence
Independent autopsy, injury assessment, and toxicology reports often contradict expert testimony submitted by the prosecution. A second forensic medical opinion is always recommended in serious cases.
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.