Receiving Stolen Mobile Phones

The second-hand mobile phone market processes millions of transactions a year and, alongside the vast majority of legitimate sales, devices of unlawful origin circulate. Buying one of those phones may give rise to the offense of receiving stolen goods under Article 298 of the Spanish Criminal Code, distinct from the theft or robbery that the phone originated from. This area addresses the defense of the accused buyer and draws the line between a negligent purchase, a good-faith atypical one and a genuinely criminal one.

What Receiving a Stolen Mobile Phone Is

Article 298 CP punishes anyone who, with intent to profit and knowing of a property offense in which they took part neither as principal nor as accomplice, helps the offenders profit from the proceeds or, directly, receives, acquires or conceals those proceeds. Applied to a mobile phone, the offense of receiving is committed by someone who buys a device knowing —or foreseeing it as highly likely and accepting it— that it comes from a theft or robbery.

The basic penalty is six months to two years' imprisonment. It rises to one to three years where the facts are of special gravity given the value of what was received or the foreseeable harm of the theft, and the penalties are imposed in their upper half where the acquirer receives the goods to traffic in them; if the trafficking is carried out using a commercial establishment, a fine is added. This last form is typical of the "buy-and-sell" outlet that acquires devices in bulk for resale.

Buying a Second-Hand Stolen Phone

The question that reaches the firm is usually the same: "I bought a second-hand phone and now I'm told it was stolen; have I committed an offense?". The answer depends on the subjective element. Receiving is an intentional offense: it requires the buyer to have known the criminal origin of the phone. Someone who buys in good faith, at a reasonable price and through normal channels, does not commit the offense of receiving even if it later turns out the device came from a theft.

The prosecution tries to prove that knowledge through indicators: a price abnormally below market value, the lack of a box, invoice or accessories, an "urgent" street sale or sale via messaging apps, the seller's account locked with the device, or a reported IMEI. Against these, the defense reconstructs the transaction to show that the buyer acted with the diligence required and without foreseeing the unlawful origin. The doctrine of wilful blindness allows convicting someone who consciously avoids confirming what they suspect; that is why it is essential to show that the reasonable checks were in fact carried out.

The New Aggravated Theft of Mobiles (LO 1/2026)

The legal context has changed. Organic Law 1/2026, of 8 April, on multi-recidivism, introduced a new item in the catalogue of aggravated thefts: Article 235.1.10 CP, which punishes with one to three years' imprisonment theft where the items taken are mobile phones —and, generally, any mobile communication device or mass storage device capable of holding personal data—. The rule itself excludes devices on sale, in stock or on display at commercial establishments.

This toughening of the predicate offense has a direct bearing on receiving. Receiving is a connection offense: it presupposes a prior property offense from which the proceeds derive. If the legislator has decided to treat the theft of mobiles more severely —because of its volume and the personal data they hold—, the prosecution extends to the whole chain, including the resale and acquisition of the stolen devices. For the buyer, this means greater investigative pressure and the value of being able to establish the lawful origin of the device.

IMEI, Platforms and Buyer Due Diligence

The IMEI (the unique identifier of each device) is the best tool for prevention and for evidence. Before buying, it is advisable to verify that the IMEI does not appear as reported or blocked and to check that the phone is not linked to a previous owner's account (activation lock). Keeping the invoice or proof of purchase, the seller's contact details and the conversation history on the platform constitutes the documentary evidence that supports the buyer's good faith.

Second-hand platforms with seller identification and transaction traceability protect far more than a cash purchase, with no receipt and no seller details. There is no general legal duty to check the IMEI of every used phone, but the more diligence is documented, the stronger the defense against an imputation of knowledge the buyer did not have.

Difference from Theft or Robbery of the Device Itself

It is worth separating two figures that everyday language confuses. Stealing or robbing the phone means taking it against the owner's will (theft under Art. 234 et seq., aggravated by the new Art. 235.1.10 CP where mobiles are involved; robbery under Art. 237 et seq. where force, violence or intimidation is used). Receiving is something later and distinct: the receiver did not take part in the taking —had they taken part, they would answer as principal or accomplice in the theft or robbery, not as a receiver—, but instead acquires the already-stolen item knowing its origin. This distinction is essential: it defines which offense is charged, which penalty applies and which line of defense is appropriate in each case.