Receiving Stolen Mobile Phones Defence Lawyers

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.

Procedural Stages and the Competent Court for Receiving Offences

Receiving a mobile phone under Article 298 of the Spanish Criminal Code is handled through the ordinary route for less serious offences. The proceedings usually begin when, following the report of the earlier theft or robbery, the device is traced to a third party (through its IMEI number, the associated line or a traceable sale). Preliminary proceedings are then opened, the person under investigation is questioned, expert examinations are carried out on the device, and, if the investigating judge finds indications of guilt, the case is converted into abbreviated proceedings and a formal indictment follows.

Jurisdiction to try this offence lies with the Criminal Court (Juzgado de lo Penal) of the judicial district where the acts took place, because the maximum penalty falls within the five-year prison threshold that defines its scope. It is not a matter for the Provincial Court and certainly not for the National High Court: ordinary receiving of a mobile phone entirely lacks the features that would justify that special jurisdiction. Knowing precisely which body and which stage applies allows the defence to be built from the investigation phase, where cases are often won or lost long before trial.

Acting early is decisive. During the investigation it is possible to challenge the attribution of intent, request measures that establish the apparently lawful origin of the device, or question the chain of custody of the seized handset. A defence that waits for the trial hearing to react wastes the most useful procedural window for the case to be dismissed for lack of evidence, or for the charge to be redirected towards a lesser offence or even towards conduct that is not punishable at all.

Proving Knowledge of the Unlawful Origin

The subjective element is the real battleground in receiving offences. Article 298 requires that the buyer knew the mobile phone came from a crime; conditional intent is enough, meaning that the buyer pictured that origin as highly probable and still went ahead with the deal. Yet this knowledge is rarely proven directly: the prosecution builds it from circumstantial signs such as an abnormally low price, a purchase in an informal or street setting, the absence of an invoice or box, a locked handset with no linked account, or the speed and opacity of the transaction.

The defence works precisely on the strength of that inference. Circumstantial evidence requires fully established base facts and a logical reasoning that leaves no room for reasonable alternative explanations. If the buyer kept the conversation, the payment receipt and the seller's details, and checked the IMEI on a usual platform, these elements break the chain of indications and reinforce the case for good faith. Spanish case law is demanding when it draws the line between mere suspicion and the knowledge that the offence actually requires.

The economic valuation of the device also matters. An expert appraisal of the stolen handset sets not only the amount for civil liability purposes but can also be decisive for the charge itself: a low-value device may place the receiving offence in a milder framework, and a purchase price consistent with the second-hand market weakens the presumption that the buyer knew they were dealing with stolen property.

Plea Agreements, Repair of Harm and Suspended Sentences

When the signs of knowledge are consistent and the evidence is hard to dismantle, the strategy may shift towards a negotiated plea agreement (conformidad) with the prosecution. For offences punishable by up to six years, a plea agreement allows the case to be closed with a penalty already agreed, avoiding the uncertainty of trial and opening the door to mitigating factors that reduce the sentence. This decision should be taken after a cool assessment of the evidence, not out of simple caution.

Repairing the harm carries particular weight in this offence. Returning the phone to its rightful owner or, if that is no longer possible, compensating its value before trial triggers the mitigating circumstance for repair of harm under Article 21.5 of the Criminal Code. This factor can lower the penalty and, in its highly qualified form, reduce it by one or two degrees, which within a framework running from six months to two years in prison is decisive for the final outcome of the case.

The prison penalty for receiving also falls squarely within the threshold that allows the sentence to be suspended. If the conviction does not exceed two years and the legal requirements are met, the court may order that the convicted person does not enter prison, making the suspension conditional on not reoffending within a set period and, where applicable, on settling the civil liability. For someone with no prior record who repairs the harm, this outcome is usually a realistic goal for the defence.