Criminal Lawyers in Technology Receiving

The receiving of technology is the most prolific modality of the receiving offence regulated in Art. 298 of the Spanish Criminal Code, which punishes anyone who, with intent of profit and knowing of the commission of a prior property offence, acquires, receives or conceals its effects. The protected legal interest is twofold: the individual property of the prior robbery or theft victim, and the proper functioning of the lawful market of used goods. Supreme Court case-law has consolidated that receiver's intent requires positive knowledge or eventual intent regarding the illicit origin of the device; mere suspicion or negligence in verification is not enough.

Technology Forms

The habitual modalities in the technology sector are concretized in four scenarios: acquisition of mobile terminals and iPhones with blocked IMEI in operator databases after the rightful owner's report; purchase of laptops, tablets and consoles still linked to the iCloud, Google or Microsoft accounts of the original owner; receipt of components (screens, batteries, motherboards) coming from stripping of stolen devices; and resale on C2C platforms (Wallapop, Vinted, Milanuncios) or second-hand stores of products whose traceability has been altered. Each modality activates different evidentiary indications that the prosecution attempts to convert into proof of receiver's intent.

Penalties and Concurrence

The penalties foreseen scale by severity. The basic receiving of Art. 298.1 CP carries prison from six months to two years, with no fine. Where the facts are particularly serious given the value of the goods received or the harm their theft foreseeably caused, the penalty rises to prison from one to three years (Art. 298.1 CP), and it is imposed in its upper half where the devices are acquired in order to traffic in them (Art. 298.2 CP). When the terminal's identifiers are also altered or duplicated for profit —the classic IMEI change— the autonomous offence of Art. 286.2 CP applies, with additional prison from six months to two years and a fine of six to twenty-four months, generating a real concurrence of offences whose penalties accumulate up to five effective years. If the activity develops within an organised group devoted to "technological laundering", Arts. 570 bis and 570 ter CP are activated with penalties that can double.

Defence Strategy

The technical defence is articulated on four consolidated axes. First, the absence of receiver's intent: the accusatory principle requires accrediting positive or eventual knowledge of illicit origin; screenshots of the operator's website showing that the IMEI was active at the moment of purchase, invoices, verified Wallapop seller profiles and prices aligned with the second-hand market destroy the indicial inference. Second, the reduction for low value: Art. 298.3 CP bars a penalty higher than that of the offence the goods come from, so if the device comes from a minor theft (up to €400, punished only with a fine: Art. 234.2 CP) that fine is imposed in its lower half, which in many cases requires expert appraisal of the device's real value in the second-hand market. Third, the challenge to the chain of custody of the computer forensic report linking the seized device to the stolen one, attacking methodology and traceability of the analysis. Fourth, the negotiation of plea with suspension of the sentence (Art. 80 CP) and reparation of damage to the victim, a route that avoids actual imprisonment for penalties not exceeding two years.

Current Forensic Practice

In current forensic practice we observe an exponential growth of cases initiated after police operations tracking online sales: the National Police and Civil Guard cross theft reports with announcements on C2C platforms, request IP data and geolocation from Wallapop or Milanuncios, and summon buyers as investigated parties. Minor jurisprudence tends to demand an elevated evidentiary standard of intent, rejecting convictions based exclusively on the subsequent IMEI blocking when the buyer accredits reasonable verifications. At Alonso Sala, with over fifteen years of experience in property and technology offences, we intervene from the investigation phase to preserve exculpatory digital evidence, challenge expert opinions and design procedural strategies oriented to acquittal or maximum mitigation of the sentence.