False Sexual Accusations Lawyer · Defense of the Accused

False Accusations of Sexual Offences

False accusations of sexual offences are a phenomenon that, although a minority, has devastating consequences for the person wrongly accused. At Alonso Sala we take on the technical defense against such accusations from the investigation stage, deploying the procedural and expert tools the legal system provides.

Defense Strategies against False Accusations

Our defense is built around several lines: (1) psychological expert evidence on the credibility of the testimony (SVA-CBCA protocol); (2) analysis of contradictions across successive statements; (3) digital evidence (messages, GPS, cameras that disprove the account); (4) the spurious motive behind the complaint (revenge, custody dispute, financial conflict); and (5) a counter-complaint for false reporting (Art. 456 CP) or simulation of an offence (Art. 457 CP).

The SVA-CBCA Protocol

Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) is the expert tool most widely accepted by the courts for assessing the credibility of testimony. It includes Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), which examines a set of credibility criteria in the alleged victim's statement. An unfavourable expert report can be decisive for acquittal. The Supreme Court accepts the complainant's statement as sufficient evidence only where it meets three requirements — absence of subjective implausibility, plausibility and persistence — and an acquittal must follow where these are not met.

Counter-Complaint and Compensation

Where falsity is proven, a complaint may be brought for false reporting (Art. 456 CP), punishable with 6 months to 2 years' imprisonment plus a fine where the offence imputed is serious, or for simulation of an offence (Art. 457 CP). Acquittal of the accused does not by itself amount to a false report: false reporting requires positive proof that the facts were deliberately fabricated, not merely that they were not proved. An acquitted defendant who proves the falsity may claim compensation for material and moral harm.

The offence of false accusation or complaint (art. 456 CP) and its procedural prerequisite

Criminal liability for a false imputation does not fall on a person who reports facts that are later not proven, but on one who, knowing them to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth, attributes to another person facts that, if true, would constitute a criminal offence. This is governed by art. 456 CP. The penalty is graduated by the seriousness of what was imputed: imprisonment of six months to two years and a fine of twelve to twenty-four months if a serious offence was imputed; a fine of twelve to twenty-four months for a less serious offence; and a fine of three to six months for a minor offence.

An essential caution must be stressed: the dismissal of a case or the acquittal of the accused does not, in itself, amount to a false complaint. The presumption of innocence protects both the person reported and, where relevant, the person who reported; and the available data show that deliberately false complaints are a statistically marginal phenomenon. Proving the falsehood and the subjective element (knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth) is for the party making the accusation, not the reverse.

Art. 456.2 CP imposes a procedural prerequisite that is the keystone of these matters: proceedings for false accusation or complaint cannot be commenced until there is a final judgment or a final order of dismissal or shelving from the judge or court that heard the imputed offence. Moreover, it is that same body which, of its own motion, orders proceedings against the complainant where the main case reveals sufficient indications of falsehood. It is therefore not a route a party may freely open the moment a matter is shelved.

The consent framework after LO 10/2022 and LO 4/2023: current offences and penalties

Since LO 10/2022, every non-consensual sexual act is classified as sexual assault; the standalone category of abuse disappeared and was merged into a single title. Consent is understood to be given only when it is freely expressed through acts that, in the circumstances, clearly convey the person's will. LO 4/2023, of 27 April, recalibrated the response, restoring higher penalty bands where violence, intimidation or annulment of the will is present.

The basic offence of sexual assault (art. 178.1 CP) is punishable by one to four years' imprisonment. Where there is violence or intimidation, or the victim's will is annulled for any reason, the penalty rises to one to five years (art. 178.3 CP). Sexual assault involving vaginal, anal or oral penetration, or the insertion of body parts or objects —rape under art. 179 CP— carries six to twelve years' imprisonment where violence, intimidation or annulled will is present.

The aggravated subtypes of art. 180 CP (among others, the victim's particular vulnerability, the joint action of two or more persons, the use of weapons or dangerous means, or taking advantage of a relationship of superiority or kinship) raise the ranges considerably, reaching the twelve-to-fifteen-year band in the most serious cases of rape. Determining the penalty requires pinpointing the applicable offence with precision, since jurisdiction, prescription and the ancillary consequences all depend on it.

Jurisdiction, ordinary prescription and the special rule of art. 132.1 CP for minors

The competent body depends on the penalty. The Criminal Court (Juzgado de lo Penal) hears cases where the maximum limit does not exceed five years' imprisonment, and the Provincial Court (Audiencia Provincial) where it does —the typical case of rape under art. 179 CP—. Where the facts arise within a partner or former-partner relationship, investigation falls to the Court for Violence against Women (art. 87 ter LOPJ). Correctly identifying the competent forum from the outset shapes both the evidential strategy and the deadlines.

Prescription is governed by art. 131 CP, which no longer contains a three-year tier: offences prescribe after five, ten, fifteen or twenty years according to the maximum penalty laid down. Thus a basic sexual assault falls within short periods, while a rape with aggravated subtypes may reach fifteen or twenty years. The ordinary count runs from the moment the offence was committed.

For offences against sexual freedom committed against minors a decisive special rule applies (art. 132.1 CP): the prescription period does not begin to run from the facts or from the age of majority, but from the day the victim turns thirty-five. Combined with the period set by art. 131, this very substantially extends the window for prosecution; it must be calculated rigorously in each case, because an error on this point completely alters the analysis of whether a matter remains prosecutable.

Evidence, ancillary consequences and ways of concluding the proceedings

In this field the evidence usually rests on the statement of the complainant, assessed under the settled criteria of absence of disbelief arising from improper motives, plausibility and persistence, and reinforced wherever possible by corroborating elements: forensic-medical reports, toxicology where chemical submission is suspected, or digital evidence (messaging, metadata, geolocation) in facts committed or documented by electronic means. Technical defence works precisely on the chain of custody, the integrity of those records and the internal coherence of the account.

A conviction under this title carries significant ancillary consequences. Art. 192 CP imposes, after the prison sentence is served, the measure of supervised release —five to ten years if any offence is serious, and one to five if it is less serious— together with special disqualifications for professions or trades involving contact with minors. To this are added registration and the associated effects of the sex-offender register, with implications for employment and control.

There are ways of concluding the proceedings that should be weighed prudently and always from the standpoint of the accused's rights: a guilty plea (conformidad), where the facts and the evidence so advise, and reparation of the harm as a circumstance that may modulate the penalty. In any event, the boundary with neighbouring offences —coercion, threats, degrading treatment or art. 456 CP itself— and with the administrative or civil plane must be drawn carefully, avoiding both over-charging and any deprivation of an effective defence.