Criminal Lawyers in Human Trafficking

Trafficking of human beings for sexual exploitation, typified in Art. 177 bis of the Spanish Criminal Code, introduced by Organic Law 5/2010 and later amended by, among others, Organic Laws 1/2015 and 8/2021, in line with Directive 2011/36/EU, constitutes one of the most serious offences of the Spanish legal system. It protects a plural bundle of fundamental legal interests: the human dignity, the personal freedom, the sexual freedom and the moral integrity of the victims. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has clarified that the nuclear legal interest is human dignity, configuring it as a truncated result offence: it is consummated with the recruitment, transportation or reception for the purpose of exploitation, without it being necessary for it to effectively occur.

Art. 177 bis CP typifies trafficking through a tripartite structure: a typical conduct (recruit, transport, transfer, harbour, receive or exchange control over the person), commissive means (violence, intimidation, deception, abuse of situation of superiority, need or special vulnerability, or delivery or receipt of payments) and an exploitation purpose (sexual, labour, begging, commission of crimes, organ extraction, forced marriages). Alongside this central type coexist complementary figures: Art. 187 CP sanctions coercive pimping (Art. 187.1, first paragraph: determining an adult to enter or remain in prostitution using violence, intimidation, deception or abuse) and the third-party leasing or lucrative pimping (Art. 187.1, second paragraph: profiting from the exploitation of another person's prostitution, even with their consent, a conduct that covers devoting premises to that exploitation); Art. 188 CP aggravates the penalties in cases of minors; and Arts. 570 bis and 570 ter CP apply the aggravating factor of organization or criminal group when structure, permanence and coordinated distribution of functions concur.

The penalties are among the most severe in the Criminal Code. The basic trafficking of Art. 177 bis.1 carries prison from five to eight years. The aggravated modalities of Art. 177 bis.4 (when the victim is a minor, especially vulnerable, or when life or physical integrity is endangered) raise the penalty by one degree, that is, prison from eight years and one day to twelve years, in its upper half if more than one circumstance applies. Membership of an organisation devoted to trafficking also raises the penalty by one degree, with special disqualification (Art. 177 bis.6 CP); if the conduct also falls under Arts. 570 bis or ter CP, the provision carrying the more severe penalty applies (Arts. 570 quater.2 and 8.4 CP). The coercive pimping of Art. 187.1, first paragraph, is sanctioned with prison from two to five years and fine from twelve to twenty-four months. The third-party leasing, reconducted to Art. 187.1, second paragraph, carries prison from two to four years and a fine of twelve to twenty-four months, with closure of the premises under Art. 194 CP. In cases of real concurrence with money laundering (Art. 301 CP), document forgery (Art. 392) and illegal immigration (Art. 318 bis) the penalties are added together, subject to the maximum term to be served under Art. 76 CP (three times the most serious penalty and, as a rule, no more than twenty years of prison), with extended forfeiture of the convict's property in accordance with Art. 127 bis CP.

The technical defence in trafficking macro-cases requires the highest level of specialization and is articulated on four axes consolidated by jurisprudence. First, the individualization of conduct: in complex criminal structures with dozens of investigated parties, jurisprudence requires accrediting specifically and nominally the participation of each accused, ruling out bulk convictions for simple belonging to the environment; our defence exhaustively documents the concrete acts attributable to the client. Second, the questioning of the protected witness's credibility: testimonies under the regime of Art. 59 bis of the Immigration Law carry residency and reparation benefits, which jurisprudence admits assessing as a spurious motive when no other external and objective evidence concurs. Third, the rental neutrality in third-party leasing scenarios: when it is accredited that the owner received rents at market price, without exercising control or participating in the profits of sexual activity, the offence is not made out, as there is no exploitation (Art. 187.1, second paragraph, CP). Fourth, the property defence through forensic audit that justifies the lawful origin of assets to avoid the extended forfeiture of Art. 127 bis CP.

In current forensic practice, proceedings for trafficking of human beings for sexual exploitation are macro-cases of very high technical complexity, usually processed by the courts of the place where the offence was committed, and before the Investigation Section of the Central Court of Instance only where it was committed outside Spain (Art. 65.1.e LOPJ). Police operations are coordinated by the UCRIF (Central Unit of Irregular Immigration Networks and Document Forgeries) of the National Police and the UCO (Central Operative Unit) of the Civil Guard, with the participation of Europol and Interpol and intensive use of wiretaps, simultaneous searches and protected witnesses. The consequences for the investigated party include communicated provisional prison without bail, precautionary seizure of all property, closure of establishments and irreversible reputational damage. At Alonso Sala, with over fifteen years of experience in offences against sexual freedom and in economic criminal law, we articulate a top-level technical defence: legal assistance at the police station controlling pre-procedural evidence, intervention in the investigation phase with forensic audit of the property, technical questioning of wiretaps and protected testimonies, and design of procedural strategies oriented to the individualization of conduct, to the maximum mitigation of the penalty and to the safeguarding of the property against extended forfeiture.

Current legislation targets owners of hotels and rented apartments. Our defence focuses on proving rental neutrality: the owner charges market price for the space without exercising control or participating in sexual activity profits.