Supreme Court Criminal Case Law

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 308/2026, of Apr 29, 2026

Systematises in three blocks (28+7+7) the criteria for adjudicating gender-based and sexual violence with a gender perspective: assessment of the victim's testimony, peripheral corroboration and reinforced reasoning. A cross-cutting reference for the defence: it sets the standards the prosecution must meet.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 426/2026, of Jun 24, 2026

The Plenary of the Second Chamber settles a heavily litigated question: the owner of an unlawfully occupied dwelling who cancels or cuts off the water, electricity or gas supply does not commit the coercion offence of Article 172 CP where the occupant holds no title whatsoever over the dwelling. The Chamber reasons that the offence requires acting «without legitimate authorisation», and the holder of the supply contracts is entitled to terminate them; it adds that the legal system cannot turn the owner into a forced financier of the person usurping their property. The doctrine has an important exception: the conduct may be criminal where the person affected has some right to remain in the dwelling (for example, a spouse with temporary use granted in a family dispute). The decision, adopted by a divided Plenary with several dissenting opinions, clearly delimits the criminal response to squatting.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 352/2026, of May 20, 2026

The Second Chamber sets the first interpretative criteria for Organic Law 1/2026, which toughened the criminal response to repeat offending in property crimes. The judgment distinguishes the two mechanisms of the reform: Article 234.2 CP allows prior convictions for minor and less serious offences to be counted, whereas the hyper-aggravation of Article 235.1.7 only counts convictions for less serious or serious offences. As to the transitional regime, it clarifies that final convictions predating the reform count where the new offence is committed after 10 April 2026: what is decisive is the date of the new offence, not the age of the criminal record. An essential reference for any theft defence involving prior convictions after the reform.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 30, 2026 · Appeal no. 6906/2023

The Supreme Court refines the requirement underlying gender-violence offences built on a relationship of affectivity analogous to marriage «even without cohabitation». The Chamber clarifies that this requirement does not demand cohabitation, formalisation, fidelity, a marriage plan or shared expectations for the future; an intimate sentimental relationship going beyond simple friendship suffices. Duration is relevant but not decisive: a short relationship may satisfy the statutory requirement if it shows intensity, frequency of contact, intimacy or outward manifestation, or if the act is connected with dynamics of jealousy or domination. The doctrine is key for arguing, case by case, whether the facts should be classified under gender-violence offences or under the ordinary offences.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jul 1, 2026 · Appeal no. 1245/2024

In a case of attempted homicide committed using a motor vehicle, the Supreme Court rejects that, at the enforcement stage, an insurance company that was never brought into the proceedings as a civilly liable party nor convicted at trial can be ordered to pay. The Chamber recalls that enforcement exists to carry out what was decided, not to expand the conviction subjectively: adding, after finality, parties liable for payment whose liability was never requested, debated or included in the ruling infringes legal certainty and the right of defence. The doctrine matters both to defence teams and to civilly liable parties: compensation claims must be litigated at trial, with full adversarial debate, and cannot be recovered through the back door at the enforcement stage.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jul 1, 2026 · Appeal no. 10062/2026

The Supreme Court accepts that civil liability arising from crime may extend in favour of third parties which, under a valid legal title, bore the costs of the harm and hold an action of recovery or subrogation: such is the case of the entity that paid the victim’s healthcare costs. The Chamber recognises that this head of compensation is well founded and allows its exact quantification to be deferred to the enforcement stage, always preserving the parties’ right to challenge it. The ruling organises how medical expenses caused by an offence are claimed within the criminal proceedings under the regime of Articles 109 et seq. CP, avoiding duplicated subsequent civil litigation.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 18, 2026 · Appeal no. 325/2024

The Supreme Court recalls that a witness’s recantation at trial does not prevent the court from weighing their earlier statements before the investigating judge, provided they are properly brought into the trial by being read or reproduced and subjected to adversarial examination by the parties. The court may, giving reasons, prefer the earlier account if, after a rigorous credibility analysis, it proves more reliable, in light of the persistence of the statements, the existence of objective corroborating elements and the absence of motives of unreliability explaining the change of version. A doctrine in constant practical use, both to sustain a prosecution case and to dismantle it where the initial account lacks corroboration.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 17, 2026 · Appeal no. 8306/2023

The Supreme Court systematises how definitive dismissal orders are challenged in cassation: the avenue is error of law under Article 849 LECrim, and the appeal must scrupulously respect the factual account fixed in the order, disputing only its legal classification. In the case, the Chamber upholds the dismissal of a fraud complaint because the facts described lacked the essential elements of the offence: sufficient prior deceit and an act of patrimonial disposition caused by the error. The ruling is a useful guide in both directions: for defence teams, on how to consolidate a dismissal; for prosecuting parties, on the need for the accusation to describe precisely the deceit and the transfer of assets required by Articles 248 and 249 CP.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 4, 2026 · Appeal no. 6592/2023

In a negligent homicide case, the Supreme Court confirms that the compensation awarded to the victim’s heirs is compatible with that due to the parties injured by the death. The Chamber applies the criterion of the statutory scale for assessing damage in traffic accidents, which allows the compensation for the temporary injuries suffered by the victim while alive — a claim transmitted to the heirs — to be accumulated with the autonomous compensation arising from the death in favour of the injured parties. The judgment brings order to an area of great economic significance in proceedings for negligence resulting in death under Article 142 CP.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 24, 2026 · Appeal no. 7883/2023

The Supreme Court refines the affirmative-consent model introduced by the LO 10/2022 reform in offences against sexual freedom. The Chamber reasons that it is not enough for the perpetrator to «believe» there is consent: they must be certain, in the circumstances of the case, that the other person is consenting to the specific sexual act. Consent must be given freely and clearly and can be withdrawn at any time, so its presence is assessed act by act and is not presumed from a prior relationship or from the absence of an express refusal. The ruling is useful for framing the evidence of sexual freedom under Article 178 of the Criminal Code.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 24, 2026 · Appeal no. 3878/2023

The Supreme Court recalls that the aggravating factor of recidivism cannot be applied on presumptions against the accused. To apply it, the prosecution must prove all of its requirements: that the earlier conviction is final, that it concerns an offence under the same title and of the same nature, the penalty imposed and, in particular, the dates that rule out that the prior record had already been, or could have been, expunged. The Chamber states that «the point is not to presume expungement, but to prevent it being presumed against the accused that an aggravating requirement not established by evidence still subsists». A doctrine of great practical use for challenging recidivism where the judgment fails to detail the dates on which the earlier penalties were served.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 26, 2026 · Appeal no. 4115/2023

The Supreme Court revisits the limits of the accusatory principle in a case of misappropriation of public funds. The Chamber clarifies that the judgment must respect the essential facts on which the charge was based, but is not bound to mirror every detail of the indictment: the account may be descriptively enriched or refined provided the core facts of the charge are not altered and no material surprise is introduced for the defence. What matters is that the accused was able to defend against the core facts, not literal agreement on every secondary point. The ruling offers practical criteria for delimiting when a variation in the proven facts respects the right of defence.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 11, 2026 · Appeal no. 8489/2023

The Supreme Court delimits when a false private document is transformed into an official document for criminal purposes. The Chamber states that it is not enough for the document to have been created to be added to an administrative file and actually added: it must also serve as the basis or grounds for an official declaration or decision. Only then does the decision issued by the public official on the strength of the data supplied by the private party give the private document its official character. Without that decisional basis, the forgery does not reach the more serious form and may be non-typified as forgery of an official document. The ruling is useful for challenging the classification of forgeries that end up in administrative files.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jun 4, 2026 · Appeal no. 7337/2023

The Supreme Court addresses extending to minor children the prohibitions on approaching and communicating in a context of serious threats and of so-called vicarious violence, understood as the instrumental use of the children as a means of reprisal against the mother. The Chamber reasons that these measures under Article 48 of the Criminal Code have a preventive and protective nature and may reach minors, but not automatically: their extension requires that the proven facts establish an objective, specific and well-founded risk, not merely hypothetical or based on generic presumptions. The ruling sets a balanced standard to protect the vulnerable family circle without overstretching the requirements of the measure.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 318/2026, of Apr 29, 2026 · Appeal no. 7186/2023

The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and upholds a conviction for two offences of online grooming of minors for sexual purposes under Article 183 of the Criminal Code (conduct numbered Article 183 ter before the LO 10/2022 reform). The Chamber states that convicting under that provision, where the charge had been framed differently, does not breach the accusatory principle: these are homogeneous offences that protect the same legal interest and sit within the same title, with no substantial change to the facts. It also clarifies the link with child pornography under Article 189: grooming aimed at obtaining material from a minor is a prior stage —preparation or attempt— that goes further than a mere request, and is punishable even if that offence is never completed. A ruling of interest for delimiting the online grooming of minors.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 321/2026, of May 5, 2026

The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and clarifies the scope of the accusatory principle where the prosecution cites the wrong criminal provision. The Chamber reasons that an error in the numbering of the articles does not cause material prejudice if the statement of facts allowed the charged conduct, its aggravating element and its legal relevance to be clearly understood. What matters is that the accused was able to defend against the facts, not the formal accuracy of the citation, provided the error was recognisable, introduced no new and unforeseeable elements and the factual account contained the essential elements of the offence. The ruling relies on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on knowledge of the accusation and is useful for challenging defective charges.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of May 13, 2026 · Appeal no. 4799/2023

The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and addresses a sensitive question of the right of defence: whether two people charged in the same case may share a lawyer where one accepts the charge and the other maintains their opposition. The Chamber concludes that this situation does not automatically create a conflict of interest preventing joint defence, provided that what is admitted by the one who pleads guilty has no binding effect on the dissenting co-defendant. One defendant’s guilty plea does not displace the presumption of innocence of the other, whose conviction must rest on independent incriminating evidence. The ruling offers practical criteria on the limits of the joint defence of several defendants.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 217/2026, of Mar 16, 2026 · Appeal no. 3498/2023

The Supreme Court upholds a conviction for unlawful possession of weapons against those who held a rigid extendable baton, the possession of which is prohibited as a general rule and allowed only to specially authorised police officers. The Chamber recalls that this offence protects collective safety against the availability of especially dangerous instruments, regardless of their actual use, and that classifying the object as a prohibited weapon derives from the administrative weapons regulations. The ruling is of interest for determining when the mere possession of certain objects goes beyond an administrative breach and reaches criminal relevance.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of May 21, 2026 · Appeal no. 4456/2023

The Supreme Court clarifies the nature of the improper fraud of double-selling under Article 251.2 of the Criminal Code, an autonomous provision to which not all the elements of ordinary fraud are transferred. The Chamber stresses that this offence does not require a deceitful manoeuvre that brings about the victim’s act of disposal: the harm to the first buyer arises not from deceit but from later conduct —the fresh transfer of the asset to a third party— that disregards the first buyer’s right. The good or bad faith of the second buyer is therefore irrelevant. The ruling is useful for marking the boundary between a mere civil breach and a crime in double-selling cases.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 302/2026, of Apr 23, 2026 · Appeal no. 22254/2024

In allowing an application for review brought by the public prosecutor, the Supreme Court recalls that the finality of the judgment imposing the penalty is an indispensable requirement of the offence of breach of sentence under Article 468.1: without a final judgment there is no enforceable penalty and so the offence cannot be committed. Once the real date on which the decision became final was established —a new fact for the purposes of Article 954.1.d) of the Criminal Procedure Act—, the Chamber quashes two convictions for breach of sentence and, in a third, removes the recidivism aggravating factor. The ruling opens a route to review convictions handed down where the allegedly breached decision was not yet final.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 355/2026, of May 21, 2026 · Appeal no. 4044/2023

In a sexual offence committed against a person who was unconscious —where, by its very nature, there is rarely direct evidence—, the Supreme Court upholds a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The Chamber recalls that the presumption of innocence does not always require direct proof: a conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence where the indications are plural, established and lead so coherently and seamlessly to the incriminating conclusion that they rule out any other reasonable hypothesis, provided the court’s reasoning is properly set out. The combination of those indications with the expert evidence may thus overcome the presumption of innocence. A useful reference on the standard of proof where direct evidence is lacking.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of May 21, 2026 · Appeal no. 10639/2025

Article 416 of the Criminal Procedure Act exempts a victim from testifying against a relative, but that entitlement is not unlimited in time. In a case of habitual abuse under Article 173.2 of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court reiterates that a person who has acted as a private prosecutor and testified during the investigation does not regain the exemption merely by later stepping down from that procedural role. Having appeared as a prosecutor, the court was not obliged to warn the victim of the right not to testify under Article 416. The ruling is relevant for anticipating the validity of a victim’s testimony in gender-based violence proceedings.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of May 14, 2026 · Appeal no. 8384/2023

The Supreme Court defines access to cassation against orders of free dismissal (a definitive dismissal on the merits). The Chamber recalls that this appeal, through Article 848 in connection with Article 849.1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, requires that a formal charging decision against the person under investigation have been issued beforehand; where no such charge was ever made, the appeal is inadmissible. The ruling also insists on not confusing a free dismissal —which amounts to an early acquittal— with a provisional one, and specifies the strict requirements for reviewing the closing of a case in cassation.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of May 27, 2026 · Appeal no. 3897/2023

The Supreme Court narrows the offence of using another person’s official identity document under Article 393 of the Criminal Code. The Chamber states that the harm to which the provision refers must be real and effective: it need not actually materialise, but the conduct must pursue concrete harm to a third party, not merely hypothetical harm. Showing someone else’s document to police officers, without that prospect of real harm, falls outside the offence under the principle of minimum intervention. A point of interest for the defence against charges of using another person’s documentation.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of May 28, 2026 · Appeal no. 10709/2025

Up to what point may the defence challenge an expert report? In a murder case, the Supreme Court answers that, where the accused party does not state in its provisional pleadings any objection to or disagreement with the expert report produced, nor request its clarification or expansion, that report takes on the character of settled evidence, implicitly accepted and consented to. Objections to the expert’s methodology or shortcomings must be raised at the proper procedural moment, and not for the first time in cassation. The ruling recalls how important it is to challenge expert evidence in due time and form.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 23, 2026 · Appeal no. 10648/2025

The Supreme Court upholds a thirty-year prison sentence imposed on the helmsman of a sailing boat loaded with cocaine who, in order to avoid interception, deliberately rammed a Customs Surveillance vessel, causing one of the officers to fall into the sea and die. The Chamber rejects the idea that the offence of piracy under Article 616 ter requires a profit motive: violent conduct directed at a vessel that endangers the safety of navigation is enough. It also rules out that punishing piracy and homicide together infringes the non bis in idem principle, since each offence protects a different legal interest. The ruling strengthens the criminal-law response to violence by maritime drug-trafficking organisations.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 179/2026, of Feb 27, 2026 · Appeal no. 4532/2023

In dismissing an appeal against a judgment of the National High Court, the Supreme Court examines a continued offence of corporate disloyal management and, above all, the extent of the insurer’s civil liability. The Chamber confirms that the transactions tried form a "single insured event": several criminal acts may constitute one insured event where they stem from a single cause, even if they are isolated, successive or continued. As a result, the insurer’s liability is capped at the maximum sum insured under the policy. The ruling is of particular interest for the defence in economic crime covered by civil-liability insurance.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 21, 2026 · Appeal no. 20486/2025

Is the search of a shared home valid if only one of its occupants consents? The Supreme Court answers yes, and takes the opportunity to recall what the guarantee of inviolability of the home under Article 18.2 of the Constitution actually protects. The Chamber rejects a fragmentary reading of the home —it is not reduced to "a bed or a room"— and holds that it covers the whole space in which privacy unfolds. Where several occupants live together without an apparent conflict of interest, the consent of one of them authorises entry without needing the consent of the person under investigation. A useful ruling for assessing the validity of home searches and of the evidence obtained in them.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 218/2026, of Mar 17, 2026 · Appeal no. 4722/2023

The Supreme Court upholds a man’s conviction for two continued offences of sexual assault committed against his minor stepdaughters. The Chamber reiterates that the presumption of innocence does not prevent a conviction based on the sole testimony of the victim, provided that the assessment of that evidence is properly reasoned and rational. The ruling also recalls that a complaint about refused evidence succeeds on cassation only where the formal requirements —a timely, proper objection— and the substantive ones —the evidence had to be necessary, not merely relevant— were met. A significant decision for understanding the standard of proof in sexual offences against minors.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 85/2026, of Feb 5, 2026 · Appeal no. 6855/2023

The Supreme Court allows the appeal and acquits a woman who had been convicted of a public-health offence merely for living with a trafficker and knowing of and tolerating his activity. The Chamber stresses that knowledge is not the same as participation: a conviction requires evidence of specific acts that facilitate the offence, not mere cohabitation. In the case, the proven facts showed a serious descriptive gap as to what the defendant had actually done. The judgment is a useful reference against charges based on a defendant’s "surroundings" in drug-trafficking cases.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 9, 2026 · Appeal no. 6305/2023

A cross-appeal in cassation is usually seen as an appendage of the main appeal, but the Supreme Court grants it broader scope. The Chamber accepts that a cross-appeal may work as an autonomous appeal, with its own claims and even claims contrary to those of the main appellant, in two situations: where it introduces a new subject of challenge that benefits the accused, and where it is brought by a party which, without a grievance of its own, could be affected if the main appeal succeeds. The ruling widens the defence’s room for manoeuvre at the cassation stage.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Feb 26, 2026 · Appeal no. 7159/2023

Where does freedom of expression end and a hate crime begin? The Supreme Court recalls that freedom of expression, although a first-order right, is not unlimited and does not protect speech that incites violence on grounds of race or beliefs. In the case before it, the Chamber upholds the conviction of a person who spread on social media disparaging and inciting messages against unaccompanied foreign minors. The decision helps to locate the line between hurtful but lawful opinion and the conduct punishable under Article 510 of the Criminal Code.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 202/2026, of Mar 5, 2026 · Appeal no. 4869/2023

In a case of abuse and threats in a gender-based violence context, the Supreme Court dismisses the cassation appeal and makes clear a basic rule of this avenue of challenge: where the appeal is brought on a point of law, the facts declared proven by the trial court must be respected. The appellant was in fact seeking to have the Chamber re-assess the evidence and review the credibility given to the victim, something a cassation appeal under Article 849.1 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not allow. The ruling clearly recalls what can and cannot be argued in cassation.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Jan 15, 2026 · Appeal no. 2238/2023

The Supreme Court upholds a three-year prison sentence for fraud aggravated by the amount involved, and takes the chance to clarify the scope of the mitigating factor of undue delay. The Chamber recalls that, to treat it as "highly qualified" —and substantially reduce the sentence—, an ordinary delay is not enough: the delay must go beyond the extraordinary and into the excessive, or be accompanied by additional harm. In an objectively complex case, lengthy proceedings do not, by themselves, turn the delay into an extraordinary one. An important guide for gauging expectations of a sentence reduction based on the length of proceedings.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 17, 2026 · Appeal no. 4736/2023

The interception of communications is one of the most intense interferences with fundamental rights, and the Supreme Court again sets the bar. In a case of continued breaking-and-entering of an inhabited dwelling, the Chamber reiterates that judicial authorisation of a wiretap cannot rest on intuition or police hypotheses: it requires genuine indications, that is, "well-founded suspicions supported by objective data". Where that basis is missing, the measure is open to challenge and so is any evidence derived from it. The ruling is of direct interest for the control of evidence in criminal defence.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 13, 2026 · Appeal no. 4211/2023

When the same minor victim suffers several sexual assaults, classifying them as a continued offence has a direct impact on the sentence. The Supreme Court sets out the requirements for finding such continuity: the conduct must respond to a single preconceived plan, take advantage of the same opportunity and be directed against the same person. The judgment thus brings order to the criminal treatment of repeated abuse and guides both the prosecution’s classification and the defence strategy.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Mar 25, 2026 · Appeal no. 8231/2023

Determining which court should try an organised drug-trafficking offence is no minor matter: it shapes the whole case. The Supreme Court clarifies that the jurisdiction of the National High Court requires two conditions that must concur together: the existence of an organised group and the spread of the effects of the trafficking across the territory of several courts. What is decisive is that territorial spread, not where the members of the group live or how they move in their operations. The ruling offers a clear criterion for raising jurisdiction objections.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 188/2026, of Mar 4, 2026 · Appeal no. 20212/2025

The Supreme Court addresses a frequent problem in the enforcement of sentences: the linking or consolidation of sentences. The Chamber concludes that already-served sentences cannot be linked to new ones, through Article 193.2 of the Prison Regulations, where the pre-trial detention that interrupted release stems from criminal acts other than those giving rise to the new sentence. Even if the prison-law relationship is not broken, it is not acceptable for the alleged commission of a different offence to serve to link sentences that were not consolidable. A ruling of interest for calculating the maximum term to be served.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 944/2025, of Nov 17, 2025 · Appeal no. 1832/2023

The Supreme Court upholds a conviction for driving without a licence a 1,900-watt electric scooter capable of reaching 45 km/h, which it treats as, in reality, a moped. The Chamber sets an important criterion: a vehicle is classified by its real technical characteristics, not by its appearance. The fact that a vehicle looks like a personal-mobility scooter does not make it one: those are limited to a design speed of between 6 and 25 km/h, whereas a moped can reach 45 km/h and requires a driving licence. The ruling has immediate practical interest given the spread of high-powered mobility vehicles.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 9, 2026 · Appeal no. 5276/2023

Not every injury caused with a dangerous object automatically carries the aggravated penalty. The Supreme Court recalls that the aggravated form of Article 148.1 of the Criminal Code —bodily harm with dangerous instruments, means or methods— is discretionary for the court. It is an offence of concrete danger with a twofold basis: an objective one, linked to the nature of the instrument, and a subjective one, relating to how it is used. The court must weigh the mechanism by which the injury was caused, the real risk of a serious outcome and the unlawfulness of the conduct. The ruling opens room for defence against a mechanical application of the aggravation.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 16, 2026

The Supreme Court dismisses the cassation appeal of the claimant company and upholds the acquittal of a footballer and several former directors of a club in connection with a 2013 transfer. The Chamber reasons that the agreement on trial sought to secure a preference for when the player became free, not to defraud the company’s economic rights, since it received its share of the transfer. It stresses that breaches of contract belong to the civil or commercial sphere and do not turn into private-sector corruption or fraud unless wilful deceit is proven. The ruling marks the boundary between a contractual dispute and a criminal wrong.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Mar 4, 2026 · Appeal no. 3401/2025

The right of defence includes knowing exactly what a person is accused of. The Supreme Court recalls this in setting aside a conviction in which the court changed the classification of the facts —from a harassment offence under Article 172 ter to minor coercion— without first warning the accused. Even where the offences are homogeneous, convicting on a different classification without giving the defence time to prepare its response breaches the right to information in criminal proceedings recognised by Directive 2012/13/EU. The ruling reinforces an essential safeguard against surprise reclassifications.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Mar 24, 2026 · Appeal no. 10556/2025

From what moment does a sexual assault stop being an unpunishable preparatory act and become punishable as an attempt? The Supreme Court answers that an attempt exists once any act is carried out that, on a natural understanding, forms part of the executive action. In a sexual assault, using violence to overcome the victim’s resistance already amounts to a commencement of the offence. The judgment clearly draws the line between preparation and an attempt, a distinction that is decisive for the classification and the sentence.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 47/2026, of Jan 28, 2026 · Appeal no. 3204/2023

The Supreme Court dismisses the public prosecutor’s appeal and upholds an acquittal of a public-health offence. Under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the seeds and the leaves of the plant that are not attached to the flowering tops are not regarded as cannabis, so they fall outside the criminal-law concept of a toxic drug or narcotic. The Chamber warns that broadening that concept without a legislative instrument to support it would breach the principle of legality and legal certainty, without prejudice to any administrative penalty. A relevant criterion for the defence in cannabis cultivation and possession cases.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Feb 25, 2026

The Supreme Court clarifies the regime for reviewing objective jurisdiction, a public-policy procedural requirement that can be raised of the court’s own motion. The Chamber recalls that a cassation appeal against orders is available only in the cases expressly authorised by law (Article 848 of the Criminal Procedure Act) and that a breach of the jurisdiction rules may be raised in cassation. A practically useful analysis for shaping the response to a jurisdiction objection.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Mar 26, 2026 · Appeal no. 3274/2023

Two people may spread reserved information and yet answer for different offences. The Supreme Court distinguishes the offence of discovery and disclosure of secrets under Articles 197 and 198 from the offence of breach of secrets committed by an authority or public official under Article 417. The key lies in how the information was accessed: Article 197 presupposes unauthorised access, whereas Article 417 punishes a person who discloses data they obtained legitimately by reason of their office. The ruling is useful for a correct classification in cases of leaked reserved information.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 58/2026, of Jan 29, 2026 · Appeal no. 2647/2023

In a case heard before the jury court for murder and attempted homicides, the Supreme Court clarifies how the review of these decisions operates. The reasoning of the verdict requires the jury to list the means of evidence used, and it falls to the presiding judge to develop it in the judgment. Where the matter reaches cassation after going through appeal, the Supreme Court’s examination is limited to reviewing the lawfulness of the appeal judgment, respecting the proven facts. The Chamber upholds the convictions for murder and reduces the sentence for the attempted homicides by rejecting aggravating circumstances.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 123/2026, of Feb 12, 2026 · Appeal no. 3103/2023

The Supreme Court upholds a conviction for a continued offence of documentary forgery, in a medial concurrence with fraud, and for money laundering, but clarifies the contours of that last offence. The Chamber recalls that money laundering requires acts aimed at concealing or disguising the unlawful origin of the assets, and not the mere possession or use of the money. This requirement avoids breaching the non bis in idem principle: ordinary transfers are not enough to find money laundering if a concealment purpose is missing. The ruling is of direct interest for the defence in economic crime.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Mar 12, 2026 · Appeal no. 5149/2023

The taking of evidence has been reshaped by digital tools, and the Supreme Court rules on a witness statement taken via WhatsApp. The Chamber considers that, although that way of testifying is not orthodox, purely formal irregularities do not invalidate the evidence if they do not affect basic procedural principles. In the case, the witness’s identity was treated as notorious and was not challenged, and her gestures, attitude and the spontaneity of her answers showed that she testified according to her real knowledge of the facts. The ruling provides criteria for arguing the validity of evidence taken by remote means.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 20/2026, of Jan 20, 2026 · Appeal no. 3243/2023

The Supreme Court dismisses the grounds of appeal concerning impartiality, leading questions and the assessment of evidence, but partly allows the challenge based on the retroactive application of Organic Law 10/2022. On leading questions, the Chamber clarifies that admitting them is, in principle, a mere irregularity, reviewable in cassation only if it actually breached a procedural fundamental right. And it applies the plenary doctrine on the more favourable criminal law: where the then-applicable legal minimum was imposed, the new, more favourable minimum must be applied, which in the case means reducing the sentence from six to four years’ imprisonment. A useful ruling for pending sentence reviews.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Mar 19, 2026 · Appeal no. 5588/2023

When a court reduces a sentence by one degree, what happens to the fine? The Supreme Court, in a public-health (drug) case, answers that the reduction must extend to all penalties, including proportional fines. To this end it applies analogy in bonam partem, in line with the Chamber’s Plenary Agreement of 22 July 2008, and also reduces the accompanying fine. The ruling brings certainty to a point in the calculation of the sentence that is often overlooked.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 1040/2025, of Dec 17, 2025 · Appeal no. 21646/2024

The Supreme Court partly annuls a judgment, in so far as it convicted for breach of a precautionary measure, after finding that the accused had been convicted twice for the same facts. The Chamber relies on the review ground in Article 954.1.c) of the Criminal Procedure Act and reasons that breaching the prohibition of bis in idem constitutes an injury to the value of justice. The consequence is that the first judgment prevails and the second is void. The ruling shows an effective route to correct double convictions.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 97/2026, of Feb 6, 2026 · Appeal no. 7058/2023

The Supreme Court upholds an acquittal and recalls that the offence of threats is not satisfied by any unfortunate remark. It requires genuinely intimidating conduct, with seriousness, credibility and force enough to affect the freedom and security of the person addressed. In the case, the complainant herself had described the words as "a joke that went too far" and had stated that she "did not feel threatened", so the protected legal interest was not affected and the conduct lacked substantive criminality. The ruling is relevant for the defence against charges of minor threats.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 21, 2026 · Appeal no. 5767/2023

Not every use of someone else’s creation reaches the criminal sphere. The Supreme Court recalls that Article 270 of the Criminal Code punishes the reproduction, plagiarism and distribution of works without the authorisation of the holders of the intellectual property rights, but that applying it requires proof of the prior existence of an original work on which the conduct bears. The judgment outlines the elements of the offence and, above all, how it is distinguished from disputes of a strictly civil nature.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 16, 2026 · Appeal no. 10454/2025

In a jury trial for murder, the question arose whether warning the jurors that a statement was void could taint their decision. The Supreme Court answers that it does not: informing the jury that the statement made by the defendant without the assistance of a lawyer is invalid does not breach the right to a trial with full safeguards. The warning about the invalidity of that statement does not harm the trial or the right of defence. The ruling offers guidance on the treatment of void evidence before the jury court.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Mar 12, 2026 · Appeal no. 8303/2023

The absence of exact dates is common in sexual abuse extended over time, and is often invoked as an obstacle to conviction. The Supreme Court accepts a continued offence in successive sexual assaults against the same victim where, even without being able to fix precise dates, the proven facts show clarity, differentiation and a sufficient temporal sequence. The most serious act —penetration— draws in the remaining conduct to make up the continued offence of Article 74 of the Criminal Code. The ruling clarifies the application of this figure in a particularly sensitive area.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 65/2026, of Feb 2, 2026 · Appeal no. 3405/2023

The Supreme Court clarifies when the offence of breach of sentence can be committed in the case of community-service penalties. The Chamber holds that a penalty whose actual enforcement has not begun cannot be breached: with community service, enforcement starts when the convicted person attends the sentence-management services and accepts the action plan. Failing to appear at the initial summons is a mandatory prior step, but does not yet amount to the start of enforcement, so the punishable conduct can only occur once the plan has been approved and notified. A ruling of interest for the defence at the sentence-enforcement stage.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Judgment no. 184/2026, of Mar 3, 2026 · Appeal no. 5432/2023

The Supreme Court upholds a defendant’s conviction as a joint perpetrator of an offence of criminal damage and recalls the elements of joint perpetration. It requires a meeting of wills over the action to be carried out and an objective, causal contribution directed at the common aim. It is not necessary for each joint perpetrator personally to carry out the criminal acts: it is enough that their contribution places them in a position of shared functional control of the act. The ruling is useful for discussing the boundary between perpetration and forms of participation.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of May 6, 2026 · Appeal no. 7402/2023

Identifying the perpetrator of an offence is often the critical point of the trial, and the Supreme Court recalls which identification truly has incriminating value. In a case of bodily harm, the Chamber states that the decisive evidence is the witness’s testimony at the oral trial, subject to cross-examination, identifying the accused or ratifying the identification made during the investigation. A line-up identification, on its own, is not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence. The ruling underlines how important it is that any identification can be challenged at trial.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Mar 5, 2026 · Appeal no. 4706/2023

The Supreme Court narrows the scope of the aggravation of robbery with force committed in premises open to the public. The Chamber states that this aggravation operates only if the offence is carried out during opening hours, and not in the prior preparatory acts. The reason is the very basis of the aggravation: the risk of incidents involving the people present while the robbery is actually committed. The ruling defines the temporal scope of the aggravated form and opens room to argue about its application.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Feb 25, 2026 · Appeal no. 5183/2023

Failure to meet investigation time limits regularly raises doubts about the fate of the steps already taken. The Supreme Court clarifies that exceeding the maximum time limit of Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not void the steps already carried out nor require the automatic dismissal of the case. The expiry of the limit only restricts the possibility of continuing the investigation: what has been done keeps its validity for trial, provided the principles of adversarial procedure have been respected. The ruling clears up the practical consequences of an exhausted investigation time limit.

Spanish Supreme Court · Criminal Chamber · Ruling of Apr 9, 2026 · Appeal no. 10658/2025

The Supreme Court specifies the limited access to cassation against sentence-computation orders issued during the enforcement of a judgment. As a general rule, these decisions are not open to a cassation appeal. An appeal lies only where their content goes beyond mere "enforcement automatism" and entails a substantial alteration of the verdict. The ruling clearly sets out when an enforcement decision exceptionally opens the way to cassation.