Criminal Lawyers in False Invoices & Forgery
Criminal defence at the intersection of tax fraud and forgery. Accreditation of service materiality
Issuing or using an invoice for services never rendered to reduce taxable income or deduct VAT never actually paid is tax fraud when the amount evaded exceeds 120,000 euros (Art. 305 of the Spanish Criminal Code (CP)), and the offence of forgery of a commercial document (Art. 392 CP) — a stand-alone offence with no minimum economic threshold — carrying imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years and a fine of 6 to 12 months, even below that amount. The issuer of the accommodation invoice is liable as a necessary cooperator in the tax offence and as principal in the forgery. Voluntary regularisation with the Spanish Tax Agency extinguishes the tax offence and, under Art. 305.4 CP itself, bars prosecution of instrumental forgeries linked exclusively to the regularised debt. Our defence proves the real, material existence of the service invoiced.
The tax authority has opened a file on you for false invoices: what happens next
A simulated invoice operates on two levels at once. The tax offence of Art. 305 CP only arises where the amount defrauded, per tax and per tax year, exceeds €120,000, and it carries 1 to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of once to six times that amount. Forgery of a commercial document under Art. 392 CP has no monetary threshold: 6 months to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 6 to 12 months. The voluntary regularisation of Art. 305.4 CP, which removes criminal liability for the tax offence, requires full acknowledgement and payment of the debt and only works if it is done before the tax authority notifies the start of verification proceedings; once the file has been notified, that route is closed.
What to do (and what not to do) before making a statement
- You may remain silent and not incriminate yourself (Arts. 118 and 520 LECrim). Before making a statement you are entitled to a confidential interview with your lawyer and to examine the case file.
- Gather the evidence that the transaction was real: contracts, delivery notes, work records, emails, traceable bank payments and proof that the service was performed.
- Check with your lawyer whether the regularisation of Art. 305.4 CP is still available: it only exempts if it is complete and made before notice of the start of verification proceedings.
- Do not redo or replace invoices or ledger entries “to tidy things up”: that is the conduct that turns a tax problem into document forgery.
- Do not sign agreed assessments with the inspectorate without first analysing their effect on the criminal side.
Business Simulation: The Core of the Accusation
The issuance and use of false invoices is one of the most severely prosecuted practices of Spanish economic Criminal Law because it simultaneously concurs in two typical fronts: the offence against the Public Treasury (Art. 305 CP, 1 to 5 years' prison when the defrauded quota exceeds €120,000) and commercial document forgery (Art. 392 CP, 6 months to 3 years of prison and a fine of 6 to 12 months, without need for quantitative threshold). The protected legal interest is triple: the Public Treasury, as undue deduction deprives the State of legitimate income; the documentary public faith, altered by simulation; and the fair commercial traffic, distorted by unfair competition between compliant and non-compliant operators. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law establishes that the false invoice typically configures the documentary simulation modality of Art. 390.1.2nd CP by presupposing the existence of operations that have not actually taken place.
Methods of Commission
The commissive modalities are four main ones. Favour invoices are issued by known companies or professionals for totally non-existent services, frequently in exchange for an agreed commission; it is the clearest modality of absolute simulation. Inflated invoices reflect services actually rendered but for amounts manifestly higher than market value, through price or quantity manipulation; they configure partial simulation. Invoices with fund return simulate legitimate operations through formal bank payment, but the issuer subsequently returns the money in cash deducting a commission ("return" technique); it is the most sophisticated modality and of greatest evidentiary difficulty. Interposed operations involve the use of shell companies, front men or opaque structures to generate fictitious deductible expenses, frequently combined with tax havens or low-transparency jurisdictions. Module-system companies have historically been instruments for issuing false invoices due to their fixed-quota taxation; they are currently subject to reinforced AEAT surveillance.
Penalties and Consequences
The penalties and consequences are particularly severe due to multiple criminal concurrence. The issuer of the false invoice responds as direct perpetrator of document forgery (Art. 392 CP, 6 months to 3 years' prison) and as necessary cooperator of the receiver's tax offence (Art. 305 CP, 1 to 5 years' prison). The receiver who deducts the invoice responds as perpetrator of the tax offence when the defrauded quota exceeds €120,000 and as perpetrator or cooperator of document forgery. In instrumental concurrence between forgery and tax offence, the court imposes a penalty higher than the one that would correspond to the most serious offence, without exceeding the sum of the specific penalties for both (Art. 77.3 CP). Other consequences include a fine proportional to damage (up to six times the defrauded quota), loss of possibility to obtain public subsidies and aid for 3 to 6 years, prohibition to contract with the Administration, and special disqualification for profession, trade or public office (in officer scenarios). Corporate liability can arise for the tax offence (Arts. 31 bis and 310 bis CP), not for document forgery, which does not provide for it, when the acts are committed in the entity's name or on its behalf and for its benefit.
Defence Strategy
Technical defence is built on four axes. First, the accreditation of service materiality: the nuclear axis of defence is to prove, with rigorous documentary traceability, that the invoiced operations were effectively carried out; emails crossed with the supplier, report drafts, deliverables, meeting minutes, execution photographs, geolocations, electronic communications, testimonies of employees and third parties who witnessed the work, can transform an apparently simulated invoice into demonstrable real operation. Second, the challenge of financial analysis: the AEAT frequently alleges the existence of fund "return" as indication of simulation; economic expert evidence reconstructing bank flows and proving the money remained in the supplier's economic sphere (payment of own payrolls, expenses, taxes) dismantles this indication. Third, the tax regularization: voluntary submission of complementary returns and payment of debt before the start of inspection actions (Art. 305.4 CP) operates as absolutory excuse that extinguishes the tax offence and, by express provision of Art. 305.4 itself, bars prosecution of instrumental forgeries linked exclusively to the regularised debt. Fourth, the dissociation of neutral cooperators: accountants, tax advisors and notaries who processed operations without knowledge of simulation must be excluded from criminal liability when neutral action under client instructions is proven.
Current Forensic Practice
In current forensic practice, false-invoice investigations have reached massive dimensions with the development of SII (Immediate Information Supply) for VAT, automatic cross-checking with model 347 of third-party operations, AEAT big data analysis and artificial intelligence applied to detecting anomalous patterns in invoicing. Police operations coordinated with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor and the National Office for Fraud Investigation (ONIF) have identified complex networks of fictitious invoicing. Organic Law 14/2022 transposing European directives, Act 11/2021 on tax-fraud prevention and Directive 2017/1371/EU (PIF) on fraud to EU financial interests have hardened the regime. Organic Law 1/2025 on the efficiency of the Public Justice Service is a procedural and organisational statute: it does not amend the Criminal Code or its penalties. At Alonso Sala, our criminal lawyers specialized in false invoices work with multidisciplinary teams of forensic economic experts, certified public accountants, tax law specialists and computer experts to archaeologically reconstruct the material reality of questioned operations, articulate strategic tax regularizations and build technical defences that challenge simulation, distinguish responsibilities between issuers and receivers, and minimize criminal and patrimonial consequences on the client.
Reconstructing Material Reality
Our defensive work is archaeological. We must reconstruct the materiality of the service years after it occurred. We do not stop at the paper invoice. We deploy a battery of evidence to convince the judge that the work existed:
Documentary Traceability
We collect emails, report drafts, deliverables, meeting agendas, and file metadata showing real interaction with the supplier. A single email discussing a technical detail of the work can save the case.
Key Testimony
We call employees, receptionists, or third parties who saw the supplier in the offices or participated in the project to testify. Their testimony brings the cold invoice to life.
Financial Flows
We demonstrate that the payment was real and effective, and that the money remained in the supplier's sphere (paid their own expenses, payroll, etc.) and there was no "return" of funds to the payer, dismantling the classic indication of simulation.
Legal Defence: Atypicality
In cases of "ideological falsehood" committed by individuals (lying in the narration of facts of a real invoice), we argue that it is not an offence: Art. 392 CP punishes a private individual only for the forms of forgery in the first three subparagraphs of Art. 390.1, not for untruthfully narrating the facts, and the Supreme Court places partial inaccuracies in a real invoice there, such as a price other than the real one or omitted items (STS 1033/2024).
Why Alonso Sala for False Invoices?
Simulated invoicing accusations. We reconstruct service materiality years later
- 'Archaeological reconstruction' technique of evidence (emails, metadata).
- Management of key witnesses (employees, suppliers) to bring invoice to life.
- Financial experts to demonstrate absence of fund 'return'.
- Regularization defence to absorb instrumental forgery (self-impunity).
Economic Criminal Law in Spain: Tax Fraud, Money Laundering and Corporate Crimes
Economic criminal law encompasses the most severe financial penalties in the Spanish Criminal Code. Tax fraud over €120,000 (Art. 305 CP), money laundering (Art. 301 CP), and corporate crimes (Art. 290-297 CP) are complex offences where defence requires a combination of criminal law expertise and deep accounting/financial knowledge.
Penalty Comparison: Economic Offences
| Offence | Threshold | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Fraud (Art. 305) | >€120,000 | 1 – 5 years + fine of 1x to 6x |
| Aggravated Tax Fraud | >€600,000 | 2 – 6 years |
| Money Laundering (Art. 301) | Any amount | 6 months – 6 years |
| Aggravated Laundering (Arts. 301.1 and 302.1) | Drug trafficking, corruption, organisation members or obliged entities | Upper half (up to 6 years); heads of the organisation, one degree higher (up to 9 years) |
| Corporate Crime (Art. 290) | Balance sheet falsification | 1 – 3 years |
| Punishable Insolvency (Art. 259) | Conduct in actual or imminent insolvency | 1 – 4 years |
Key Defence Strategies
Tax Regularization Defence (Art. 305.4 CP)
Acknowledge and pay the full tax debt before being notified of a tax audit or, failing that, before the prosecutor or state attorney files a complaint, and criminal liability is excluded. This is the most powerful complete defence in tax fraud cases.
Challenge the €120K Threshold
The tax authority's calculation method is often contestable. Independent forensic accounting can challenge the assessed figure below the criminal threshold.
Money Laundering 'Self-laundering' Issues
Spanish courts have debated whether the primary offender can also be convicted of laundering their own proceeds. Challenge the double jeopardy implications.
Corporate Crime: Harm to Company vs. Shareholders
Corporate crimes under Arts. 290-294 CP do not always require actual harm: falsifying accounts (Art. 290 CP) only requires that the falsification be capable of causing financial harm, and actual harm raises the penalty to the upper half. Showing that the falsification could not harm the company, its members or third parties rules out that offence.
FAQs
Is it a crime to ask for an invoice to deduct if I didn't perform the service?
What if the invoice is for less than €120,000?
What is a 'favour invoice'?
How do I prove the service was real?
Is it a crime to issue the false invoice (the maker)?
If I pay by bank, is it justified?
What about inflated invoices?
Can I be accused of money laundering for false invoices?
Does forgery expire before tax crime?
If I regularize with the Treasury, is the forgery erased?
What risk do companies on the module system have?
Can the accountant who booked the invoice go to prison?
How we defend a false-invoices charge
The defence evidences that the transaction was real and that the invoice documents it: contracts, delivery notes, work records, traceable payments and proof that the service was performed. In parallel we review the calculation per tax and per tax year, because the €120,000 threshold of Art. 305 CP decides whether there is a tax offence at all or only an administrative assessment, and we analyse whether the forgery of Art. 392 CP can be absorbed. We act before the court and before the tax inspectorate with our own forensic accounting report.
Need urgent criminal defence?
Contact our specialist criminal defence lawyers. We evaluate your case confidentially.
Tools for your case
We also serve
View all locations →This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice: every case requires individual assessment. How this content is produced and verified: editorial policy.
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.