Criminal Lawyers in False Invoices & Forgery

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, 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. Favor 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 notoriously 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. The Supreme Court case-law on instrumental concurrence between forgery and tax offence determines that the most serious penalty is applied in upper half or, in some scenarios, the sum. The accessory consequences include 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). The corporate liability (Art. 31 bis CP) is activated when acts are committed in benefit of the entity.

Defence Strategy

Technical defense is built on four axes. First, the accreditation of service materiality: the nuclear axis of defense 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 can extinguish the tax offence and, by absorption, instrumental forgery (majority case-law on self-impunity). 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, Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency and Directive 2017/1371/EU (PIF) on fraud to EU financial interests have hardened the regime. 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 defenses that challenge simulation, distinguish responsibilities between issuers and receivers, and minimize criminal and patrimonial consequences on the client.