Threats & Blackmail Lawyer Spain: Expert Criminal Defence

The complaint is usually filed the same day and reaches the court with screenshots or a police report of an emergency call. What is decided first is which offence applies, because the sentencing framework changes radically. A conditional threat of a criminal harm carries 1 to 5 years' imprisonment if the purpose is achieved and 6 months to 3 years if not (Art. 169.1 CP); a non-conditional threat carries 6 months to 2 years (Art. 169.2 CP); and a minor threat carries a fine (Art. 171.7 CP). Blackmail under Art. 171.2 CP — demanding money under threat of revealing private facts — carries 2 to 4 years if all or part is handed over, and 4 months to 2 years if not. Where a partner or former partner is involved, the aggravated regime of Art. 171.4 CP applies and the case usually goes to a fast-track hearing.

• Produce the full thread, with dates and times. An isolated message always looks worse than it was. The whole conversation shows whether the language was reciprocal, whether there was provocation, and whether the relationship carried on normally afterwards.
• Do not delete anything from the phone. Deletion shows up in the forensic image and is read as concealment; it also destroys precisely the part of the thread that usually contextualises the reported sentence.
• Do not try to sort it out with the complainant. If a restraining measure is in place, any contact is a separate breach under Art. 468 CP. If none is in place yet, contact is usually the reason one is ordered.
• Document the context of the incident. Witnesses to the argument, the reason for the conflict and how it ended. Case-law requires the threat to be serious, credible and capable of intimidating an average person: context is what measures those three requirements.

Threats ("amenazas") are among the most common offences against liberty before Spanish investigating courts. The Criminal Code regulates them in Arts. 169-171 and defines them as announcing to another person —or to their family or close affections— harm that would constitute a crime against life, bodily integrity, liberty, moral integrity, sexual freedom, privacy, honour or property. The protected legal interest is psychic liberty: the right to live free from fear. Settled Supreme Court case-law requires the announcement to be serious, real, credible, persistent and capable of intimidating an average person in the victim's situation.

The Code distinguishes several modalities. Conditional threats (Art. 169.1) require a counter-performance: "if you do not do X, I will do Y"; these are the most serious. Non-conditional threats (Art. 169.2) lack any demand but the threat is serious and credible. Minor threats (Art. 171.7) are those uttered in a minor way, where the harm announced lacks sufficient seriousness; a conditional threat of a harm that is not an offence falls under Art. 171.1. Blackmail (Art. 171.2 and 3) is a particularly grave modality demanding money or a reward under threat of revealing private or family facts. There is also a specific aggravation for threats in a context of gender or domestic violence (Art. 171.4-6 CP), where a minor threat to a partner or ex-partner is punished with prison or community service.

Penalties are tiered. Conditional threats of a harm constituting an offence carry prison from 1 to 5 years if the purpose is achieved, and 6 months to 3 years if not. Non-conditional threats of criminal harm carry prison from 6 months to 2 years. Minor threats are punished with fines of 1 to 3 months, unless made with weapons or dangerous instruments, in which case penalty rises to permanent location or prison. Blackmail (Art. 171.2 CP) carries 2 to 4 years' prison if part of the money is obtained, and 4 months to 2 years otherwise. Threats in gender violence contexts have an autonomous regime: 6 months to 1 year prison or 31 to 80 days of community service, a ban on weapons and a restraining order.

Technical defence rests on several consolidated axes. First, intimidating suitability: the threat must be objectively apt to cause fear in an average person; expressions made in the heat of an argument, emotional hyperboles or reactive remarks are usually excluded. Second, the communicative context: in instant messaging (WhatsApp, Telegram, social networks) an isolated phrase reads differently within the full conversation; our strategy systematically introduces the entire exchange. Third, the subjective credibility of the author: if the subject lacks real capacity to carry out the threat, intimidating intent fades. Fourth, the borderline with coercion, slander or stalking, which share elements and demand careful classification given their very different penalties.

In current forensic practice we observe a sustained rise in digital threats: WhatsApp messages, voice notes, social media posts, forum comments and, in recent years, threats from fake or anonymous accounts. Consolidated case-law on electronic evidence has tightened standards for investigating and judging this conduct, requiring digital chain of custody, hash and, in many cases, computer expert reports. At Alonso Sala, our criminal lawyers specialised in threat crimes intervene from the first step to articulate proprietary computer expertise, challenge partial transcripts, raise evidentiary nullities and, where appropriate, negotiate mediation or reparation agreements enabling dismissal or reduced pleas. We treat each file with the diligence required by an offence whose penalty can range from a fine to five years' imprisonment, with collateral consequences such as weapons ban, prolonged restraining orders and criminal records with professional impact.