Criminal Lawyers in Business Premises Trespass

Business Domicile Trespass

The offence of trespass to legal entities' domicile, professional offices and establishments open to the public outside hours (Art. 203 CP) protects the inviolability of the business domicile in its functional dimension, extending to legal entities the protection that Art. 18.2 of the Spanish Constitution recognizes for natural persons. The protected legal interest is the operational privacy of the company, the security of management spaces where managerial, accounting, commercial or professional functions are developed, and the protection of commercial traffic against intrusions that may affect reserved documentation or economic activity. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law establishes that the criminal type requires three cumulative elements: protected spatial sphere (office, chambers, warehouse with directive or custodial function), typical conduct (non-consented entry or permanence) and typical moment (outside opening hours to the public or against the express will of the holder).

The commissive modalities are diverse and reflect typical business-practice conflicts. The surreptitious entry outside hours in offices, professional chambers or warehouses integrates the classical modality, frequently linked to documentary subtraction, industrial espionage or unfair competition. The occupation of disused commercial premises, industrial warehouses and offices by organized groups has generated a growing phenomenon with specific eviction procedure in Act 5/2018 of Summary Protection of Possession, more agile than occupation of inhabited dwellings. The permanence after abandonment requirement by the legitimate holder (clients who refuse to leave after closing, former employees who refuse to deliver keys, demonstrators who occupy offices) equally configures the type. The entry of dismissed former employees without authorization after contract termination integrates a growing modality in labor disputes with risk of confidential information subtraction. Entry with deception (posing as client or supplier to access restricted areas) can integrate the type when it transcends mere frequenting of public space.

The penalties and consequences are significantly lower than those of home trespass of Art. 202 CP due to the lesser impact on personal privacy. The basic type carries 6 months to 1 year of prison and 6 to 10 months' fine. The concurrence with subtraction of objects (robbery or theft) determines real concurrence with penalty accumulation. The concurrence with discovery and revelation of business secrets (Art. 278 CP) significantly raises consequences when reserved information is accessed and disseminated to third parties. The concurrence with damages on premises' goods (Art. 263 CP) or with destruction of accounting documents (Art. 310 CP) configure additional criminal concurrences. Civil liability includes repair costs, economic losses derived from activity interruption, moral damages to the legal entity and, where applicable, compensation for confidential-information subtraction. The criminal liability of the legal entity (Art. 31 bis CP) can be activated when the trespass is committed in benefit of an organized entity (case of corporate unfair competition).

Technical defense is built on four axes. First, the challenge of the typical character of the space: not all business premises enjoy Art. 203 CP protection; spaces effectively open to the public (sales zone during commercial hours, customer service, waiting areas), external warehouses without directive or documentary-custody function, and industrial spaces without executive activity can fall outside the typical concept of "business domicile"; case-law requires management or reserved-documentary-custody function. Second, the existence of express or tacit consent: when entry occurred with authorization (even if limited or conditioned), or when there was no formal abandonment requirement before witnesses or in writing, the typical element of opposition to the holder's will may fail. Third, the concurrence of justification causes: action in compliance with duty (administrative inspections with legal authorization, police interventions with warrant), legitimate exercise of a right (partner-with-quota access to facilities, authorized judicial execution), state of necessity (access for aid or emergency). Fourth, the challenge of authorship attribution: in trespasses detected by video-surveillance cameras, the concrete identity of the intruder must be proven under rigorous evidentiary standards.

In current forensic practice, business-trespass proceedings have increased due to the expansion of the squatting phenomenon on unoccupied properties, labor conflicts after dismissals, corporate disputes between confronting partners, and scenarios of business espionage through digital or in-person intrusion. Act 5/2018 of Summary Protection of Possession facilitates rapid civil eviction of occupied premises as complement to the criminal route. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, case-law on business video surveillance, Directive 2016/943/EU on commercial secrets transposed by Act 1/2019 on Business Secrets, and data-protection regulations (GDPR, LOPDGDD 3/2018) configure a demanding legal framework. At Alonso Sala, our criminal lawyers specialized in business trespass coordinate defense with specialists in commercial law, industrial property, labor law and data protection to articulate comprehensive procedural strategies: criminal complaint with private prosecution on behalf of victim companies, rapid civil eviction, civil damages claim and, where applicable, defense of accused persons with challenge of the typical character of the space or authorship attribution.

What is considered a business domicile

Not all of a company's premises are 'domiciles'. It is required that the management of the company takes place in them or that confidential documents are kept there.

Consequences

The penalty is prison from six months to one year and a fine from six to ten months for whoever enters against the owner's will