Criminal defence throughout Spain · 24-hour assistance · offices in Madrid and Alicante
Almost everyone who calls us about a sextortion case begins by apologising. Having a sexual conversation with an adult is not an offence. The offence is committed by whoever threatens, whoever demands money and whoever disseminates.
In brief. Article 197.7 punishes precisely the person who disseminates images obtained with the affected person’s consent: the initial consent does not weaken the complaint, it is an element of the offence. The problem is that shame costs days, and days cost evidence: accounts vanish, ephemeral messages disappear and connection data are only accessible for a limited time and with judicial authorisation.
Almost everyone who calls us about sextortion begins the conversation by apologising: they were naive, they should not have replied to that profile, their partner will not understand. Let it be said clearly from the start: having a sexual conversation with an adult is not an offence, and neither is sending images of oneself. The offence is committed by whoever threatens, whoever demands money and whoever disseminates. That distinction is not emotional comfort; it is the technical basis of the case. Article 197.7 punishes precisely the person who disseminates images obtained with the affected person’s consent. Saying “I sent them myself” confesses nothing: it describes the factual situation the law itself contemplates.
The problem is that shame costs days, and days cost evidence. While the person decides whether to tell anyone, three things happen at once: the blackmailer deletes the account, the ephemeral messages and video calls disappear from the device, and the connection data that would allow someone to be located are retained only for a limited time and are accessible only through a judicial order. The first twenty-four hours decide much of the case.
| Question | Rule | What it means | The key point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who may complain | Art. 201 CP | Semi-public offences: the victim’s complaint is required | The prosecutor may complain for minors; no complaint needed where general interests or many victims are affected |
| Pardon | Art. 201.3 CP | The victim’s pardon extinguishes the criminal action | A decision to take with advice, never under pressure |
| Ex officio offences | Arts. 169, 243, 189 CP | Threats, extortion and offences against minors need no complaint | The case continues regardless of the victim’s wishes |
| Where | Duty court or specialised units | Telematic crime units support the investigation | Go with the complaint drafted and the evidence indexed |
| Interpreters | Art. 123 LECrim | Right to interpretation and translation of the essentials | Exercise it from the first moment |
| Parallel measures | AEPD priority channel | Urgent removal of non-consensual sexual content | Removal requests to platforms and de-indexing from search engines |
| Traffic data | Law 25/2007 | Twelve months of retention, judicial authorisation required | The clock that makes early reporting decisive |
| Foreign authors | Art. 641.2 LECrim | Provisional dismissal is frequent, reopening possible | Complaints accumulate across victims of the same network and support removals |
This overview is indicative; the applicable route depends on the offence, the victim’s age and the specific circumstances of each case.
The natural reflex of whoever receives a threat is to delete: the conversation, the contact, the app, the account. It is understandable and it is the most expensive error, because it destroys in two minutes the only thing that would later allow an investigation. Do not block yet: blocking the blackmailer before documenting the thread can remove the profile from view; document first, block afterwards. Capture the entire conversation, not just the harshest fragments, showing the username, the exact identifier, the profile picture and the date marks. Note the identifiers in a separate document: e-mail address, telephone number with international prefix, full profile link, account number or wallet address, reference of every transfer. Those data are what the court turns into orders.
Do not format, do not factory-reset and do not change phones: the device where it all happened is a source of evidence, and changing terminals to start afresh is emotionally understandable and evidentially ruinous. Keep a copy outside the phone. And do not investigate on your own: accessing the blackmailer’s account or your ex-partner’s phone can itself be an offence and can compromise the validity of everything obtained from it. On unlawful evidence and its contagion, the reference doctrine is STC 81/1998 (ECLI:ES:TC:1998:81) on the connection of unlawfulness; on evidence of foreign origin, STS 904/2023 (ECLI:ES:TS:2023:5215); and on investigation time limits, STS 747/2024 (ECLI:ES:TS:2024:4260). References must be verified at source; this page does not constitute legal advice.
Victims of sextortion by strangers or ex-partners: preservation, complaint, removal of content and recovery of payments where traceable.
Parents of blackmailed minors: ex officio investigation, specialised units and protection of the child throughout the proceedings.
Those accused of dissemination or threats: authorship of the accounts, authenticity of the captures and the correct classification.
Non-Spanish speakers on either side: interpreters, translated essentials and complaints prepared before attending the station.
Speak to a criminal lawyer
Criminal defence in English before the courts of Alicante and the rest of Spain, for residents and for visitors who have flown home.