Viability report first, action second · Alicante, Benidorm, Dénia, Torrevieja, Orihuela and Elche
The judgment says it was not proven that you did it. It does not say that your accuser knowingly lied. Article 456 of the Criminal Code requires the latter, and that distance is what defeats most of these complaints.
In brief. Acquittal is not the same as falsehood, and the courts treat them as two different things. Article 456 requires the objective falsity of what was reported and knowledge of that falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. And the order of the steps is fixed by law: until there is a final judgment or a final dismissal order in the case where you were accused, the complaint cannot even be processed (Art. 456.2).
An acquittal may arrive for several reasons: because the fact occurred but you did not commit it; because it is not an offence; because a defence applies; and, above all, because the evidence did not reach the level the presumption of innocence demands. That last one is by far the most frequent, and there the court is not asserting that the complainant lied: it is asserting that the contrary was not proven. They are very different propositions, and Article 456 is built on the second, not the first.
The offence requires that facts which, if true, would constitute a criminal infraction were imputed to a person before an official with a duty to investigate, and that the imputation was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Two layers: the objective falsity, and the subjective element, which is what truly costs to prove. That is why we begin with a viability report on the closed case and file the complaint only if the material sustains it.
| Question | Rule | Framework | Key point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Serious offence imputed | 456.1.1º | 6 months – 2 years + fine | The only form with imprisonment |
| Less serious offence imputed | 456.1.2º | Fine 12 – 24 months | The most frequent, and fine only |
| Minor offence imputed | 456.1.3º | Fine 3 – 6 months | One-year limitation |
| Simulation | 457 | Fine 6 – 12 months | No specific person named |
| Procedural bar | 456.2 | Final judgment or dismissal first | Filing early only alerts the other side |
| Ex officio referral | 456.2 | The acquitting court may refer | Its silence weighs, though it does not decide |
| Limitation | 131 | 5 years; minor form and libel, 1 year | Clocks run while you decide |
| State claim | 294 LOPJ | 1 year from finality | Where pre-trial detention was suffered |
Penalty ranges are indicative; the viability of each action depends on the material of the closed case and the specific circumstances.
Article 456.2 sets a procedural requirement that surprises many: proceedings against the complainant cannot begin until there is a final judgment or a final dismissal order issued by the court that heard the imputed offence. While the case against you lives, even with absolute certainty that they are lying, the false-accusation complaint cannot be processed; filed early, it is dismissed without examining the merits and warns the other side. The same provision adds something almost nobody reads: the acquitting court itself shall proceed ex officio against the complainant where the main case yields sufficient indications of falsity. If the court that heard all the evidence did not refer the matter on its own, that is a datum to weigh honestly before promising outcomes.
And the penalties are more modest than people expect: only the false imputation of a serious offence carries imprisonment. Many clients arrive seeking prison for their accuser and discover that, in the best scenario, they will obtain a fine paid in daily instalments set by the convicted person’s means. If the real objective is financial reparation or clearing one’s name, we examine whether the criminal path is the most efficient or merely the most intuitive: costs for recklessness, civil routes and record-cleaning often achieve more, sooner.
Those absolved after years of proceedings: honest viability analysis before any action against the accuser.
Insurers facing invented thefts: simulation with fraud, and the expert file that proves the invention.
Those facing an Article 456 or 457 charge: the subjective element as the battlefield.
Those whose accusation was spread outside the proceedings: criminal libel, its one-year clock and conciliation.
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.
Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert es un despacho de abogados con sedes en Madrid, Alicante, Londres y París, especializado en defensa y acusación penal, delitos económicos y corporativos y derecho tecnológico. Trabajamos con orientación estratégica en procedimientos penales complejos, propiedad intelectual y análisis forense avanzado, y prestamos consultoría jurídica, compliance y escudos de protección a particulares y empresas. Atendemos desde Alicante y Madrid, con consulta online en toda España y asistencia al detenido 24 horas. Resuelva sus dudas en las preguntas frecuentes o solicite una primera consulta.
Copyright © 2026 Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert S.L.
