Online fraud is the offence that has grown fastest in the Spanish courts over the last decade, and the province of Alicante concentrates a disproportionate share of the cases because of its foreign resident population, its property market and the volume of cross-border transactions. Spanish criminal law addresses it through the fraud provisions of Articles 248 to 251 of the Criminal Code, supplemented by the computer-crime provisions of Articles 197 bis and 264.

The forms most frequently prosecuted in Alicante

Conveyancing interception, in which the purchaser of a property receives a message that appears to come from the estate agency or the law firm and transfers the price to an account controlled by the fraudster. The sums involved are large and the victims are predominantly non-resident purchasers.

Bank impersonation, or spoofing, in which the caller display shows the genuine number of the bank and the victim is induced to authorise transfers. Spanish courts have in a growing number of decisions apportioned liability to the bank where its authentication systems failed to detect manifestly anomalous operations.

Investment fraud in cryptoassets, through platforms that display fictitious returns and permit small initial withdrawals in order to induce larger deposits. Since the entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in cryptoassets, the absence of authorisation is itself a significant evidential element.

Romance fraud, developed over months of contact and culminating in requests for funds framed as emergencies, customs charges or investment opportunities.

Penalties

The basic offence of fraud carries a prison sentence of six months to three years, calibrated by reference to the amount defrauded, the economic harm caused to the victim, the relationship between the parties and the means employed.

Article 250 raises the penalty to one to six years and a fine of six to twelve months where the fraud affects goods of primary necessity or dwellings, where the amount exceeds fifty thousand euros, where it abuses a pre-existing personal relationship, or where the victim is particularly vulnerable. A further aggravation applies where the amount exceeds two hundred and fifty thousand euros.

• Article 249: prison of 6 months to 3 years.
• Article 250(1): prison of 1 to 6 years and a fine of 6 to 12 months.
• Article 250(2), amount exceeding 250,000 euros: penalty in its upper half.
• Article 197 bis, unauthorised access to information systems: prison of 6 months to 2 years.
• Article 264, damage to computer data: prison of 6 months to 3 years.

If you are the victim: what actually recovers money

Speed is the only real variable. A transfer made within the SEPA area can in many cases be recalled if the receiving institution is notified before the funds are dispersed, ordinarily within twenty-four to seventy-two hours. The criminal complaint is necessary but it is not what stops the money: the notification to the bank is.

The complaint should be filed with all the technical evidence preserved in its original form. Screenshots have limited evidential value on their own; the original messages, the full email headers, the transfer receipts and the platform records must be preserved, and where the amount justifies it, secured by a notarial record of the digital evidence.

Where the funds have reached a cryptoasset exchange, a request for the freezing of the wallet through the investigating court, addressed to an exchange operating in the European Union, is materially more effective than a purely private approach.

If you are under investigation as an account holder

A recurring situation involves persons who allowed a third party to use their bank account, frequently in exchange for a commission and under the appearance of a legitimate job offer. The prosecution ordinarily charges money laundering under Article 301 by wilful blindness, and in some cases participation in the fraud itself.

The defence turns on the absence of knowledge, evidenced by the manner of recruitment, the modest commission, the person’s economic profile and the absence of any prior relationship with the perpetrators. The first statement is decisive, because an explanation given without legal assistance frequently supplies the very element of knowledge that the prosecution needs.

Frequently asked questions