Article 243 Spanish Criminal Code: Extortion

Article 243 of the Spanish Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment of one to five years the person who, with intent to gain, compels another by violence or intimidation to perform or omit a legal act or transaction to the detriment of that person’s property or of a third party’s. The penalty is imposed without prejudice to any penalty for the physical violence used. The article is distinguished from robbery by its object: what is obtained is not the property itself but a legal act, such as a signature, a transfer, a waiver or the withdrawal of a claim.

Wording of Article 243 of the Spanish Criminal Code

Elements of the offence

1. Intent to gain, which distinguishes this offence from coercion under article 172.
2. Violence or intimidation against a person. Pressure that is merely economic or reputational is not sufficient, although the case law admits intimidation by the announcement of a serious harm.
3. The performance or omission of a legal act or transaction: a signature, a transfer, an acknowledgment of debt, a waiver, the withdrawal of a claim.
4. Detriment to the property of the person compelled or of a third party, which need not have materialised for the offence to be complete.

Defence strategy

Reclassification to coercion. Where intent to gain is absent, or where what was sought was not a legal act affecting property, the offence is coercion under article 172, punishable by imprisonment of six months to three years or a fine. Compelling a person to leave premises, to cease conduct or to make an apology is coercion, not extortion. The distinction is drawn from what was actually demanded.

Absence of violence or intimidation. Insistent demands, the threat of legitimate legal proceedings, the announcement that a complaint will be made and commercial pressure are not intimidation in the statutory sense. Where the accused was asserting a genuine claim, the applicable provision may be article 455, which punishes the unlawful enforcement of one’s own right with a fine alone. The documentary history of the underlying dispute is what supports that reclassification.

The validity of the act obtained. Where the act or transaction was performed for reasons of the other party’s own, was subsequently ratified freely, or conferred no advantage, the element of detriment is open to challenge. The defence examines whether the transaction was registered, whether it was performed, and whether the complainant continued to deal with the accused normally afterwards.

Separating the violence from the transaction. The article punishes the extortion without prejudice to the penalty for the physical violence. The defence therefore examines whether the injuries are being counted twice, once as the intimidation constituting this offence and again as a separate offence of bodily harm, and argues the rules on concurrence in article 77 where the violence and the demand formed a single act.

• Article 172: coercion
• Article 455: enforcing a right unlawfully
• Article 242: robbery with violence
• Spanish-language entry

This entry is provided for information only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of any provision depends on the circumstances of the individual case and requires examination of the case file by a qualified lawyer.