Yes: a real and operational compliance programme (not a paper one) can exempt from or mitigate the criminal liability of the legal entity. We design and implement risk maps and whistleblowing channels with procedural validity.

Both punish the mismanagement of another’s assets: misappropriation means making one’s own what was received; disloyal administration, damaging the administered assets by exceeding one’s powers. The correct classification changes sentences and strategy.

Hiding or stripping assets so as not to pay creditors when debts already exist. Legitimate civil transactions are frequently reported as concealment: the boundary lies in the intention and the timing.

Altering, simulating or using false documents (contracts, invoices, certificates). In commercial documents, committed by private individuals, it carries prison; it frequently appears in association with fraud and corporate offences.

Yes, and it is decisive: complete and truthful regularisation before notification of the inspection exempts entirely from criminal liability (absolutory excuse). Once notified, the window closes: timing is everything.

That the administrative file becomes criminal proceedings for a tax offence. From that notice onwards, everything submitted or stated must pass through a criminal defence strategy, not only a tax one.

Yes: where insolvency is found to have been caused or aggravated, together with irregular accounting or concealment of assets (punishable insolvency). The correct preparation of the insolvency filing is the director’s best criminal prevention.

Someone who lends their account to receive and forward funds of criminal origin, often recruited through fake jobs. Even without knowing the origin, they can be charged with negligent money laundering: the defence focuses on establishing the absence of knowledge. We explain it in this article.

The tax offence is committed by the taxpayer, but the adviser can be liable as a necessary co-operator. And delegating to the adviser does not exempt you: “wilful blindness” (not wanting to know, the doctrine of the Messi case, STS 374/2017) offers no protection.

With a quota above 600,000 euros, a criminal organisation or the use of front men and tax havens (Article 305 bis): 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment and a 10-year limitation period. The basic or aggravated classification changes the case completely.

Yes: the assessment and collection of the debt are not stayed by the criminal case (separate assessment). That is why the criminal and the tax defence must be coordinated.

After 5 years (10 for the aggravated form), compared with 4 for the administrative infringement: the window between the 4th and the 5th year is critical and generates much litigation. The computation and its interruptions are always reviewed.

It is frequent: the defrauded quota can be regarded as laundered property (self-laundering). The defence against that double charge requires delimiting the facts precisely to avoid punishing the same thing twice.

Not always: the courts apply conditional intent and wilful blindness — whoever arranges their affairs so as not to know is liable as if they knew. The real defence lies in proving invincible error or the absence of effective control.