CASE COMMENTARY · HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEAn invoice the lawyer never issued: attempted procedural fraud
DECISION
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of La Rioja (2026)
COURT
High Court of Justice of La Rioja, Civil and Criminal Chamber
IDENTIFICATION
Attempted procedural fraud, Articles 248 and 250(1)(7) of the Criminal Code
OUTCOME
One-year prison sentence upheld
A claim for professional fees of 309.43 euros has ended in a criminal conviction carrying one year of imprisonment. The defendant produced, in the fee-recovery procedure, an invoice for 2,077.60 euros supposedly signed digitally by his lawyer, with which he sought to show that he had already paid the fees claimed. The lawyer denied having issued or signed that document.
The case clearly illustrates a figure many litigants are unaware of and which practitioners encounter more often than one would wish: procedural fraud, the aggravated form of fraud provided for in Article 250(1)(7) of the Spanish Criminal Code.
The facts and the procedural route
- Non-payment of 309.43 euros for the court agent’s professional services
- Unsuccessful demands and the subsequent commencement of fee-recovery proceedings
- The defendant produced an invoice for 2,077.60 euros attributed to his lawyer
- The lawyer denied having issued or signed the document
- Conviction at first instance for attempted procedural fraud
- The High Court of Justice upholds the one-year prison sentence
- An appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court remains available
The legal keys
- Procedural fraud is committed by deceiving the court, not the opposing party
- The deceived party and the injured party are different: triangular fraud
- It is enough to attempt to lead the court into error
- Completion and attempt: the erroneous decision marks the boundary
- A falsely attributed digital signature reinforces sufficient deception
- The denial by the apparent issuer of the document is central prosecution evidence
THE DOCTRINEWhat the court holds
What procedural fraud is
Article 250(1)(7) of the Criminal Code aggravates fraud where it is committed by simulating litigation or employing other procedural deceit. Its structural peculiarity is that the deceived party and the injured party do not coincide: the court suffers the error, while the opposing party suffers the financial loss. Doctrine therefore calls it triangular fraud. The deception is not aimed at directly obtaining a transfer of assets from the victim, but at having the court issue a decision that produces it.
Sufficient deception within proceedings
The requirement that the deception be sufficient takes on a distinctive shape here. Maintaining an unfounded claim is not enough, because litigating is legitimate and proceedings exist precisely to resolve disputes. What is required is the production of something objectively capable of leading the adjudicator into error: a false document, simulated litigation or a manoeuvre altering the evidentiary picture. Producing an invoice attributed to a professional who denies issuing it plainly meets that standard.
Completion and attempt
The boundary between completion and attempt lies in the issuing of the erroneous decision. If the court rules in accordance with the deception and financial loss follows, the offence is complete. If the ruse is discovered earlier, as happened here when the lawyer denied authorship of the document, the conduct remains at the attempt stage. That characterisation determines the reduction of the sentence by one or two degrees under Article 62.
The burden of explaining the document’s origin
The defence argued that the judgment did not explain how the invoice had specifically been produced. The court rejects that argument with reasoning worth retaining: once it is established that the document does not come from the person named as issuer and that it was the defendant who introduced it into the proceedings for his own benefit, there is no need to reconstruct the material method of its creation. The inference as to authorship rests on availability of the document and on the interest in using it.
THE FIRM’S READINGWhat it means in practice
For the defence. The most productive argument is usually not the material authorship of the document, hard to deny where the defendant himself produces it, but the document’s capacity to cause error and the mental element. If the document reflected a payment actually made, albeit irregularly, or if the defendant received it from a third party trusting its authenticity, the characterisation falls away.
For a professional whose signature is misused. A formal, documented denial is decisive. It is advisable to produce the invoicing system, the sequential numbering, the electronic signature certificates used and the traceability of the fee notes issued. That documentation turns a denial into objective evidence.
On fee-recovery proceedings. The procedure under Articles 34 and 35 of the Civil Procedure Act is summary and of limited cognition. Precisely for that reason it is especially vulnerable to the production of false documents, and precisely for that reason the criminal response is severe.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSFrequently asked questions
What is procedural fraud?
It is the aggravated form of fraud under Article 250(1)(7) of the Spanish Criminal Code, committed by simulating litigation or employing other procedural deceit. Its characteristic feature is that the deceived party is the court and the injured party is the opposing litigant.
When is it complete and when does it remain an attempt?
It is complete when the court issues a decision determined by the deception and financial loss follows. If the ruse is discovered before that decision, the conduct remains an attempt, with the corresponding reduction in sentence.
Is producing a false document in proceedings an offence?
It may be. In addition to procedural fraud, the conduct may amount to documentary forgery. The characterisation depends on the nature of the document, who created it and the purpose pursued in producing it.
What sentence was imposed here?
One year of imprisonment for attempted procedural fraud, upheld on appeal by the High Court of Justice of La Rioja. The decision may be challenged by way of cassation.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKERelated content
Article 248: fraudArticle 250: aggravated fraudPractice areasPractical defence guides
Commentary prepared by the SCJE team from public sources on the decision. Its content is summarised for informational purposes, without full reproduction. It does not constitute individual legal advice. Source consulted: Tirant lo Blanch, actualidad jurídica.
SCJE · ALICANTE AND MADRIDAre you accused of producing false documents in proceedings?
Francisco Javier Martín Porras
Abogado penalista, socio de Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert y creador de la metodología LIWARD®. Dirige la defensa en procedimientos penales de alta complejidad, combinando estrategia procesal con análisis pericial y forense. Conozca al equipo →
