Threatening someone with serious harm is a criminal offence in Spain. It is charged more often than most people expect, particularly in cases arising from arguments between neighbours, workplace disputes and messages sent on WhatsApp or social media.
This article explains what turns an angry statement into a criminal threat under Spanish law, the penalties involved, and where the defence usually concentrates.
What the Criminal Code punishes
Article 169 punishes threatening another person with harm that would itself amount to an offence, whether directed at them, their family, or others closely connected to them.
The listed categories are broad. They include threats of homicide, injury, offences against liberty, torture, offences against sexual freedom, privacy, honour, and property.
The offence protects a person's sense of security. It does not require the threat to be carried out, or even that the person making it ever intended to.
Conditional and unconditional threats
The structure of the penalty turns on whether the threat came with a demand attached.
Where the threat is conditional, meaning the harm is presented as the consequence of not doing something, and that condition was achieved, the penalty is one to five years in prison. Where the condition was not achieved, the range is six months to three years.
Where the threat carries no condition, Article 169 sets the penalty at six months to two years.
Article 170 covers threats directed at a group or population that are serious enough to cause genuine alarm, with the penalty imposed in its upper half.
Threats of harm that is not itself a crime
Article 171 deals with threatening someone with harm that would not, on its own, constitute an offence. Here a condition is essential. Without a demand attached, the conduct falls outside the provision.
The same article covers blackmail, where the threat is to reveal or disclose something concerning a person's private life or family relationships.
Article 171 also contains specific provisions for threats of a lighter nature directed at a spouse, former partner or particularly vulnerable person, which carry their own penalty structure.
When a threat is serious enough
This is where most of these cases are decided.
Spanish courts require the threat to be serious, credible and capable of producing genuine fear in the person receiving it. The assessment is made in context rather than on the words alone.
Statements made in the heat of an argument, understood by everyone present as an expression of anger rather than a real announcement of harm, have repeatedly been found not to meet the threshold. Courts look at the relationship between the parties, the setting, the manner of delivery and whether any step was taken towards carrying the threat out.
The opposite also holds. A calmly delivered statement, repeated over time or accompanied by conduct suggesting capability, can be treated as serious even where the wording is restrained.
Threats sent in writing
Messages, emails and social media posts now feature in a large share of these prosecutions.
Written threats create their own evidential picture. The wording is preserved exactly, which cuts both ways. It removes disputes about what was said, but it also strips out tone, and a message that read as obvious hyperbole in the moment can look far colder on a printed page months later.
Authorship is the other recurring issue. Establishing that a particular person sent a particular message, rather than that it came from an account associated with them, is frequently the weakest part of the prosecution case.
Defence arguments
- The threat lacked seriousness. Words spoken in an argument, without credibility or any follow-through, may fall short of the legal standard.
- Context. The surrounding circumstances often show that no reasonable person would have felt genuinely threatened.
- No condition. Under Article 171, the absence of a demand can defeat the charge entirely.
- Authorship. In digital cases, proving who actually sent the message is often contested.
- Classification. Moving a case from Article 169 to Article 171 substantially reduces the penalty range.
Key points
- The offence punishes the threat itself, regardless of whether it was ever going to be carried out.
- Conditional threats carry higher penalties, up to five years where the condition was achieved.
- Article 171 requires a condition where the threatened harm is not itself an offence.
- Seriousness and credibility are assessed in context, and heat-of-the-moment statements often fall short.
- Written and digital threats raise distinct questions about tone and authorship.
If you are facing an accusation of making threats, or you are receiving them, the context surrounding the words usually matters more than the words themselves. Contact our criminal defence team for an assessment. You may also want to read our guide on your rights when arrested in Spain.
