We have achieved a new success by obtaining the definitive dismissal of charges against our client on the grounds of statutory limitation, following a decade of judicial inactivity.
At FukuroLegal, we celebrate a ruling of great significance, which constitutes a notable success for our client and sets an important precedent in the application of criminal limitation periods. This decision reinforces the guarantee of not being prosecuted indefinitely, highlights the risks of undue delays, and underlines the necessity of effective communication with defendants.
The recent judgment rendered by the Criminal Chamber of the National Court ordered the definitive dismissal and termination of proceedings that had been initiated more than a decade ago for an alleged offence of money laundering, in which a sentence of five years’ imprisonment and a fine of five million euros had been sought. The proceedings were halted after the opening of the oral trial in 2015, due to the impossibility of locating the defendants, among them our client, a Swiss national. For more than ten years, no relevant procedural steps were recorded.
Once our client became aware of the case and filed his defence brief in 2024, the Chamber found that the alleged offences were time-barred, noting the absence of any acts with interruptive effect within the ten-year period established in Article 131.1 of the Spanish Criminal Code. The Public Prosecutor lodged an appeal for reconsideration, arguing that both the order opening the oral trial (2015) and the defence brief (2024) had interruptive effect.
Our litigation strategy focused on demonstrating that the defence brief, governed by Article 784.1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is not indispensable for the continuation of proceedings, which may advance even with a mere tacit opposition. We argued that said brief does not generate substantial procedural momentum and is not accompanied by a judicial ruling, both of which are requirements established by the Supreme Court’s case law (Judgment 149/2009) in order to interrupt the limitation period. Furthermore, we emphasised the prolonged procedural inactivity, evidencing the absence of effective measures and a deficient communication with the defendants, thus infringing the principles of procedural celerity and legal certainty.
The Chamber dismissed the Public Prosecutor’s appeal, endorsing our arguments and confirming that only procedural acts with material relevance may interrupt limitation periods. As the defence brief lacked such consideration, it did not affect the computation of the time limit, and therefore the alleged criminal acts imputed to our client were held to be time-barred.
By privileging procedural effectiveness over formalism, this ruling strengthens limitation as an essential institution of criminal law and may influence the future development of case law towards a swifter, more rights-protective, and equitable justice system.
