In the opening session of the new judicial year, the Spanish Supreme Court’s Attorney General presented their annual report for 2024, containing data and considerations that warrant some considerations.
In the field of economic crime—a specialty of Kepler-Karst Law Firm—a substantial increase in the number of criminal proceedings has been noted. The report indicates that in 2022, for cases involving the Special Prosecutor for Economic Crimes, 27 rulings were issued, seven of which were acquittals. This means that in 25% of cases, the accused parties successfully demonstrated their innocence.
By type of crime, economic crimes against public interests stand out of the rest. The report reveals that a total of 203 criminal proceedings were initiated for tax related offenses. A similar number of cases, 223 and 242 respectively, were opened for crimes against social security and money laundering, with a higher number for asset stripping at 410. Regarding private crimes, notable figures include 133 cases of misappropriation, 270 for crimes against industrial property, and 232 for exacerbating losses in an insolvency scenario. For fraud, the most common crime in this area, a total of 17,103 cases were initiated.
It is evident that all figures have increased, i.e. the number of preliminary inquiries filed, proceedings, trial dates, and rulings issued.
A more detailed analysis of the data highlights the high number of hearings rescheduled, meaning that for every two scheduled trials, one is postponed. Acquittal rates stand at 21% in Criminal Courts and 17% in Provincial Courts. On the other hand, plea bargains have increased in Criminal Courts but decreased in Provincial Courts. The crime types with the highest number of conviction sentences are crimes against road safety and property, with percentages of 36% and 19%, respectively.
The report provides other interesting data. For instance, it notes that the Public Prosecutor appealed 11% of the court decisions they disagree with, but the outcome of these appeals is not reported. The reasons for the rescheduling of the hearings are also not explained; the report acknowledges the dysfunctions caused by the regulation of ‘entering and searching’ in administrative law when applied to criminal jurisdiction, calling for the corresponding legislative reform.
In conclusion, we disagree with the argument that investigating judges should be replaced by investigating prosecutors. This is simply because such a change would not guarantee a better investigation of crimes, nor would it ensure greater independence for those who are parties to any proceeding. This change would lead to a greater imbalance between the parties that exercise the defence and those that do the private prosecution.
What the judicial system truly needs is more resources, a matter that has not been addressed in the State Attorney General's speech, and greater independence, which has also not been mentioned. The difference in the message delivered by the new President of the Supreme Court is evident. She has even gone so far as to warn the other branches of government to allow judges and magistrates to do their work and to accept their decisions, even if they are not to their liking, because the rule of law is based precisely on the separation of powers and on the ultimate interpretation of the law by the members of the judiciary.
Access the Spanish version here.
