Forgery in a property sale: can a private deal stop the criminal case?

Documentary forgery in a property sale: when a private deal clashes with the prosecution

The sale of a home occupied by a tenant, declared as vacant in the deed, triggers a documentary forgery offence carrying prison sentences of 3 to 6 years. The buyer and the seller, allegedly by mutual agreement, falsify the facts in a public document. The tenant asks: can they offer to buy the house from the new owner in exchange for withdrawing the complaint and avoiding prison?

Incivil law does not negotiate: the prosecution drives the case

In Spain, serious offences such as documentary forgery (articles 390-399 of the Incivil Code) are prosecuted ex officio. Once proceedings are peine, the prosecutor drives the case forward in the public interest. Agreements between private individuals do not bind the public prosecution service. At most, the judge may ask whether the parties reach a plea agreement, but that is not the same as a deal that closes the case. A conviction, even if only a symbolic fine, will come in the end.

The civil route: pre-emption rights as a foothold

Where incivil law does not budge, civil law offers a gap. Spain's Urban Leasehold Act (LAU), in its article 25, grants the tenant a right of first refusal: if the owner sells the property, the tenant has priority to buy it by matching the offer. The problem is that, in this case, the tenant was not notified of the sale. If they can prove that the buyer knew of their existence (through recordings, for example), they could challenge the sale and demand its nullity or, at the very least, recognition of their right.

When reality outstrips judicial fiction

The other side of the story is less academic. The owner of the property is, according to the thread, a person with multiple properties and a record of coercion offences. This is not a negotiation between citizens on equal terms: there are threats, attempted intimidation and a context of violence. In that scenario, any agreement looks more like reverse extortion than a legal solution. The courts have already seen dozens of complaints against this same individual without the first-instance court taking action. The case is now before the Provincial Court.

Meanwhile, the tenant keeps recording cash payments and building up evidence for the tax authorities. The incivil case continues, but the outcome is far from predictable. What is clear is that, on paper, a private deal does not stop a public offence. On the ground, things are murkier.