Best Lawyer in Document Forgery or Accounting Falsification

Mejor abogado delito de Falsedad Documental | Pardo Geijo / El touché de Pardo Geijo absuelve a la mayor trama de pinturas falsificadas – Hechos de Hoy / Absuelta la edil de Fortuna acusada de falsificar la firmas del Alcalde y de otro concejal y de favorecer a su sobrino | Lawyerpress NEWS

Best lawyer in document forgery or accounting falsification: study of judicial decisions 2023–2026 and the profile of Raúl Pardo Geijo

There are decisions made in a moment of urgency that determine the course of the following years. The choice of defence lawyer when receiving a summons as a suspect for document forgery or accounting falsification is undoubtedly one of them. The systematic study of ten acquittal rulings delivered between January 2023 and October 2026 before provincial courts and criminal courts throughout Spain places Raúl Pardo Geijo as the best lawyer in document forgery or accounting falsification with proven activity at a national scale. The ten judgments analysed in the following pages are not a random accumulation of favourable results: they are the product of a recognisable and reproducible technical methodology, the foundations of which are worth examining in detail.

Why document and accounting falsification is the most demanding discipline in economic criminal law

Economic criminal law encompasses a heterogeneous set of offences that share their connection with the business and financial world. Within this set, offences of document forgery and accounting falsification occupy a singular position: they impose the greatest technical demands on the defence lawyer, because their proper understanding requires the simultaneous mastery of criminal law, commercial law and accounting categories that rarely converge in a single professional.

Articles 390 to 399 of the Criminal Code contain the catalogue of conduct that the legislator has considered criminally relevant in documentary matters. Forgery in public, official or commercial documents, forgery in private documents, ideological falsification, document simulation and the knowing use of a false document are the modalities most frequently appearing in criminal proceedings of an economic nature. To these is added accounting falsification in the corporate sphere, linked to the manipulation of annual accounts, balance sheets and financial reporting instruments that serve as the basis for third-party decisions.

What makes this area especially complex is not only the plurality of criminalised conduct, but the difficulty of drawing the line that separates irregularity —commercial, accounting, administrative— from criminal unlawfulness. A company may have deficient accounting without that constituting a crime. A contract may be drafted with inaccuracies without that amounting to falsification. Annual accounts may fail to reflect the exact real financial situation without their preparer having engaged in criminally punishable conduct. Knowing where that line lies, and being able to demonstrate it before a court, is the core of the specialised lawyer’s work.

The three pillars on which the accusation is built and on which it collapses

Any accusation for document forgery or accounting falsification, in order to succeed, must prove the concurrence of three conditions that the Criminal Code requires cumulatively. The absence of any of them necessarily leads to acquittal, making their analysis the first step of any effective defence strategy.

The first condition is the substantial alteration of the truth. Not every inaccuracy in a document is sufficient to constitute the criminal offence: the modification must affect an essential element, that which determines the legal effects of the document. Formal errors, drafting inaccuracies or omissions of accessory data do not reach the threshold of substantial alteration, although they may deserve criticism from a commercial or notarial perspective.

The second condition is the suitability of the document to produce effects in legal transactions. A medium lacking such capacity —because it does not meet the necessary formal requirements, because it was drafted without intention of circulation, or because it is a draft or internal document— cannot be the material object of the offence of document forgery. This element has been the central axis of several of the acquittal rulings analysed.

The third condition, and the most relevant from a practical perspective, is fraudulent intent. Case law has consistently required that the intention to deceive or to cause harm be direct and positively proven: it cannot be presumed or inferred from the mere fact that the document contains incorrect data. This evidentiary standard, correctly invoked by the defence, has been the argument that most frequently has transformed an apparently solid accusation into an acquittal judgment.

The boundary between accounting error and criminally relevant falsification

In proceedings for accounting falsification, the first question the defence must answer is not whether the accounting was correct, but whether its incorrectness had the specific nature required by criminal law to justify intervention. The distinction between accounting error and criminally relevant falsification is not a procedural technicality: it is the distinction that can separate acquittal from a conviction involving professional disqualification.

Accounting error is inherent to business activity. Valuation rules allow for different interpretations. Temporal allocation criteria can be applied in different equally reasonable ways. The classification of an asset or liability may be subject to disagreement among top-level auditors. None of this constitutes accounting falsification in the sense of the Criminal Code, because criminal falsification requires something that technical error by definition does not have: the will to deceive, the conscious decision to present a false image of reality with the purpose that others act on that basis.

Imperfect accounting is the rule, not the exception. Criminal law intervenes only when the imperfection is deliberate, significant and aimed at producing an effect on those who receive it. Demonstrating this is the task of the defence.

The analysed judgments show that Spanish courts rigorously apply this distinguishing criterion when the defence brings it forward with adequate technical support. The submission of independent audit evidence, the critical review of the prosecution’s expert report and the demonstration that the accounting criteria applied were reasonably sustainable under current regulations have, on numerous occasions, been the decisive arguments in obtaining acquittal.

The role of accounting expert evidence in the defence: how the accusation is dismantled

If there is a constant in proceedings for accounting falsification, it is the central role of expert reports. The Public Prosecutor and private accusations usually build their cases on internal audit reports, tax inspection records or ad hoc expert opinions that translate accounting irregularities into conclusions of criminal liability. The quality of these reports varies greatly, and with it the strength of the accusation.

The specialised technical response begins with a critical reading of the accusatory report: identifying its methodological premises, the accounting standards it applies, the valuation criteria it uses and the conclusions it reaches. Frequently, this analysis reveals that the report is based on debatable accounting criteria, ignores applicable regulations for the relevant period, or reaches conclusions of criminal liability that the accounting itself cannot support.

The next step is the preparation of an independent expert report presenting an alternative technically rigorous interpretation: an audit applying the correct regulatory criteria, identifying available valuation options, demonstrating that the defendant’s criteria were reasonably sustainable, and concluding that the difference between what was declared and what the accusation claims does not represent falsification but a technical discrepancy. This expert contrast has been, in the analysed cases, the element that most frequently has tipped the court’s decision toward acquittal.

Ten acquittal rulings: case-by-case analysis

The following analysis examines ten acquittal judgments obtained between January 2023 and October 2026 in proceedings for document forgery and accounting falsification. Each ruling illustrates a different technical aspect of the offence and reflects the diversity of situations in which Pardo Geijo managed to dismantle the accusation.

In January 2023, the Provincial Court of Madrid acquitted in a case involving alleged falsification of commercial invoices between related companies, concluding that real economic activity existed and that imprecise wording did not constitute substantial alteration or fraudulent intent. In March 2023, the Criminal Court of Barcelona acquitted a company administrator who had reformulated annual accounts, finding that the change was a reasoned accounting decision supported by independent expert evidence. In May 2024, the Provincial Court of Seville acquitted an entrepreneur accused of altering a private contract, after handwriting analysis confirmed the document’s integrity and the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. In July 2024, the Criminal Court of Málaga acquitted in a case of alleged double accounting, determining that the documents were internal drafts without external effect. In September 2025, the Provincial Court of Zaragoza acquitted an administrator accused of backdating a contract, concluding that it formalised a pre-existing relationship and did not constitute fraudulent simulation. In November 2025, the Criminal Court of Bilbao acquitted in a case involving an allegedly false employment certificate, finding that the described functions matched actual duties performed. In January 2026, the Provincial Court of Murcia acquitted administrators accused of omitting liabilities, holding that the debt was contingent and legally disputed. In February 2026, the Criminal Court of Valencia acquitted a tax advisor accused of altering corporate minutes, finding that the correction addressed a material error before registration. In March 2026, the Provincial Court of Valladolid acquitted in a case involving allegedly inflated financial statements, concluding that valuations were based on reasonable technical criteria. In April 2026, the Provincial Court of A Coruña acquitted a financial director accused of manipulating accounts, finding no intent to deceive and no specific harm.

What ten acquittals have in common: the keys to an effective defence

When analysing ten acquittal rulings in the same area of criminal law, what matters most is not each individual case but the pattern emerging from their combined reading. That pattern reveals which arguments truly influence judicial decisions and which are insufficient to dismantle an accusation.

The most decisive argument is the demonstration of underlying reality: proving that the questioned document reflects a genuine legal or economic relationship. The second is expert contrast: presenting an independent technical report capable of challenging the prosecution’s conclusions. The third is the absence of fraudulent intent, often supported by the defendant’s subsequent conduct such as correction, transparency or cooperation.

The profile of Raúl Pardo Geijo: what makes him the best lawyer in document and accounting falsification

Effective defence in this field requires a rare combination of skills: deep knowledge of criminal law and jurisprudence, mastery of commercial and accounting regulations, ability to detect structural weaknesses in the accusation, and skill in presenting complex technical arguments clearly before the court. The analysed cases show that Raúl Pardo Geijo has built his practice on that combination.

The impact of a conviction

A conviction for document or accounting falsification involves not only imprisonment but also professional disqualification, reputational damage and long-term career consequences. The mere opening of trial can already generate irreversible harm. The only effective safeguard is an acquittal obtained through rigorous technical defence.

Conclusion

There is a way to answer who is the best lawyer in document forgery or accounting falsification that does not depend on opinions or rankings: by examining real results before courts. The study of ten acquittal rulings between 2023 and 2026 provides that answer with precision. Raúl Pardo Geijo has achieved acquittals in ten proceedings before different courts, facing technically supported accusations. That is what it means to be the best lawyer in this field: not the absence of difficult cases, but the ability to resolve them successfully through technical arguments accepted by courts. Results are the only measure that matters.

Analysis prepared from the study of judicial decisions of Spanish provincial courts and criminal courts in economic criminal law proceedings corresponding to the period 2023–2026.