Abstract

The sufficiency of deception in fraud has been the subject of debate in the jurisprudence of the Spanish Supreme Court, particularly with respect to the objective and subjective criteria that determine suitability; however, inconsistencies persist in its application, which calls for a critical analysis of its jurisprudential evolution. This study examines the main criteria used in the assessment of deception as a structural element of the crime of fraud, highlighting its relationship with the theory of objective imputation. A qualitative approach is adopted based on the hermeneutic method and on the documentary review of court rulings and relevant doctrine, with the purpose of contrasting different legal interpretations. The findings show that the jurisprudence has moved from strictly dogmatic positions towards more integrative criteria, in which the sufficiency of the deceit is assessed both in terms of the conduct of the active subject and the conditions of the victim. It is concluded that, although jurisprudential evolution has allowed for greater interpretative flexibility, challenges persist to ensure its uniform application. This highlights the need to establish more precise parameters that reinforce legal certainty and clearly delimit the criminal relevance of deceit in fraud.