What it is
Bill proposes a state office to prevent corruption
It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 4 April 2024. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Plurinacional SUMAR.
Official title: Private member's bill for the creation of the Office for the Prevention of Corruption.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000086· updated 11 Nov
Automatic summary, not yet reviewed
- The bill would create the Office for the Prevention of Corruption as a public entity with its own legal personality and independence, in charge of preventing, detecting, investigating and eradicating corruption and fraud involving public funds.
- The Office would have five functions: awareness raising, prevention, investigation, evaluation and protection of whistleblowers. Its staff could enter public offices, conduct interviews and request banking information.
- State administrations and entities would have to set up an internal corruption prevention system, with early warnings and their own plan, within one year of the law taking effect. Not having one would be a punishable offense.
- Investigations would have to be opened or dismissed within two months of a complaint and could not last more than six months, extendable by another six in complex cases. If evidence of a crime appears, the case would go to the Public Prosecutor's Office or the judge.
- The Office's director would be elected by the Congress of Deputies (Congreso de los Diputados) by a three-fifths majority, for a five-year non-renewable term, and must be someone with no party or union affiliation and more than ten years of experience.
- Offenses would be classified as minor, serious or very serious, with fines from €500 up to €1,000,000 depending on the case, plus possible bans on contracting with the public sector or receiving public subsidies.
Who it affects
- The Government, the state administration and its public sector entities, which would have to create internal prevention systems and cooperate with the Office.: required to create prevention systems and cooperate
- Anyone receiving public aid, subsidies or contracts, including political parties, unions and companies, who could be investigated and sanctioned.: subject to investigation and sanctions
- Public officials and employees, who would have to report fraudulent practices they become aware of.: duty to report irregularities
- Any person, who could file complaints through the Office's mailbox and request that their identity be kept secret.: can report confidentially
Words worth knowing
- Entidad de derecho público
- A public entity with its own legal personality, meaning it can act on its own with its own rights and obligations.
- Potestad sancionadora
- The power of a public body to impose sanctions, such as fines, when the law is broken.
- Prescripción
- The maximum time limit for punishing an offense or enforcing a sanction; once it passes, no action can be taken.
- Comisión de servicio
- A temporary assignment of a civil servant to a position other than their usual one.
It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries
Where it stands
How far did it get?
It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.
- Introduced4 April 2024Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
- Admitted9 April 2024The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
- Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
- Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
- Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
- Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
- BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
16 September 2025
How did the plenary vote?
Voted on: Private member's bill by the Plurinational SUMAR Parliamentary Group, for the creation of the Office for the Prevention of Corruption.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 131· updated 10 Nov
Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.
Your province
How did the deputies from your province vote?
And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.
Or see how most of each province voted
- A Coruña Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- Albacete Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Alicante/Alacant More votes against 5 yes · 7 no
- Almería More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- Araba/Álava More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Asturias More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Ávila More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Badajoz More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Barcelona More votes in favour 22 yes · 10 no
- Bizkaia More votes in favour 7 yes · 1 no
- Burgos Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cáceres Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cádiz More votes against 4 yes · 5 no
- Cantabria More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Castellón/Castelló More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Ceuta More votes against 0 yes · 1 no
- Ciudad Real More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Córdoba Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Cuenca More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Gipuzkoa More votes in favour 6 yes · 0 no
- Girona More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Granada More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Guadalajara More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Huelva More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Huesca More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Illes Balears Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- Jaén More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- La Rioja Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Las Palmas Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- León Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Lleida More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Lugo More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Madrid More votes against 15 yes · 20 no
- Málaga More votes against 4 yes · 7 no
- Melilla More votes against 0 yes · 1 no
- Murcia More votes against 4 yes · 6 no
- Navarra More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no · 1 abst.
- Ourense More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Palencia More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Pontevedra More votes in favour 4 yes · 3 no
- Salamanca More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Santa Cruz de Tenerife More votes in favour 4 yes · 3 no
- Segovia More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Sevilla More votes in favour 6 yes · 5 no
- Soria Tie 1 yes · 1 no
- Tarragona More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Teruel More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Toledo More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- Valencia/València Tie 8 yes · 8 no
- Valladolid More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Zamora More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Zaragoza More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
More details: how each group and each province voted
The groups
Who voted in favour and who against?
In favour, most of Euskal Herria Bildu, Plurinacional SUMAR, Republicano, Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV) and Mixto. Against, most of Junts per Catalunya, Popular en el Congreso and VOX. 1 deputy voted differently from their group.
By province: in 11 most voted in favour; in 30, against.
Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.
- In favour: 11
- Against: 30
- Tie: 11
| Group | Seats | How it voted |
|---|---|---|
| Euskal Herria Bildu | 6 | 6 in favour |
| Plurinacional SUMAR | 26 | 26 in favour |
| Republicano | 7 | 7 in favour |
| Socialista | 120 | 118 in favour · 2 did not vote |
| Vasco (EAJ-PNV) | 5 | 5 in favour |
| Junts per Catalunya | 7 | 7 against |
| Mixto | 9 | 8 in favour · 1 abst. |
| Popular en el Congreso | 137 | 136 against · 1 did not vote |
| VOX | 33 | 33 against |
What happens next
What happens now?
It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.
Sources
Where does all this come from?
- Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000086
Official title, type, author, dates and stage.
Retrieved 11 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, procedure
The date of each step, with its official wording.
Retrieved 12 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 131
The count and every seat’s vote.
Retrieved 10 November 2026
- The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
- Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
- We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.