Petaqueo has become an offence in its own right following a very recent reform, and many people are unclear about what it covers, how it is punished, since when it applies and, above all, what happens with what occurred before. Let’s explain it clearly, without unnecessary jargon, so you understand what you are facing and what room there is to defend it.
What is petaqueo?
Petaqueo is the supply of fuel to fast boats used for drug trafficking, usually on the open sea, by means of fuel cans, jerrycans or petrol tanks. It is an essential logistical piece of maritime drug trafficking: without fuel, the go-fast boats cannot run the routes, so whoever supplies the petrol becomes a link in the chain.
This phenomenon is especially well known in areas such as the Strait of Gibraltar, the Campo de Gibraltar, Huelva and the Costa del Sol, where maritime drug trafficking has a long-standing presence. Because of its role within that chain, and because of the difficulties courts had fitting it into a specific offence, the legislator has decided to punish petaqueo specifically.
The new offence: article 568.2 of the Criminal Code
Organic Law 1/2026 of 8 April, on multiple reoffending, added a new paragraph 2 to article 568 of the Criminal Code to respond expressly to the practice of petaqueo. The law’s own preamble says so plainly: the new paragraph is introduced to address that conduct.
The new article 568.2 provides that, where the inflammable substance is a liquid fuel, the penalty is three to five years in prison, and that courts may impose the lower penalty for conduct of minor significance, taking into account the circumstances of the act and the offender.
In practice, this means several things:
- What it punishes: the irregular transport, possession, storage or supply of liquid fuel (the petrol in the cans) under the conditions of article 568. It sits among offences against collective safety, not among drug trafficking offences.
- The penalty: 3 to 5 years in prison. Courts may impose the lower penalty when the conduct is of minor significance.
- Since when it applies: the law is dated 8 April 2026, was published in the official gazette on 9 April and came into force on 10 April 2026. It only applies to acts committed from that date.
- It is a danger offence: it does not require proof of a link to a specific trafficking operation. It is enough to establish the dangerous conduct with the fuel. This makes prosecution easier, but it also opens proportionality debates, and that is where defence arguments arise.
The underlying logic is clear: what is targeted is the dangerous logistics of drug trafficking, not only the transport of the drugs themselves.
What about acts before the reform?
This is the question that most worries anyone investigated, accused or already convicted for acts before 10 April 2026. And the answer has a solid basis in the defence’s favour.
The principle of non-retroactivity of unfavourable criminal law applies: no one can be punished under a law that was not in force when the acts occurred. Organic Law 1/2026 itself states in its transitional provision that offences committed up to its entry into force are judged under the law in force when they were committed, unless the new law is more favourable to the defendant.
In other words: the new article 568.2 cannot be applied retroactively, unless it is more favourable to the defendant.
The Supreme Court ruling (June 2026)
The Supreme Court ruled on petaqueo for the first time in June 2026, in a case from Cádiz: a man caught at the port of Conil de la Frontera piloting a boat with 143 fuel cans and around 3,575 litres of petrol. The Provincial Court had dismissed the proceedings and the prosecution appealed.
The Court sets out two key points:
- The new specific petaqueo offence (article 568.2) does not apply to acts before its entry into force. It also recalls that, before the reform, fitting petaqueo into article 568 was not a settled interpretation: it was precisely because it was unclear that a specific regulation was demanded for years.
- But earlier acts are not necessarily left unpunished. The Court does not endorse a definitive dismissal and accepts the prosecution’s view: those acts can be investigated through another route, article 348 of the Criminal Code, provided it is proven that the transport was carried out in genuinely dangerous conditions.
What article 348 is
Article 348 is a danger offence caused by inflammable or explosive substances. It punishes anyone who, in the transport, possession or handling of explosives or inflammable substances, breaches safety rules and thereby creates a concrete danger to people’s life, physical integrity or health, or to the environment. Its penalty is six months to three years in prison, a fine and special disqualification.
The key is the concrete danger: carrying petrol is not enough; it must be proven that the conduct created a real, objective risk to people or the environment. The route opened for earlier acts is article 348, narrower and with a noticeably lower penalty than the new 568.2.
If you were already convicted of petaqueo: the review route
If you were convicted of petaqueo before the reform under article 568, or under a classification the Supreme Court now questions, this new criterion may open a door in your favour.
The reasoning is simple: if the Supreme Court’s doctrine establishes that the appropriate route for those earlier acts is article 348, whose penalty (six months to three years) is lower than what may have been applied at the time, it may make sense to examine a review of the sentence to seek that more favourable classification and, with it, a lower penalty.
It is not an automatic step nor valid in every case: it is an extraordinary route that requires analysing the specific judgment in detail, how the acts were classified, whether the concrete danger of article 348 was present, and what real room for reduction exists. Since petaqueo almost always appears within broader drug trafficking and organised crime operations, it is best to review each case with a specialist lawyer as soon as possible.
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every case has specific circumstances that can completely change the analysis. If you need concrete guidance on your situation, consult a criminal defence lawyer.
