Spanish law: the breaches are offences in their own right

Two or more Spanish domestic-violence convictions plus repeated convictions for breaching an Article 48 restraining/approach order under Article 468.2, the picture becomes considerably more significant than a single domestic incident.

Two or more Spanish domestic-violence convictions plus repeated convictions for breaching an Article 48 restraining/approach order under Article 468.2, the picture becomes considerably more significant than a single domestic incident.

1. Spanish law: the breaches are offences in their own right

Article 468.2 of the Spanish Penal Code provides a specific prison penalty of six months to one year for breaching an Article 48 prohibition or equivalent precautionary/security measure in criminal proceedings where the protected person falls within Article 173.2. Article 48 includes prohibitions on approaching or communicating with the protected person. BOE

So, if there are separate convictions for repeated breaches, the legal record can contain two distinct categories:

Underlying domestic-violence offending
→ convictions for the substantive conduct proved.

Subsequent judicial-order breaches
→ separate convictions for knowingly violating court-imposed protection.

That distinction is important. A restraining order is a judicial command, rather than simply a boundary requested by the victim.

Spanish Fiscalía guidance specifically recognises Article 468.2 as applying to breaches of prohibitions on residence, approach and communication imposed in relevant criminal proceedings. BOE

2. Psychologically, repetition changes the picture

From a psychological perspective, repeated breaches can be considerably more destabilising than one isolated incident.

For the protected person, the experience can become:

“Even after the court intervened, the behaviour continued.”

That can undermine the sense of safety that the protective order was intended to provide.

Repeated incidents can also produce anticipatory anxiety and hypervigilance — watching for unexpected contact, wondering whether another breach will occur and remaining alert to the person’s presence.

Importantly, you don’t need to assume a particular motive to understand the psychological impact. A breach can be frightening and destabilising whether its motive was revenge, control, reconciliation, impulsivity or something else.

3. For US immigration, “moral turpitude” needs an offence-by-offence analysis

The US does not simply say:

domestic violence = CIMT
restraining-order breach = CIMT.

US immigration authorities examine the elements of the offence of conviction and the applicable case law. Depending on the statute, the analysis can involve the categorical approach, divisibility and, where appropriate, the record of conviction. USCIS

So it would be inappropriate to say categorically that an Article 468.2 conviction is a CIMT without examining the exact Spanish provision, the conviction documents and the relevant US authority.

However, a record containing multiple domestic-violence convictions plus multiple convictions for deliberately violating judicial protective measures is plainly a much more substantial criminal record than a single isolated conviction. Whether that produces a particular US immigration consequence depends on the exact convictions, dates, sentences and the immigration provision being considered.

4. The UK uses a different framework

For the UK, “moral turpitude” isn’t the central test in the way it is in US immigration law.

Current Home Office guidance considers criminality in terms of the actual convictions, sentences, overseas offending, serious harm and persistent offending, among other factors. The March 2026 guidance expressly covers convictions obtained overseas. GOV.UK

The current deportation guidance also expressly recognises overseas convictions, serious harm and patterns of offending as relevant considerations. GOV.UK

Therefore, for UK purposes, a pattern of repeated offending may be legally important without anyone needing to classify it as “moral turpitude.”

5. The key distinction: allegations versus convictions

Alleged abuse
and
criminal conduct proved by conviction.

Likewise:

An alleged breach
and
a conviction for Article 468.2 breach.

If there are multiple final convictions, the wording can legitimately be much stronger because you are describing established judicial outcomes rather than allegations.

A legally careful description would therefore be something like:

“The individual has multiple criminal convictions arising from domestic violence and subsequent breaches of court-imposed protective measures. The latter constitute separate offences under Article 468.2 of the Spanish Penal Code.”

That is considerably more defensible than simply saying:

“He has committed moral turpitude.”

One particularly important point

Multiple Spanish domestic-violence convictions + repeated Article 468.2 convictions could affect this person’s ability to obtain a US visa/ESTA, enter the US, obtain UK immigration permission, or affect a character assessment, I can analyse that much more precisely.

For that, the decisive information would be the exact Spanish Penal Code articles, number of convictions, dates, sentence for each conviction, and whether the Article 468.2 breaches were convictions or merely allegations.