Threats: When a Sentence Stops Being Bluster and Becomes a Crime

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

The gap between a sentence blurted out at the height of an argument and a crime defined by law lies in a serious promise of unjust and grave harm. The Penal Code treats threat as a standalone offense, and today the decisive evidence is often sitting on the victim’s own phone screen.

What the law means by a threat

Article 147 of the Penal Code defines the offense as threatening someone, by word, in writing or by gesture, or by any other symbolic means, with unjust and grave harm. The penalty is detention of one to six months, or a fine. It is a crime against individual liberty: the legal interest it protects is a person’s peace of mind, the freedom to live without fear imposed by someone else.

Three elements make up the offense. First, the announcement of harm, something promised for the future. Second, the harm must be unjust, meaning contrary to law, and grave, meaning serious enough to shake the victim. Third, the conduct must be aimed at a specific person who is capable of understanding what was promised.

The means used can be broad. A threat can come in writing, in spoken words, through an intimidating gesture or through symbols. A text message, an audio recording, an emoji paired with an aggressive context or the display of a weapon can, depending on the circumstances, satisfy the elements of the offense. What matters is not the format but the intimidating content directed at a specific person.

The line between venting and punishable intimidation

Not every harsh sentence is a crime. Criminal law does not punish bad moods, an isolated rude remark or bluster that has no real capacity to frighten anyone. The dividing line is how serious and believable the promise is. Courts usually require that the announced harm be serious, suitable to the purpose and capable of instilling real fear in an ordinary person in the same situation.

Context weighs heavily in this analysis. A phrase thrown out in the heat of an argument, with no follow-up and no gesture that makes it credible, tends to be read as momentary agitation. A phrase that is repeated, or that comes with stalking, references to weapons or concrete signs that the person can carry out the promise, takes on the shape of a punishable threat.

Case law also distinguishes a threat from a simple lawful warning. Saying that you will go to court, file a complaint or collect a debt through legal channels is not a crime, because the harm announced is just and backed by the legal system. The offense arises when the promise goes beyond the law and becomes a tool of coercion.

It is worth noting that the offender’s intoxication or emotional disturbance does not, by itself, remove responsibility. What courts examine is whether the statement was objectively capable of intimidating, not just the state of mind of the person who made it. For that reason, records showing continuity and repeated behavior are often decisive in assessing a case.

Second, the harm must be unjust, meaning contrary to law, and grave, meaning serious enough to shake the victim.

The weight of digital messages as evidence

A large share of threats today arrive through chat apps, social media and voice messages. That shift has changed how the crime is proven. The victim’s word remains relevant, especially in episodes that happen in the privacy of the home, but a digital message provides an objective record of what was said, when and by whom.

The technical recommendation is to preserve the original content. Deleting conversations, blocking the sender before saving the history or reinstalling the app can compromise later recovery. The best approach is to photograph or capture the screen showing the number, the contact name, the date and the time, and to keep the device available for a possible forensic examination.

To strengthen the evidentiary value, the victim can have a notarial record (ata notarial) drawn up at a notary office, in which a notary public describes what appears on the device’s screen. This document gives the content public faith (official authenticity) and makes claims of tampering harder to sustain. In more complex cases, forensic examination of the phone and a court order for data from the app provider help establish who sent the message.

The integrity of the evidence is decisive. Clipped messages, without context or a clear identification of the sender, lose force against the defense. That is why a more complete record is better: the entire sequence of the conversation clarifies what the sentences mean and keeps the offender from claiming it was a joke or a misunderstanding.

Filing a police report and obtaining protective measures

When you face a threat, the first step is usually to file a police report (boletim de ocorrência). You can do this at a police station or, in many states, through the online police station. The report formally records the incident, preserves the date and serves as the starting point for the investigation. In the report, it is advisable to state precisely what was said, describe the context and identify the evidence already gathered.

Threat is a crime prosecuted through public criminal action conditioned on the victim’s complaint (representação). This means the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público) will begin criminal proceedings only if the victim expressly states a wish for the offender to be prosecuted. This right to file a complaint has a deadline: it expires after six months, counted from the day the victim learns who is responsible for the conduct.

When the threat occurs in a context of domestic and family violence against women, Law 11.340 of 2006 applies. In that situation, the victim can request urgent protective measures, such as removing the aggressor from the home and prohibiting approach and contact by any means, including messages. The judge considers the request quickly, regardless of how the criminal case ends.

In situations of immediate risk, the guidance is to call the police and find a safe place before taking any bureaucratic step. Protective measures exist precisely to break the cycle of intimidation while the investigation moves forward. Gathering witnesses, keeping medical records of any resulting distress and holding on to copies of all messages strengthen both the request for protection and the later criminal case.

Professional guidance makes a difference at every stage. Assessing whether the conduct truly meets the elements of Article 147, guiding the correct collection of evidence and filing the complaint within the deadline are tasks that require a legal reading of the specific case, avoiding both the trivialization of mere disagreements and impunity for serious coercion.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a threat made by WhatsApp message or audio a crime?

Yes. Article 147 covers threats made in writing, by spoken word and by symbolic means, which includes text messages and audio recordings sent through apps. The central point is not the channel but the content: a serious promise of unjust and grave harm, directed at a specific person. That is why preserving the complete conversation history, with the date, time and sender’s identification, is essential to supporting the charge.

Is there a deadline to report a threat I experienced?

There is a deadline for the complaint (representação), which is the victim’s formal statement that they want the offender prosecuted. This right expires after six months, counted from the day the victim learns who committed the act. Filing a police report does not replace the complaint, although it helps document the date and the facts. Missing the deadline can prevent the criminal case from going forward.

Is a heated argument with aggressive words always a threat?

Not necessarily. The law punishes the serious promise of unjust and grave harm that is capable of frightening someone. Bluster, isolated insults and momentary outbursts in the heat of a fight, with no follow-up and no gesture that makes them credible, are usually dismissed by the courts. The analysis depends on the context, on repetition and on whether the words could realistically cause genuine fear in the person who received them.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.