Introduction: Neutralization techniques encompass a set of justifications intended to excuse or conceal transgressive behavior. The two major forms are denial of responsibility and denial of behavior. Such techniques are frequently employed by perpetrators of coercive control, an insidious form of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Purpose: This research examines the effect of neutralization on third-party judgments in situations involving coercive control. Method: Participants (N = 561) first read a victim's testimony of coercive control before being randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In the control condition, participants completed the questionnaires directly. In the two experimental conditions, they were additionally exposed to a perpetrator testimony containing either denial of responsibility (victim-blaming) or denial of behavior (minimization). Measures assessed perceived responsibility, moral judgment, social judgment, and approval of sanctions. Results: Although the victim was consistently evaluated more favorably than the perpetrator, neutralization techniques significantly influenced third-party evaluations by reducing the responsibility of the perpetrator and increasing the perceived acceptability of his behavior. Both forms of denial decreased approval for sanctions against the perpetrator. However, denial of responsibility had a broader and stronger impact than denial of behavior, including higher attribution of responsibility to the victim. Conclusions: Neutralization techniques shape evaluations of coercive control, potentially increasing passivity in the face of allegations. Third parties play a critical role in contexts of deprivation of liberty such as coercive control, not only by detecting the abuse or providing social support, but also by contributing to the victim's protection from the perpetrator. A better understanding of the impact of neutralization could help mitigate these risks and strengthen interventions in support of victims.