to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 6/2026

(i) On procedural aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 25 February 2026, 15Os149/25p (European Investigation Order – judicial review in the executing State; seizure of data carriers and data)

The decision concerns the execution of a European Investigation Order issued by the Dresden Public Prosecutor's Office in a cross-border fraud case. The Austrian authorities had ordered premises to be searched and data carriers and data to be seized for subsequent analysis in Germany. The Vienna Higher Regional Court partly set aside the authorisation, holding that the seized data categories, contents and relevant time period should have been specified.

The Supreme Court overturned that decision. It held that judicial review in the executing State is generally limited to the admissibility of execution – in particular the absence of grounds for refusal under Section 55a of the Code on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters with the Member States of the European Union (EU-JZG) and the availability of a less intrusive alternative measure under Section 55b EU-JZG. The urgency of suspicion, necessity, appropriateness and proportionality of the requested measure are not subject to review in the executing State unless they bear on a ground for refusal under Section 55a(1) EU-JZG. The substantive reasons for issuing the Order may be reviewed only in the issuing State (Section 55e(4), last sentence, EU-JZG).

Austrian Supreme Court, 4 May 2026, 14Ns16/26b (jurisdiction – multiple offences; place of success; negative competence conflict)

The decision concerns a negative competence conflict between the Regional Court of Linz and the Regional Court of Krems an der Donau in criminal proceedings involving charges of serious commercial fraud and money laundering, with neither court considering itself competent. At issue was local jurisdiction for conducting joint proceedings where multiple offences had been charged and several possible places of commission came into consideration.

The Supreme Court held that the Regional Court of Krems an der Donau had jurisdiction. For the purposes of Section 37(2), third sentence of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), the place of commission includes not only the place of conduct but also the place where the result occurred. Since, according to the case file, the place of success of one of the fraud offences charged lay in the district of the Regional Court of Krems an der Donau, that court was competent to conduct the proceedings jointly. The Court declined the suggestion to delegate the case.

(i) On substantial aspects

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 7 Tdo 1014/2025 (negligent homicide; criminal liability of legal entities; establishment of facts; admissibility of expert evidence)

A legal entity may be held criminally liable for negligent homicide under Section 143(1) of the Criminal Code where its failure to ensure workplace safety contributed to a worker's death. However, the factual basis of the judgment must clearly identify what specific act or omission is attributed to the legal entity, and the expert evidence relied upon must be procedurally admissible.

The defendant company, engaged in the installation of a robotic welding line, was convicted by the courts for failing to implement adequate safety measures during commissioning. An employee of a subcontractor was fatally struck by an industrial robot while in its working zone. 

The Supreme Court granted the defendant's appeal and quashed both decisions, finding a manifest discrepancy between the courts' factual findings and the evidence (witness testimony indicated that safety interlocks had in fact been functional), and identifying serious procedural defects in the expert opinion relied upon. The Supreme Court further held that the courts had failed to establish the specific circumstances necessary to ground corporate criminal liability – in particular, who instructed workers to operate the unfinished line and in what capacity.

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 8 Tdo 716/2025 (embezzlement; fraud; credit fraud; sentencing; extraordinary reduction of sentence below statutory minimum)

A court is not obliged to reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum under Section 58(2)(b) of the Criminal Code merely because the defendant has entered a guilty plea and invokes mitigating circumstances. Such a reduction requires a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors, including the defendant's conduct after the offence.

The defendant controlled several companies through which he committed embezzlement, fraud and credit fraud over five years in 72 attacks, causing damage exceeding CZK 150m. The appellate court increased his sentence from a suspended three years to five and a half years' immediate imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding that a failure to reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum does not constitute a valid ground of appeal and that the appellate court had correctly weighed the mitigating circumstances – including the defendant's guilty plea and humanitarian activities in Ukraine – against the gravity of the offence and his subsequent attempt to misrepresent his liabilities in insolvency proceedings.

(i) On substantial aspects

High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision No. 231/A/2025 (acquittal for influence trafficking)

The High Court found that a whistleblower witness had, in effect, acted as a "de facto collaborator" with the criminal investigation authorities, using equipment provided by them to make the recordings, without, however, an authorisation order or a judicial warrant required under the law on protection of civil liberties. Under these circumstances, the court deemed the evidence obtained in this manner to be unlawful and excluded it, finding that its use would constitute an interference incompatible with the guarantees of a fair trial.

The assessment of the whistleblower's credibility played a central role in the court's reasoning. The High Court noted that the whistleblower was himself in an unfavourable procedural position at the time the report was filed and that he subsequently received favourable outcomes, which raises reasonable doubts as to the sincerity of his statements.

Consequently, the court concluded that the prosecution's case is based, in essence, on the whistleblower's statements, which are insufficiently corroborated and tainted by personal interest. In the absence of clear and legally admissible evidence supporting the charge, the presumption of innocence cannot be rebutted.

High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision No. 4346/2025 (tax fraud; presumptions; reality of transactions)

The High Court has ruled that, where there is evidence confirming the reality of the economic transactions and in the absence of proof of tax fraud, the expenses and related VAT cannot be disallowed as deductible based solely on the tax authority's presumptions regarding the fictitious nature of the transactions.

(ii) On procedural aspects

Brasov Tribunal, Decision No. 23/2026 (statute of limitations for civil liability; criminal offence)

The court held that the civil provisions regarding the extension of the statute of limitations for civil liability apply only when the damages arise from an act constituting a criminal offence, as established by a criminal conviction. In the absence of such a judgment, the general rules on the statute of limitations shall apply, given that a civil court cannot assume the role of a criminal court in determining whether an act meets the elements of a criminal offence. The phrase "in all cases" should not be interpreted as extending the application of Article 1394 of the Civil Code to situations where the case is dismissed, criminal prosecution is dropped, or the court has issued an acquittal or terminated the criminal proceedings, as in such cases no crime has been committed.

• ECtHR, 21 May 2026, Sobczyńska and Others v. Poland (access to a court – refusal to appoint judicial candidates; absence of judicial review)

The case concerns the refusal by the then president of Poland to appoint the applicants to vacant judicial posts, despite their successful participation in a competitive selection procedure and a motion by the National Council of the Judiciary recommending their appointment. No reasons were given for the refusal, and the applicants were unable to obtain judicial review of the decision.

The Court found a violation of Article 6 ECHR. It held that the applicants had a right to a fair procedure in the examination of their applications for judicial office and a legitimate and reasonable expectation that those applications would be properly considered. Since they were not informed of the reasons for the refusal and could not challenge the decision before a court, they were not protected against what could legitimately be suspected to be arbitrariness.

• ECJ, 21 May 2026, Joined Cases C-684/24 and C-685/24, Across Fiduciaria and Others and Unione Fiduciaria and Others (anti-money laundering – beneficial ownership of trust mandates; access subject to legitimate interest)

The judgment concerns the access to beneficial ownership information relating to trust mandates governed by Italian law. The Italian authorities considered that such trust mandates constitute legal arrangements similar to trusts within the meaning of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive and required trust companies to disclose beneficial ownership information. Several trust companies challenged those obligations, arguing, among other things, that the relevant national rules and provisions of the directive were incompatible with EU law. 

The Court confirmed the validity of the challenged provisions. It held that public access to beneficial ownership information, where subject to a legitimate interest, is compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, as it pursues the legitimate objective of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing through increased transparency. The Court further held that EU law permits the Italian legislature to treat trust mandates governed by Italian law as legal arrangements similar to trusts and to entrust non-judicial administrative bodies with ruling on exemptions from access, provided that beneficial owners can obtain interim legal protection where an exemption is refused.

The Council of the European Union has adopted a directive on combating corruption, establishing an EU-wide framework that harmonises the definition of corruption offences across Member States and introduces common levels of penalties. The directive covers key offences including bribery in the public and private sectors, misappropriation, trading in influence, obstruction of justice, enrichment from corruption offences and concealment, ensuring that these are defined and treated in a similar way throughout the EU. It will replace existing instruments, namely the 2003 framework on corruption in the private sector and the 1997 convention on corruption involving EU and Member State officials, and incorporates international standards, in particular those set out in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

The directive further provides that Member States must establish minimum levels of penalties for corruption offences, including prison sentences ranging from three to five years for individuals and fines for legal entities amounting to 3 % to 5 % of total worldwide turnover or between EUR 24 million and EUR 40 million. It also requires the establishment of specialised bodies to prevent corruption and raise public awareness. The directive will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Member States will have 24 months to transpose its provisions into national law, with a longer period of 36 months applying to provisions on risk assessments and national strategies.

The OECD Working Group on Bribery published its 2025 Annual Report on recent developments in the fight against corruption. The report emphasises that progress in combating corruption starts with accountability and international cooperation. It also highlights the central role of the Working Group in advancing these efforts by overseeing the implementation and enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

The report presents recent developments, including progress by countries in strengthening anti-bribery frameworks, global cooperation to strengthen the enforcement of anti-bribery laws, and the Working Group's key activities and achievements over the past year. It also provides an overview of the latest progress and priorities in the international fight against corruption.