to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 8/2026

(i)    On substantial aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 2 July 2026, 14 Os 1/26t (fraudulent bankruptcy; advance rent payments; impairment of creditors)

The case concerned criminal proceedings for fraudulent bankruptcy against a debtor who, while facing claims from several creditors and experiencing liquidity difficulties, made substantial payments to related parties. He was convicted in respect of a payment of EUR 300,000 to his mother, which had been falsely designated as repayment of a loan. However, the trial court acquitted him in relation to an advance rent payment of EUR 360,000 and several advance payments of operating costs made under a tenancy agreement concluded jointly with his wife.

The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal against the conviction but upheld the prosecution's appeal against the acquittal. It clarified that the offence of fraudulent bankruptcy covers all components of a debtor's assets that are available to creditors through enforcement or realisation in insolvency proceedings, including claims and other property rights. A tenancy right constitutes an asset of value only where it is accessible to creditors and capable of realisation, for example through subletting. Where this is not the case, entering into a tenancy agreement and making substantial advance payments may constitute an actual reduction of the debtor's assets without any need to compare the amount paid with the benefits obtained under the agreement. The Court therefore quashed the acquittal and the sentence and remanded the case for a new hearing.

Austrian Supreme Court, 30 June 2026, 14 Os 55/26h (commercial aggravated theft; aggregation of values; domestic jurisdiction)

The case concerned the convictions of two defendants for, among other things, commercial aggravated theft by burglary and fraudulent misuse of data processing systems, which the Supreme Court reviewed on a nullity plea for the preservation of the law brought by the Attorney General's Office (Generalprokuratur). At issue was whether the values resulting from several individual thefts could be aggregated for the purposes of the aggravated form of commercial theft and whether Austrian courts had jurisdiction over the acts committed in Germany.

The Supreme Court held that such qualification requires an intention to repeatedly commit thefts, each of which independently satisfies one of the criteria for aggravated theft. The trial court's finding that the defendants intended to commit the relevant "acts" repeatedly was insufficient, since none of the individual thefts fulfilled those criteria or concerned property exceeding EUR 5,000 in value. The Court further clarified that the values resulting from several offences cannot be aggregated in order to establish that qualification. As regards the payments made in Germany, the judgment contained no findings of a result occurring in Austria or of any other statutory basis for Austrian jurisdiction, and the Court therefore quashed the classification and the conviction relating to those payments, and remanded the case for a new hearing and decision in that respect.

(ii)    On procedural aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 1 July 2026, 12 Os 46/26w (fair trial; diversion)

The Regional Court had discontinued proceedings against the defendant by way of diversion following payment of a sum of money. The public prosecutor's office initially consented to this course of action but subsequently lodged an appeal with the Higher Regional Court. The defendant had no opportunity to respond to that appeal, which succeeded, and the Higher Regional Court instructed the Regional Court to continue the proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that this did not violate the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. According to case law and prevailing legal doctrine, a decision on diversion does not constitute a determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR, so the lack of an opportunity to comment on the prosecutor's appeal does not infringe that right. Even assuming Article 6 ECHR applied, the prosecutor's consent to diversion expressed at the main hearing would not create a constitutionally protected expectation of final termination of the proceedings, since such consent does not bind the court. The defendant remains free to argue that the conditions for diversion were met in an appeal against a conviction, including by raising a diversion complaint under Section 281(1)(10a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the asserted fundamental-rights guarantees can still be effectively enforced when challenging the judgment, in line with Article 13 ECHR.

Austrian Supreme Court, 30 June 2026, 11 Os 52/26w (forfeiture; substitute assets; co-ownership)

The defendant had been convicted of drug-trafficking offences, and the trial court ordered the forfeiture of his co-ownership interest in a vehicle jointly owned with his father, on the basis that the purchase price of EUR 30,000 had been paid from the proceeds of drug sales. The defendant challenged the forfeiture order, arguing that the finding that the funds were of criminal origin had not been sufficiently substantiated.

The Supreme Court allowed the challenge and quashed the forfeiture order. It held that an asset may qualify as a substitute asset only where the property concerned was acquired entirely from criminal proceeds and can be traced back to those proceeds through a complete chain of transactions. In the present case, the findings did not sufficiently establish that the entire purchase price had originated from the offences. The Court further clarified that a co-ownership interest may in principle be subject to forfeiture, but that only the defendant's individual share, rather than the asset as a whole, may be realised.

Austrian Constitutional Court, 23 June 2026, G 34/2026 (defence costs; lack of criminal responsibility; disability discrimination)

The case concerned the exclusion of a contribution towards defence costs under the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure where an investigation was discontinued after it was established that, due to an organic psychosyndrome following a severe traumatic brain injury, the accused had lacked criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged acts. His application for a contribution towards his defence costs was rejected on the basis of the relevant exclusion clause.

The Constitutional Court held that the exclusion was unconstitutional. It found that the provision indiscriminately covered all cases of a lack of criminal responsibility, including those in which the condition had arisen without any contribution or fault on the part of the accused. It therefore annulled the relevant phrase in Section 196a(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(i)    On substantial aspects

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 10 March 2026, 8 Tdo 484/2025 (tax evasion; criminal liability of legal entities; fictitious invoices)

The defendant company was convicted of large-scale tax evasion for its role in a scheme involving fictitious invoices for advertising services channelled through a network of shell companies. The total tax shortfall attributable to the company exceeded CZK 80m (approx. EUR 3.3m), and the courts imposed a monetary fine of CZK 5m (approx. EUR 200,000). The Supreme Court confirmed that the company had also conducted legitimate business activities during the relevant period, which precluded the imposition of a dissolution order.

The Supreme Prosecutor filed an appeal against the monetary fine imposed on the defendant company, arguing that the fine was unenforceable due to the company's lack of assets and that the court should have instead ordered the dissolution of the legal entity. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a court may estimate the financial position of a legal entity when determining the enforceability of a monetary fine, and that dissolution may only be ordered where the entity's activities consisted wholly or predominantly of criminal conduct.

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 29 April 2026, 8 Tdo 343/2026 (fraud; criminal liability of legal entities; attributability of conduct)

The defendant company and its board member were convicted of aggravated fraud (Section 209(1), (4)(d) of the Criminal Code) for a scheme targeting vulnerable, indebted elderly women whose properties were acquired through manipulated contracts and fictitious settlement agreements.

The Supreme Court refused the company's appeal on points of law as manifestly unfounded (Section 265i(1)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), holding that the conduct of the board member was not an excess against the company's interests but rather directly served its business objectives. Even if a compliance management system had been formally in place, it would have been purely formal given the board member's central role in the fraud, precluding exculpation under Section 8(5) of the Act on Criminal Liability of Legal Entities. A legal entity cannot escape criminal liability by claiming that its statutory body committed the offence on its own account where the entity directly profited from the criminal conduct. Where the defendant company acquired real estate through its board member's fraudulent scheme, subsequently collected rental income and resold a property at a profit, the offence was committed in the company's interest and within its business activities, and was therefore fully attributable to it.

(i)    On substantial aspects

Cluj Court of Appeal, 13 July 2026, Decision No. 1338/2026 (destruction of evidence)

The case concerned whether an accused person commits a criminal offence by destroying a written statement containing their own testimony given during criminal proceedings. The Court examined the scope of the offence concerning the destruction of evidentiary material and whether the act was carried out with the purpose of obstructing the discovery of the truth.

The Cluj Court of Appeal held that the destruction of one's own statement, as evidence embodied in a written document, is not punishable where the circumstances of the case do not demonstrate an intention to prevent the establishment of the truth. The Court found that the defendant's conduct was spontaneous and reflected dissatisfaction and opposition towards the criminal investigation authority rather than an attempt to interfere with the evidentiary process. In the absence of the specific purpose required by the criminal provision, the act did not fulfil the constituent elements of the offence in question, and the court ordered the defendant's acquittal by a final judgment.

(ii)    On procedural aspects

Bucharest Court of Appeal, 29 June 2026 (periodic review by court; money laundering; asset freezing)

In the context of the periodic review of asset freezing under Article 250² of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, the Court examined whether an order imposed on the assets of an individual indicted solely for money laundering could still be justified by the need to secure recovery of the damage allegedly caused by the predicate offences (forming an organised criminal group, misconduct in office and intellectual forgery). The case raised questions concerning the proper purpose of precautionary measures, the distinction between compensation claims and confiscation measures, and the proportionality of restrictions affecting property rights.

The Court held that a defendant charged exclusively with money laundering cannot be subject to asset freezing aimed at securing recovery of the damage caused by the underlying or predicate offence where the defendant could not be held civilly liable for such damage. In such circumstances, the legitimate purpose of the freezing order may only be to secure the enforcement of a potential confiscation measure or the payment of judicial expenses. The Court emphasised that the prosecuting authority must clearly identify the legal basis for confiscation and establish a concrete connection between the frozen assets and the property liable to confiscation. Consequently, the court ordered the lifting of all precautionary measures imposed on the defendant's movable and immovable property.

9 July 2026, Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal, App. no. 48047/15 and 2276/20 (ne bis in idem; parallel proceedings; integrated sanctions system)

The case concerned three sets of criminal and administrative proceedings brought against a former member and vice-chairman of a Portuguese bank in connection with the reporting of false financial information. The public prosecutor's office, the Portuguese Securities Market Commission and the Portuguese central bank had each initiated proceedings relating to different aspects of a scheme involving circular share trading and the concealment of substantial losses. The applicant argued that he had thereby been prosecuted three times for substantially the same acts, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

The Grand Chamber found no violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy. It confirmed and refined the criteria under which parallel proceedings do not amount to prohibited duplication where they form part of an integrated system addressing different aspects of the same wrongdoing in a foreseeable and proportionate manner. In the present case, the three sets of proceedings were sufficiently connected in substance and in time and formed a coherent whole intended to sanction different aspects of the false reporting. The Court therefore held that the applicant had not been subjected to an unjust duplication of proceedings within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

3 June 2025, Manolache v. Romania, App. no. 2427/16 (fair trial; immediacy principle; conviction on appeal)

The case concerned the fairness of criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically whether the applicant's right to a fair trial was breached when the court of appeal convicted him after his first-instance acquittal, without both judges of the appellate panel having directly heard all relevant witnesses whose testimony was decisive to establishing his guilt.

The ECtHR unanimously found an infringement of Article 6 § 1, holding that the court of appeal overturned the first-instance acquittal by reinterpreting decisive witness testimonies without both judges on the two-judge panel having directly heard all relevant witnesses, in breach of the principle of immediacy. The Court emphasised that an appellate court with full jurisdiction to reassess both facts and law is bound to take ex officio measures to ensure the direct hearing of decisive witnesses when it reverses an acquittal, regardless of whether the defence itself had objected to the re-administration of evidence. It further held that one judge's presence at the witness hearings could not compensate for the other judge's absence, especially given that the panel's decision required unanimity, reaffirming that judges who convict based on witness credibility must, in principle, have had direct contact with those witnesses.

16 July 2026, Joined Cases C-258/23, C-259/23 and C-260/23, Imagens Médicas Integradas and Others (competition investigations; seizure of business e-mails; judicial review)

The cases concerned the seizure of business e-mails during inspections carried out by the Portuguese competition authority in investigations into alleged anticompetitive practices. The undertakings argued that the seizures should have been authorised by an investigating judge rather than by the Public Prosecutor's Office. The referring court asked whether EU law permits a competition authority to seize e-mails exchanged between employees and managers at business premises without prior judicial authorisation.

The Court held that such seizures interfere with the rights to respect for private life and communications and to the protection of personal data, but may be justified by the objective of preserving undistorted competition. EU law therefore does not, in principle, preclude the seizure of business e-mails relating to the subject matter of the inspection without prior judicial authorisation, provided that the authority's powers are strictly defined by law and subject to adequate safeguards, including full ex post judicial review. However, where access concerns devices used for both private and professional purposes, the interference may be particularly serious and access to the data must be subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative body.

16 July 2026, Case C-280/25, Lin II (serious fraud against EU financial interests; statute of limitations; mitior lex)

The case concerned the application of EU rules on the effective prosecution of serious fraud affecting the EU's financial interests, notably the PIF Convention and Article 325 TFEU, in conjunction with the principle of legality under Article 49 of the Charter and Article 7 ECHR. The Supreme Court of Romania (ICCJ) asked the CJEU to clarify the implications of its judgment on the Lin I (C‑107/23) case, namely whether it required national courts to combine successive legislative regimes to create a limitation framework contrary to the national prohibition of lex tertia, and whether such an approach complied with the principle of legality. It also sought guidance on the concept of "serious fraud" under EU law.

The CJEU held that where national law does not set a threshold, fraud affecting the EU's financial interests is "serious" within the meaning of the PIF Convention once its total value exceeds EUR 50,000, regardless of the actual loss borne by the EU budget. The Court further clarified that Lin I does not require Romanian courts to combine successive legal regimes or breach the prohibition of lex tertia, nor does it infringe the principle of legality under Article 49 of the Charter or Article 7 ECHR. The obligation to override the 2022 ICCJ decision (on statute of limitations) was considered foreseeable considering the Court's settled case law and the established systemic risk of impunity for serious fraud. Finally, while EU law does not require the reopening of final judgments (res judicata), a judgment still subject to an extraordinary appeal cannot, in principle, be regarded as final.

21 May 2026, Case C-447/24, Höldermann (trial in absentia; mutual recognition; right of defence)

The case concerns the interpretation of Article 9 para. (1) pt. (i) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the mutual recognition of custodial sentences imposed in the absence of the convicted person. The referring German court asked whether a defendant can be regarded as having knowledge of the trial where the summons was served on a lawyer authorised to receive notifications on their behalf, and whether national legislation may convert this optional ground for non-recognition into a mandatory refusal.

The CJEU held that the requirement of knowledge of the scheduled trial is satisfied where the summons is served on a lawyer duly mandated both to represent the defendant at trial and to receive procedural notifications. The Court further clarified that the defendant does not need to have known the exact hearing date before granting such a mandate, as imposing such a condition would undermine the principle of mutual recognition through excessive formalism. Finally, the Court ruled that Member States cannot require automatic refusal of recognition where the conditions of Article 9 para. (1) pt. (i) are not met, since the Framework Decision grants executing authorities discretion to assess the circumstances of each case rather than imposing a mandatory ground for refusal.

Romania:

Constitutional Court rules Criminal Procedure Code amendments unconstitutional

On 15 July 2026, the Romanian Constitutional Court upheld an objection raised by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and declared several provisions of the law amending and supplementing the Criminal Procedure Code unconstitutional.

The Court held that the proposed amendments allowing the preliminary chamber judge to order the joinder or severance of criminal cases were incompatible with the nature of the preliminary chamber proceedings and created legislative inconsistencies contrary to the requirements of legal certainty under Article 1(5) of the Romanian Constitution. It also found that the amendments to Article 343 of the Criminal Procedure Code improperly shifted the burden of monitoring hearing dates and the progress of proceedings to the parties, even though this is the responsibility of judicial authorities and an essential safeguard of the right to a fair trial and the right of defence.

Furthermore, the Court invalidated the amendment that would have given preliminary chamber rulings the effects of res judicata and ne bis in idem. It held that such rulings do not decide the merits of a criminal case and therefore cannot be treated as final criminal judgments. The Court also found that the amendment could restrict challenges based on absolute nullity and the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence, thereby affecting the rights to defence and a fair trial.

Environmental crime reform – Stricter penalties proposed

On 14 July 2026, the Ministry of Environment launched a public consultation on a draft law transposing the EU Environmental Crime Directive. The proposal aims to significantly strengthen Romania's framework for combating environmental crime.

The draft law establishes a tiered system of criminal penalties for environmental offences, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the extent of the resulting harm. Penalties range from one to five years of imprisonment where the conduct can cause death, serious bodily injury or significant environmental damage, to two to seven years of imprisonment where such significant damage has materialised. More severe penalties of three to ten years of imprisonment apply in cases involving widespread, irreversible or long-lasting environmental damage, while offences resulting in a person's death are punishable by ten to 20 years of imprisonment.

The reform would substantially increase sanctions applicable to legal entities, with the value of a fine-day ranging from RON 500 (EUR 100) to RON 25,000 (EUR 5,000). In these circumstances, should an offence be committed, the fine imposed on a legal person would range from RON 15,000 (EUR 3,000) to RON 15m (EUR 3m). Attempted offences and negligent conduct would be punishable in a wider range of cases, while particular attention is given to irreversible, long-term or large-scale environmental damage, including conduct associated with the concept of "ecocide". The draft also provides measures on institutional cooperation, professional training, data collection and the development of a national strategy against environmental crime.