to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 9/2026

(i)    On substantial aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 28 July 2026, 14 Os 141/25d (abuse of office; duty to report offences; threshold of suspicion)

The case concerned the conviction of a military commander for abuse of office under Section 302(1) of the Criminal Code after he had failed to report suspected criminal offences committed by subordinates to the public prosecutor's office. At issue was whether the findings of the trial court sufficiently established a level of suspicion capable of triggering the statutory duty for authorities or public offices to report under Section 78(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Supreme Court held that a failure to comply with a statutory duty to act may constitute abuse of office, but only where the relevant reporting obligation has arisen. Such an obligation requires a concrete suspicion based on objectively verifiable facts which, from an ex ante perspective, would lead a reasonable observer with criminal investigative experience to consider that an offence had probably been committed. Vague or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient. The trial court had merely described the allegations against the subordinates without establishing concrete circumstances supporting the likelihood that the alleged offences had been committed. The Supreme Court therefore quashed the conviction and remanded the case for a new hearing and decision.

(ii)    On procedural aspects

Higher Regional Court of Linz, 29 July 2026, 7 Bs 132/26z (expert fees; cost warning; binding estimate)

The case concerned the fees of an expert appointed by the public prosecutor's office in criminal proceedings. After initially indicating that his fees would exceed EUR 4,000 and amount to at least approximately EUR 7,900, the expert submitted a final fee note of EUR 10,934. The trial court awarded EUR 7,900, while the defendant and the accused legal entity argued that the expert's warning was insufficiently specific and that the fees should therefore be limited to EUR 4,000.

The Higher Regional Court held that, under Section 25(1a) of the Fees Entitlement Act (GebAG), an expert must not only warn that the statutory threshold of EUR 4,000 will be exceeded but must also quantify the expected fees. Such an estimate has the effect of a binding cost estimate and therefore constitutes the upper limit for the fees unless the expert subsequently issues a revised warning. The Court found that the statement that the fees would amount to "at least EUR 7,900" constituted a sufficient warning, but, in the absence of any later revision, EUR 7,900 also remained the maximum amount recoverable. It therefore dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award of EUR 7,900.

Austrian Supreme Court, 5 August 2026, 12 Os 80/26w (trial in absentia; waiver of attendance; personal declaration)

The case concerned criminal proceedings conducted in the defendant's absence after his defence counsel had informed the court that the defendant was unable to attend for medical reasons but expressly agreed to the hearing being held without him. The Higher Regional Court subsequently held that the requirements of Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been met because the defendant had communicated his consent through his lawyer rather than directly to the court.

The Supreme Court held that a defendant may waive the right to attend the trial even where the statutory requirements for proceedings in absentia under Section 427(1) are not fulfilled, provided that the consent is given personally and unequivocally. It clarified that a written declaration made by the defendant does not lose its personal character merely because it is transmitted to the court through defence counsel. Since the defendant had personally and unambiguously consented to the hearing in his absence, the Higher Regional Court had erred in finding a ground of nullity under Section 281(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the violation of law did not operate to the defendant's detriment, the Supreme Court confined itself to declaring the violation and did not set aside the appellate judgment.

(i)    On substantial aspects

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 8 April 2026, 7 Tdo 157/2026 (environmental damage; criminal liability of legal entities; attributability of conduct; subsidiarity of criminal repression; effective regret)

A legal entity and its managing director were convicted of the criminal offence of damage and endangerment to the environment for the wholesale clearing of a high-altitude forest and the construction of a road without obtaining the mandatory permits and binding opinions of the nature conservation authority.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the conduct of the managing director – as the company's statutory body – was fully attributable to the legal entity and rejected the argument that the construction was carried out against the company's interests, since the company itself had consistently emphasised the commercial benefits of the road for its forestry operations. The Court further held that a subsequent legalisation of the construction through ex post administrative permits cannot retroactively eliminate criminal liability, as such permits are granted by the authorities on the basis of the situation as it already exists, not on the basis of a prior assessment of the project's permissibility.

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 29 April 2026, 5 Tdo 301/2026 (trademark infringement; criminal liability of legal entities; protective measure; forfeiture of assets; statute of limitations)

A legal entity was prosecuted alongside a natural person for the criminal offence of infringement of trademark rights for manufacturing, storing and distributing bicycles unlawfully bearing a registered trademark over a period of more than two years. Although criminal prosecution was discontinued on grounds of the statute of limitations, the courts imposed a protective measure of forfeiture of assets on the legal entity.

The Supreme Court dismissed the company's appeal, holding that where items are instruments of a committed crime and the perpetrator can no longer be convicted, the courts may order forfeiture under the more stringent statutory provision rather than the milder alternative of removing the infringing labels, since the principle of proportionality in protective measures does not apply in the same manner as it does for penalties.

(i)    On substantial aspects

Timișoara Court of Appeal, 23 July 2026, Decision No. 637/2026 (abuse of office; collective labour agreement; statutory requirements)

The case concerned the question of whether a public official commits the offence of abuse of office under Article 132 of Anti-Corruption Law No. 78/2000 in conjunction with Article 297(1) of the Criminal Code by appointing, and later extending the delegation of, two individuals to head-of-department positions despite their failure to meet a minimum seniority requirement laid down only in a collective labour agreement. The Court examined whether such a collective labour agreement can be treated as secondary legislation supplementing the primary legislation required by the offence, and whether the resulting salary payments and career benefits could amount to the required damage and undue benefit.

The Timișoara Court of Appeal held that a collective labour agreement cannot be treated as secondary legislation capable of detailing primary legislation for the purposes of abuse of office, since Constitutional Court Decision No. 405/2016 requires the breached provisions to be foreseeable for everyone concerned and not dependent on how a given collective agreement is drafted. It found that the defendant's conduct amounted, at most, to a breach of obligations under a collective labour agreement or internal HR rules, rather than a violation of any express statutory provision. Accordingly, the actus reus of abuse of office was not met. The Court also found that the salaries paid corresponded to work actually performed and that no concrete damage or harm had been established. It therefore dismissed the prosecution's appeal as unfounded, and the acquittal became final.

Târgu-Jiu District Court, 17 July 2026, Decision No. 999/2026 (embezzlement; unauthorised bank transfers; suspended sentence)

The case concerned an accountant, authorised to carry out banking operations on behalf of a majority state-owned company under the Ministry of Energy, who made unauthorised bank transfers from the company's account to third parties unrelated to it. The transfers were made after the defendant had been misled by a fraudulent cryptocurrency investment scheme and believed that he had to generate a bank statement to unlock a supposed gain of USD 96,153.93. Of the total of RON 331,700 (EUR 63,518) transferred, part was returned the same day, and the defendant later repaid part of the loss.

The Târgu-Jiu District Court held that the defendant's conduct met the constituent elements of embezzlement, since he had, on the same day, made 12 transfers misappropriating RON 281,100 (EUR 53,506) for his own benefit without repaying it, and four further transfers of RON 50,600 (EUR 9,631) that were returned. Being misled by the perpetrators of the underlying fraud explained his motive but did not exclude the typicality of the offence, the causal link with the resulting loss, or his guilt. Taking into account his immediate self-reporting, full cooperation and efforts to reduce the loss, the Court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, suspended under supervision for three years, and barred him from public office and from positions involving state authority for three years. In the civil proceedings, he was ordered to pay the outstanding damage of RON 244,245.08 (EUR 46.490), plus statutory default interest.

(ii)    On procedural aspects

Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision No. 135/2026 (mandatory precautionary measures; tax evasion; money laundering)

The case concerned a constitutional challenge to the rule making precautionary measures (seizure) mandatory whenever a tax evasion or money laundering offence had allegedly been committed, before the courts had ruled on the existence of the offence, as well as to provisions on the limits of seizure and garnishment applicable to legal persons. The challengers argued that automatic, mandatory seizure prejudged the existence of the offence, breached the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, and discriminated against private legal entities, since the limits protecting individual debtors under civil procedure law do not extend to companies.

The Constitutional Court held that mandatory precautionary measures under Article 11 of Tax Evasion Law No. 241/2005 and Article 50 of Anti-Money Laundering Law No. 129/2019 are constitutional, finding that the obligation is justified by the high social danger and potentially large scale of tax evasion and money laundering offences. It also found that seizure is a provisional measure that does not affect the substance of the right to property before guilt is established, and that the provisions are clear and foreseeable, since they merely require judicial bodies to first ascertain that an act described by the law has occurred. The Court further held that the absence of statutory limits protecting legal persons' assets from seizure, unlike the limits available to individual debtors under civil procedure law, does not breach equality before the law, since those limits exist for social reasons tied to individuals' minimum means of subsistence and companies are not in a comparable situation. The Court accordingly dismissed the challenge as unfounded and declared the provisions constitutional as applied.

23 April 2026, Case C-24/26 PPU, Casotta (trial in absentia; victims' rights; retrial)

The case concerned whether a victim of crime must be informed of, and allowed to participate in, an extraordinary remedy brought by a person convicted in absentia to have a final conviction set aside and the case retried, where the victim had not joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party. The referring court, the Corte d'appello di Roma, asked whether the victim's rights to information, protection and participation under Directive 2012/29/EU, read together with the convicted person's right to a retrial under Directive 2016/343/EU, required such notification and participation.

The Court of Justice held that Articles 6, 10 and 18 of Directive 2012/29/EU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, do not preclude national legislation that, where the victim has not joined the proceedings as a civil party, imposes neither an obligation to inform the victim of the extraordinary remedy nor a possibility for the victim to participate in it. It further held that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2016/343/EU, read in the light of Articles 47 and 54 of the Charter, do not preclude national legislation which, absent direct evidence that the person convicted in absentia voluntarily evaded the proceedings, requires the national court to grant an application to set aside the final conviction and, where appropriate, order a new trial on the merits.The Court clarified that the victim's rights under Directive 2012/29 do not amount to a general right to participate in every subsequent procedural step, and that the convicted person's right to a new trial safeguards the rights of the defence. It further held that a mere application for retrial does not in itself constitute an abuse of rights under Article 54 of the Charter.

Romania's Protection Order Regime: Recent Developments in Non-Compliance

With the adoption of Law No. 26/2024 on protection orders, the Romanian legislature expanded the framework for protection against violence, extending it beyond the traditional scope of domestic violence. The new legislation allows any person facing a state of danger to request a protection order, with the perpetrator no longer limited to a family member, as was the case under the previous legislation (Law No. 217/2003).
The measures that may be ordered include the temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the shared residence, the imposition of a restraining distance, and a requirement for the perpetrator to wear an electronic monitoring device and may be maintained for a period of up to 12 months. Failure to comply with any of these measures constitutes a criminal offence, punishable exclusively by imprisonment for a term of six months to five years.

Recent statistical data point to challenges in the practical application of this instrument: in 2025, 6,337 breaches of protection orders were recorded, out of a total of nearly 20,000 orders issued nationwide, representing an increase compared to the previous year. In a recent judgment of the Bucharest District Court, 6th District (Judgment No. 589 of 28 July 2026), the court held that the protection order had been breached three months after its issuance, the defendant having committed the offence because he failed to grasp the implications of non-compliance with a protection order, at a time when he refused to accept the severance of ties with the family that had requested its issuance.

The decision also highlights the potential relevance of the perpetrator's understanding of the personal and legal implications of a protection order, particularly the obligation to maintain a minimum distance from, or refrain from contacting, the victim. It remains to be seen whether the entry into force of Law No. 36/2026, which introduces the possibility of psychological counselling for the perpetrator, will contribute to enhancing the preventive effectiveness of the mechanism.

First-instance jurisdiction over magistrates' offences referred to the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court was seized on 14 August 2026 (case file No. 5288D/2026) with a challenge to the constitutionality of Article 38(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes the jurisdiction of courts of appeal to try, at first instance, offences committed by judges of district courts and tribunals. The challenge was raised in the Nichita Marian case, with the Bucharest Court of Appeal as the referring court. According to the search engine on the Constitutional Court's website, this is the first case in which the provision has been subject to constitutional review.

At the same hearing, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed a request to refer to the Constitutional Court concerning Article 153(2)(c) of the Criminal Code and Article 488^6(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raised in the same case. It remains to be seen how the Constitutional Court will approach, for the first time, the question of the special trial jurisdiction over members of the judiciary, with direct implications for court organisation and the procedural guarantees of defendants drawn from the ranks of judges.

E-Evidence Regulation applicable since 18 August 2026

Since 18 August 2026, Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence has applied across the EU. Subject to the requirements of the Regulation, competent authorities may now address orders for the preservation or production of electronic evidence directly to service providers in other Member States, rather than relying exclusively on traditional judicial cooperation channels. The Regulation covers a broad range of providers, including electronic communications, cloud and hosting services, messaging platforms, online marketplaces and certain other information society services.

The Regulation distinguishes between subscriber, identification, traffic and content data and provides different requirements depending on the type of data sought. Service providers must generally comply with production orders within 10 days, while an eight-hour deadline applies in emergency cases. The Regulation also provides mechanisms for clarification, conflicts with third-country law and certain privileges or fundamental rights. Member States must provide for effective and proportionate penalties, including pecuniary penalties of up to 2 % of a service provider's total worldwide annual turnover for non-compliance.