to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 1/2026

Austrian Supreme Court, 13Os91/25v (money laundering; book funds; evidentiary assessment under Section 165 StGB)

Under Section 165 of the Austrian Criminal Code (StGB), anyone is liable to prosecution who uses assets derived from criminal activity with the intent to conceal or disguise their illegal origin.

The Supreme Court held that there is no evidentiary rule requiring that only mathematically identifiable contaminated fractions of divisible assets may qualify as relevant for money laundering offences. Restricting proof of contamination to a purely arithmetical demonstration would amount to introducing an impermissible evidentiary rule. Further, the Court held that the fact that the receiving account showed a negative balance before the inflow of criminal deposit funds (Buchgeld) does not deprive such funds of their capability to constitute the object of money laundering. This stems from the requirement that criminal law adhere to a commercial perspective (wirtschaftliche Betrachtunsgweise). Deposit funds derived from predicate offences increase actual financial disposal capacity even in the case of a negative debit balance.

Austrian Supreme Court, 12Os97/25v (nullity appeal; procedural deadlines; large-scale proceedings; Sections 284, 285 StPO)

Under Sections 284 and 285 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), a nullity appeal must be announced within three days and, as a rule, substantiated within four weeks from service of the written judgment. In particularly extensive proceedings, this time limit may be extended pursuant to Section 285(2) StPO. In the present case, the period for substantiation was extended to a total of three months.

The Court clarified that the time limit began to run upon service of the written judgment (4 April 2025) and not – as the defendant's attorney mistakenly assumed – only upon service of the extension order. The request for extension merely suspended the ongoing deadline (Section 285(3) StPO). Due to the absence of timely and substantive grounds of nullity, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to Section 285d(1)(1) StPO.

ECtHR, 15 December 2025, Danileţ v. Romania (16915/21)

The case concerned the freedom of expression of a judge under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge had posted two messages on his publicly accessible Facebook page about the independence of state institutions and the functioning of the justice system. He was subsequently sanctioned by the National Judicial and Legal Service Commission with a two-month 5 % pay cut, a decision upheld by the domestic High Court.

The Court held that the sanction violated Article 10, as the domestic authorities had failed to assess whether the posts disrupted the impartiality or independence of the judiciary, or whether they undermined public confidence in the justice system. The ECtHR emphasised that judges are entitled to speak publicly on matters of public interest, especially when democracy or the rule of law is at serious risk, and that disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate and carefully justified.

ECJ, 18 December 2025, C-422/24 Storstockholms Lokaltrafik (body cameras during ticket inspection)

Under the GDPR, personal data obtained through body cameras used by employees of a public transport company during ticket inspections are collected directly from the data subject. In such cases, required information must be provided immediately.

The Court held that such direct collection does not require any action or awareness by the data subject. Data gathered through observation counts as direct collection. Where data is collected directly from the data subject, the obligation to provide information may be implemented in the context of a multi-layered approach. The most important information may be indicated on a warning sign. The other mandatory information may be provided to the data subject in an appropriate and complete manner, in an easily accessible place.

Bulgaria is introducing significant reforms to its regime of quasi-criminal corporate liability. Legislative reforms to the Bulgarian Criminal Code, the Bulgarian Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Bulgarian Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act (AVSA) redefine corporate liability for criminal offences. The core provisions took effect on 31 October 2025.

The regime covers a wide range of offences, including corruption and private bribery, money laundering, intellectual property breaches, fraud, tax and customs offences, offences related to EU funds, organised crime, and environmental and drug-related offences. Liability may arise through managers, employees, agents or other contractors to whom a specific task has been assigned, significantly expanding the scope of the regime. Furthermore, the new amendments introduce the possibility for a company to be held liable for offences even in the absence of unlawful benefits where the entity was created or used to commit acts of terrorism, money laundering or organised crime.

The CPC has now introduced the procedural figure of the "interested legal person", under which companies may be held liable, as a first recourse, in the course of criminal proceedings against the relevant individual. As a result, Articles 83a–83d AVSA are reshaped to create an alternative "fallback" venue for proceedings against companies in cases where engaging their liability during the criminal proceedings is not possible (for example, when the perpetrator cannot be held liable or the company was not involved in the criminal proceedings from the outset).

Sanctions may be imposed without a prior conviction of individuals, including where cases are stayed, terminated, resolved by plea agreement or concluded without company involvement. Fines may reach up to BGN 10m (approx. EUR 5.1m), or exceed that amount if linked to unlawful benefits, potentially up to 5 % of the turnover preceding the year in which the crime was committed. Ancillary measures may include temporary debarment from procurement, concessions or EU funds, public announcement of the decision and confiscation of assets and proceeds.

Pending cases under the previous format will be completed in accordance with the earlier procedures.