to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 10/2026

(i)    On substantial aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 25 August 2026, 11 Os 61/26v (corporate criminal liability)

The case concerned the criminal liability of a company for aggravated fraud committed by a decision-maker and an employee and the requirement that the predicate offence be committed for the company's benefit under Section 3(1)(1) of the Austrian Act on Corporate Criminal Liability (VbVG). The Supreme Court therefore quashed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

The Court clarified that the economic advantage must result from the predicate offence itself: the benefit must accrue directly to the entity; any indirect economic advantage must arise immediately from the offence; or the entity's enrichment must at least have been intended at the time the offence was committed. In the present case, the trial court's findings did not clearly establish whether the company had in fact obtained such an advantage.

Austrian Supreme Court, 25 August 2026, 11 Os 29/26p (commercial aggravated fraud; forfeiture; allocation of assets)

The case concerned several defendants convicted of offences including commercial aggravated fraud, participation in a criminal association and money laundering. The trial court had also ordered the forfeiture of substantial amounts of cash and other assets collectively against the three defendants. The Supreme Court held that the findings did not establish the specific intent required for commercial commission, namely the intention to obtain a continuing, non-negligible income through repeated offences.

It clarified that assets subject to forfeiture may be taken only from the person who actually acquired them. Where several persons received criminal proceeds, the amount attributable to each recipient must be determined individually, and cumulative or joint and several liability is not permissible. The judgment contained no sufficient findings to support such an allocation.

(ii)    On procedural aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 3 September 2026, 15 Os 67/26f (SKY-ECC data; foreign investigative measures; exclusionary rule)

The case concerned the use at trial of SKY-ECC communications obtained through independent investigative measures conducted by French authorities without the involvement or assistance of Austrian law-enforcement authorities. The defendant argued that the communications should not have been admitted as evidence under the Austrian rules governing prohibited investigative measures and cross-border telecommunications surveillance. The Supreme Court dismissed the nullity appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule under Section 140(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to investigative measures conducted under the relevant provisions of Austrian criminal procedure and does not extend to independent measures taken by foreign authorities. It further held that Section 55d(7) of the Federal Act on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters with the Member States of the European Union (EU-JZG) does not establish an exclusionary rule for information obtained by foreign authorities before the Austrian public prosecutor's office was notified of the surveillance, since no obligation to prohibit the measure could arise before such notification.

Austrian Supreme Court, 3 September 2026, 15 Os 52/26z (evidence at trial; reading of file contents; nullity)

The case concerned a conviction for aggravated fraud based, among other things, on documents that had not in fact been admitted in evidence at trial. Although the parties had agreed that the presiding judge could present the relevant contents of the file instead of formally reading or displaying them, only individual parts of the file had in fact been presented. The Supreme Court quashed the conviction, the sentence and the related civil award, and remanded the case for a new trial.

The trial court had relied substantially on a credit agreement and fictitious invoices that had not been admitted in evidence at trial. The Supreme Court held that a mere fiction that the entire file had been read does not replace its actual introduction at trial. Where evidence has not been admitted in any form, it may not be relied upon as a material basis for the judgment.

Higher Regional Court of Graz, 29 May 2026, 1 Bs 43/26x (defence costs; discontinued investigation; representation of legal entity)

The case concerned a contribution to defence costs under Section 196a of the Code of Criminal Procedure following the discontinuation of financial criminal proceedings against a managing director and a company on the ground that the criminal courts lacked jurisdiction. The Higher Regional Court increased the contribution awarded to the managing director from EUR 600 to EUR 1,500.

The Court held that Section 196a provides only for a lump-sum contribution rather than full reimbursement of defence costs, with the amount depending on the scope and complexity of the proceedings and the necessary defence work. Additional work resulting from the simultaneous representation of the company is not a criterion for determining the managing director's contribution. The Court further noted that corporate criminal liability is linked to offences committed by decision-makers or employees, which may in fact reduce rather than increase the additional defence effort.

Austrian Supreme Court, 22 July 2026, 13 Os 10/26h (corporate criminal liability; binding effect of conviction; appeal rights)

The case concerned two companies held liable under the VbVG for offences committed by their managing director, who had been convicted of the corresponding offences in the same proceedings. The companies had participated in the proceedings against him but had not challenged his conviction. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the companies' nullity appeals.

The Supreme Court held that the final conviction of the natural person was binding on the companies because they had been entitled to challenge it in respect of the offences underlying their corporate liability. They could therefore no longer contest, in proceedings against their own corporate convictions, that the managing director had committed these offences. 

Austrian Supreme Court, 25 August 2026, 11 Os 67/26a (binding effect; preliminary questions; administrative court decisions)

The case concerned the conviction of a police officer for serious bodily injury under Section 84(4) of the Criminal Code committed during a police operation. The defendant argued that the criminal court was bound by an earlier decision of the competent administrative court, which had found that an unlawful arrest had taken place, whereas the trial court had found that no arrest had been declared or threatened during the operation. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the defendant's nullity appeal.

The Supreme Court rejected the alleged binding effect. Under Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preliminary questions in criminal proceedings are, as a rule, to be assessed independently and without being bound by decisions of other authorities. The criminal court was therefore not bound by the administrative court's assessment. 

Austrian Supreme Court, 3 September 2026, 15 Os 68/26b (European Arrest Warrant; principle of speciality; legal reclassification)

The case concerned a defendant convicted of fraudulent misuse of data processing and money laundering in connection with unauthorised SEPA direct debits exceeding EUR 11m. He argued that his conviction violated the principle of speciality because the European Arrest Warrant did not cover the offences in the form ultimately established by the trial court. The Supreme Court dismissed the nullity appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the principle of speciality under Section 31(1) EU-JZG relates to the offence understood as the underlying historical facts rather than its legal classification. Differences in the relevant period or the form of participation do not in themselves infringe the principle where the underlying conduct remains the same. Nor does the speciality rule prevent a different legal classification of conduct already encompassed by the European Arrest Warrant, including, in the present case, its additional classification as money laundering. 

(i)    On substantial aspects

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 20 May 2026, 5 Tdo 369/2026 (subsidy fraud; EU financial interests; EPPO; misuse of EU funds; proportionality of criminal sanction; ultima ratio)

The statutory representative of a non-profit organisation was convicted of attempted subsidy fraud under Sections 21 and 212 of the Criminal Code and attempted damage to the EU's financial interests under Sections 21 and 260 of the Criminal Code. The organisation obtained a grant of approximately CZK 2.8m (approx. EUR 112,000) from the European Regional Development Fund and the state budget to purchase two electric vehicles for social services. However, the vehicles were predominantly used for private purposes. The offender was fined CZK 800,000 (approx. EUR 32,000) and was banned from acting as a statutory representative of non-profit organisations for three years. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the full grant amount constituted the intended damage, since the project's declared purpose was never genuinely pursued.

The Court rejected the argument that such misconduct should have been addressed solely through subsidy control mechanisms and financial corrections. It emphasised that the conduct represented a typical case of criminal misuse of EU funds and did not fall below the threshold of criminal liability under the principle of subsidiarity of criminal repression.

(ii)    On procedural aspects

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 15 July 2026, 3 Tz 43/2025 (criminal liability of legal entities; forfeiture of substitute value; insolvency; reorganisation; property sanctions against insolvent entities)

The Minister of Justice filed a complaint for violation of the law in favour of a convicted legal entity. He challenged the lawfulness of a court-imposed forfeiture of substitute value amounting to CZK 55m (approx. EUR 2.2m). The company had been convicted, based on a plea agreement, of subsidy fraud, damage to the EU's financial interests and tax evasion. The total damage caused was approximately CZK 54m (approx. EUR 2.16m).

The Supreme Court found that the trial court violated the law on two grounds. First, the forfeiture was imposed in the amount of CZK 55.3m (approx. EUR 2.21m), exceeding the total damage by approximately CZK 1.5m (approx. EUR 60,000) and thereby breaching the statutory ceiling under Section 71(1) of the Criminal Code. Second, the funds subject to forfeiture constituted substitute value, i.e. company assets rather than direct proceeds of crime, and therefore formed part of the insolvency estate. Imposing a property sanction on such assets during ongoing insolvency proceedings was impermissible under the Insolvency Act, as the real adverse impact fell on the company's creditors, not the convicted company itself.

(i)    On substantial aspects

Craiova Court of Appeal, 14 September 2026, Decision No. 151/2026 (acquittal; alleged embezzlement)

The court examined whether a bailiff (enforcement agent) committed embezzlement by appropriating, and later using for his own benefit, amounts recovered from debtors on behalf of creditors across five separate enforcement files. The prosecution's theory of the case implicitly assumed that a bailiff could be treated as a manager or an administrator of the amounts held in his escrow account for the purposes of the embezzlement offence. The Craiova Court of Appeal acquitted the defendant of the embezzlement charge for lack of typical constituents, while maintaining the seizure over his assets pending resolution of the civil claims left unaddressed by the acquittal.

The court held that a bailiff, being remunerated for a public-interest service rather than employed by the paying institution, could not be considered a manager or an administrator for the purposes of the embezzlement offence, so that his conduct fell outside the scope of that offence altogether.
Galați Court of Appeal, 1 September 2026, Decision on Disinvestment (preliminary chamber; seizure of items; forensic search)

The Preliminary Chamber Judge examined the legality of the indictment brought against three defendants, accused of continued drug trafficking and possession of drugs for personal use, offences criminalised under Law No. 143/2000. During the proceedings, the defendants argued that the seizure of mobile phones by the criminal investigation body, and their subsequent retention following forensic searches, was unlawful. The defendants submitted that the phones had not been forwarded to the court together with the case file, and that the absence of any clarification as to their fate constituted an irregularity falling within the scope of review of the preliminary chamber procedure. The court dismissed as unfounded the challenge to the lawfulness of the retention of the mobile phones.

The court held that a preliminary chamber judge cannot rule on mobile phones retained by the criminal investigation body following a forensic search where the phones have not been forwarded to the court together with the case file pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the prosecutor's undertaking to return the devices at the end of the proceedings, after deleting any content of a criminal nature, cannot create procedural obligations binding on the court. The court therefore held that interested parties must apply for the return of the phones to the criminal investigation body holding them, which, acting as custodian of the property, is required to resolve the request in accordance with the law. 

3 September 2026, Case C-147/25 PPU, Inter Rao Lietuva (asset freezing; national security)

The case concerned whether the freezing of a Lithuanian energy company's funds, imposed on the ground that the company was indirectly controlled by a sanctioned person through its parent company, could be upheld without first giving the company an opportunity to be heard, and what level of evidence was required to establish such control. The referring court, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, also raised the question of the extent of its power to assess threats to national security, in particular alleged foreign influence over Lithuania's energy sector, when reviewing the legality of an asset-freezing measure implementing EU restrictive measures.

The Court of Justice held that a prior hearing is not required before adopting an asset freeze implementing a Council regulation, since advance notice would compromise the measure's effectiveness, though the reasons must be communicated as soon as possible afterwards to allow an effective remedy. It found that a national court reviewing such a measure is not required to assess for itself the existence of a threat to national security, but must verify that the measure rests on a sufficiently solid factual basis. It further held that where the measure is based on a sanctioned person's control over a company, the national authority must establish that control objectively and to a sufficiently robust standard, through direct evidence or a set of sufficiently concrete, precise and consistent indicia, and that the autocratic and oligarchic nature of the political regime concerned, taken alone, does not constitute sufficiently solid evidence of such control.

The Constitutional Court declares the new regulations on the Preliminary Chamber Procedure unconstitutional

The High Court of Cassation referred to the Constitutional Court an objection of unconstitutionality concerning the law amending and supplementing the Code of Criminal Procedure. The referral concerned four sets of provisions: the introduction of the preliminary chamber judge's power to order the joinder of cases; the introduction of the same judge's power to order the severance of cases; the continuation of the preliminary chamber procedure without summoning the parties where the requests could not be resolved by the scheduled hearing date; and the establishment of res judicata effect for certain rulings of the preliminary chamber judge. The objections concerned, in essence, the quality of the law, equality of rights, the right to a fair trial, the right to a defence, and the separation of judicial functions. 

Decision No. 838/2026 was published in the Official Journal on 31 August 2026. In the decision, the Constitutional Court found the provisions governing the joinder and severance of cases by the preliminary chamber judge to be unconstitutional, holding that both procedures require a minimum examination of the merits of the criminal case, including the facts, the identity of the perpetrators, the forms of guilt and the legal classification. Such an examination falls outside the filtering function conferred on the preliminary chamber judge under Articles 342-348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby creating a legislative incoherence contrary to Article 1(5) of the Romanian Constitution.

The Court also found unconstitutional the provision allowing the preliminary chamber procedure to continue without summoning the parties where the scheduled hearing date does not allow the requests to be resolved. It held that replacing the summoning obligation with an obligation on the parties to inform themselves through their own, unregulated means effectively amounts to an absence of proper summons and infringes the rights of free access to justice, to a fair trial and to a defence.

Finally, the Court found unconstitutional the provision conferring res judicata effect on certain rulings of the preliminary chamber judge, holding that this would preclude the subsequent raising, during the trial, of grounds of absolute nullity under Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, consequently, the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence, contrary to the quality-of-law standards required by Article 1(5) of the Romanian Constitution.

OECD consults stakeholders on Phase 5 monitoring under the Anti-Bribery Convention

The OECD Working Group on Bribery has concluded a stakeholder consultation on the future design of Phase 5 monitoring under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The Convention, which entered into force in 1999, requires its 46 Parties to criminalise bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions and subjects them to a peer-review monitoring process. The consultation brought together representatives from business, civil society, academia and other expert communities.

Stakeholders called for greater focus on the practical effectiveness of anti-bribery systems and the use of data, while maintaining the rigour and breadth of the monitoring process. Areas identified for increased attention included the independence of law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities, corporate liability, the treatment of victims and emerging risks. The OECD plans to further develop the objectives and strategic direction of Phase 5 during 2027, with evaluations expected to begin in late 2028.