to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 11/2025

1)             On substantial aspects

-                 Austrian Supreme Court, 13Os59/25p (embezzlement, fraudulent bankruptcy)

Breach of trust under Section 153 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure requires intentional misuse of authority over another's assets, causing harm to the principal. The provision does not protect creditors' interests, which are covered by insolvency offences such as Section 156 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (fraudulent bankruptcy [betrügerische Krida]).

Since the lower court had based its conviction on intent to harm creditors, the Supreme Court overturned the decision. The Court also clarified that, for a limited liability company (GmbH), the protected beneficiaries under Section 153 are the company's shareholders.

-                 Higher Regional Court Graz, 10Bs149/25z (crypto-fraud, money laundering, jurisdiction)

The offence of money laundering under Section 165 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure requires an intention to conceal or disguise the illegal origin of assets.

In its decision, the court clarified that simply transferring crypto-assets to one's own wallets does not suffice to meet the requirements of "concealment or disguise", thus establishing money laundering. Rather, criminal liability requires an additional concealment effect, for example through complex layering or anonymisation techniques. The court further provided clarification on the existence of domestic jurisdiction in crypto-fraud cases, affirming jurisdiction if the crypto-assets were under the victim's control and the victim was physically in Austria when the transaction was carried out, or the perpetrators used a crypto service provider based in Austria for the criminal act.

-                 Austrian Supreme Court, 13Os94/25y (corporate criminal liability, right to appeal)

In a case concerning corporate liability for aggravated commercial fraud, the Supreme Court clarified that a natural person acting as a de facto managing director is not entitled to file an appeal or nullity complaint against a judgment rendered solely against the legal entity.

The right to appeal is vested exclusively in the legal entity itself, represented by its authorised managing directors. A de facto manager has no external representation powers and therefore cannot make valid procedural declarations on behalf of the company. The Supreme Court further emphasised that recourse claimed by the company against the decision-maker having committed the offence is excluded under Section 11 of the Corporate Criminal Liability Act (VbVG).

-                 Austrian Supreme Court, 13Os10/25g (corporate criminal liability, fraudulent bankruptcy)

The Supreme Court addressed the requirements under which acts committed by a decision-maker can be attributed to the company, and thus for which the company can be held liable, under Section 3 VbVG. The case concerned a managing director who had made undeclared cash payments to an insolvent employee, thereby harming the employee's creditors and fulfilling the offence of fraudulent bankruptcy (betrügerische Krida) under Section 156 of the Austrian Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court partially overturned the conviction made by the first instance court, holding that the judgment lacked sufficient findings that the offence had been committed "to the benefit of the entity" or involved a breach of duties attributable thereto. The mere reproduction of the verba legalia without reference to the facts of the case does not suffice. Payment of undeclared wages causing harm to creditors does not constitute a benefit to the legal entity, nor can a breach of the company's duties be inferred from the facts of the case.

-                 Vienna Higher Regional Court, 22 Bs 98/25k – (access to telephone surveillance recordings ("legal copy"))

The Vienna Higher Regional Court ruled that an accused person must be provided with a "legal copy" of recordings obtained during telephone surveillance, affirming that this right derives from a constitutional interpretation of Sections 52(1) and 139(1) of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) and from Article 6 ECHR.

According to the Court, the principle of equality of arms requires that the defence have practical access to all evidence collected by the Public Prosecutor's Office. Merely granting the accused the right to listen to the recordings which have become part of the criminal file at police premises under supervision is insufficient, as it restricts the ability to analyse the material, coordinate with counsel and prepare an effective defence.

2)            On procedural aspects

-                 Various case law by the Higher Regional Court (reimbursement of or contribution to defence costs)

Numerous recent decisions address cost reimbursement under the legal framework that entered into force on 1 January 2024. Notably, in complex white-collar and financial crime proceedings, appellate courts tend to adjust contributions upward, to the benefit of acquitted defendants.

1)       Romanian Supreme Court, Decision No. 108/2025 (author of fraudulent use of company credit)

Article 272(1)(c) of Company Law No. 31/1990 criminalises situations where company officers — such as founders, administrators, directors or managers — borrow money from the company they manage or from a company it controls (or that controls it) beyond legal limits (EUR 5,000), or cause such companies to guarantee their personal debts.

The Supreme Court ruled that the administrator of a limited liability company cannot be considered the author of the offense provided in Article 272(1)(c) of Company Law No. 31/1990 and, therefore, may not be subject to criminal consequences in relation to this specific crime.

2)       Romanian Supreme Court, Decision No. 190/2025, Case No. 226/1/2025 (EU funds fraud)

The Supreme Court ruled that compensation for damages claimed during criminal proceedings related to irregularities in European funds should be limited to the amounts linked to the irregularities, not the entire subsidy. The Court emphasised that full reimbursement applies only when all funds were obtained unlawfully; if only part of the funding was irregular (e.g. the last instalment), only that portion must be repaid.

3)       Romanian Supreme Court, Decision No. 21A/2025 (statute of limitations for tax evasion)

The Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations in cases of tax evasion (provided for in Article 9(b) of Tax Evasion Act No. 241/2005) will begin to run not from the expiry of the deadline for filing the tax statement, but from the date of the omission to record the transaction in the accounts.

1)       Slovenian Supreme Court, Decision No. I Ips 35439/2019 (loan and benefit fraud)

Under Article 230 of the Slovenian Criminal Code, anyone who obtains a loan, investment funds, subsidy or any other benefit by providing false or incomplete financial information (such as on assets, profits, losses or any other fact relevant to the approval of the loan or other benefit) faces a fine or imprisonment of up to three years.

The Supreme Court clarified that the term "another benefit" thereunder – alongside loans, subsidies and investment funds – also covers any form of financing or facilitation of economic activity, whether from public or private sources.

2)       Slovenian Supreme Court, Decision No. I Ips 35131/2013 (abuse of position or rights)

Article 244 of the Slovenian Criminal Code (previously applicable "KZ") stipulated that anyone who, in the performance of economic activity, abuses their position, exceeds their rights or omits to perform their duties with the intention of obtaining illegal proceeds for themselves or for a third person, or with the intention of causing material harm to another person, will be sentenced to imprisonment for up to five years.

In its decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the injured party is the company itself, not its sole shareholder. The Court clarified that the unlawful act occurs when the shareholder disposes of the company's assets for personal gain, thereby generating criminal proceeds from the company's capital and causing harm both to the company and its creditors.

ECtHR, 10 July 2025, Korniyets et al v. Ukraine (2599/16, 6904/16, 12704/16) (dawn raid, lengths of proceedings)

Dawn raids without prior judicial authorisation are compatible with the Convention only if there is effective ex post control. There must be a genuine opportunity to challenge search warrants and to participate in the proceedings.

Because the investigation lasted over seven years and was conducted in a superficial and formulaic manner, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 ECHR.

ECJ, 1 August 2025, C-544/23 (retroactive application of criminal law)

Administrative sanctions of a criminal nature are subject to the lex mitior principle (Article 49(1) GCR). If a provision is subsequently amended in a manner more favourable to the person concerned, this must be taken into account in pending proceedings, i.e. a "final decision" has been handed down. The term "final decision" is to be interpreted autonomously: as long as an ordinary remedy (such as an appeal) is pending or available, the decision is not final.

Opinion of Advocate General Rantos, 11 July 2025 (C-722/23 Rugu, C-91/24 Aucroix) (European Arrest Warrant, detention conditions)

Where a Member State refuses to execute a European Arrest Warrant due to a real risk of fundamental rights violations in the issuing State, it is obliged to enforce – on its own territory – the sentence imposed in the issuing State. This applies in particular to its own nationals or residents, provided national law permits such enforcement. The aim is to prevent impunity and promote social reintegration.

On 24 September 2025, the Croatian Parliament debated amendments to the Criminal Act introducing the first AI-related criminal offence into national law, covering all stages from the development to the operation of AI systems. The amendments adopt the EU AI Act's definition of an AI system and reaffirm that legal entities can be held liable for offences committed through their responsible persons, even when individual liability cannot be established. Parliament also announced plans to introduce additional AI-related offences, such as fraudulent AI use, and to enact a dedicated Artificial Intelligence Act by next year.

From 1 July 2026, companies may avoid prosecution through "conditional non-prosecution" if they take remedial steps such as repairing harm, surrendering unjust gains, and compensating victims. Unlike plea deals, this mechanism does not require an admission of guilt and can be accessed even before formal charges, with compliance monitored by independent specialists.

From 1 January 2026, Hungary will allow companies to enter into plea agreements with prosecutors. Companies implicated in offences such as fraud, bribery or money laundering may acknowledge wrongdoing, compensate damages, surrender illicit gains and commit to preventive measures in exchange for more predictable outcomes and potentially reduced sanctions. Companies must fully cooperate and provide evidence; if their representatives are also accused, those individuals must admit guilt for the plea to proceed.

For more information: https://www.schoenherr.eu/content/changes-in-corporate-criminal-liability-in-hungary-plea-deals-for-companies.

In July 2025, the Romanian authorities published the National strategy for the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing for the period 2025–2030, along with an Action Plan for its implementation. While regulatory measures are still pending, key proposals include:

• granting investigators direct access to electronic databases;
• recognising money laundering as an autonomous offence, even without a conviction for the predicate crime or if committed abroad;
• amending Article 249(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code to enable faster asset freezing;
• digitising access to financial transaction records; and
• creating a national network of specialised prosecutors.

In June 2025, the Slovenian Commission for the Prevention of Corruption adopted an Action Plan (prepared based on the Resolution on the Prevention of Corruption in the Republic of Slovenia from March 2025). The Action Plan will be applicable until 2030. The key objectives of the Action Plan are:

• to improve transparency in public institutions, ensure access to information and enhance public procurement integrity; 
• to clearly define responsibilities, protect whistleblowers and strengthen legal frameworks.

In July 2025, an amendment to the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act was adopted ("ZPPDFT-2C"). Key changes include restricting public access to information to the Register of Beneficial Owners. 

In August 2025, a new summary of the National Risk Assessment for Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing was published (available here: Povzetek-Nacionalne-ocene-tveganja-za-pranje-denarja-financiranje-terorizma-in-financiranje-proliferacije-za-obdobje-2020-2023.pdf). The assessment highlights the rising importance of virtual assets, with a significant increase in investigations involving cryptocurrencies, primarily used in fraud and dark web transactions.