to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 12/2025

1)             On substantial aspects

-                 Austrian Supreme Court, 13Os43/25k (fraudulent bankruptcy, grossly negligent impairment of creditor interests)

Under Section 159(2) of the Austrian Criminal Code (StGB), grossly negligent impairment of creditor interests exists only where, after insolvency has occurred and become recognisable, at least one creditor was actually placed in a worse position; without such a result, the offence is not fulfilled. For offences under Sections 156 and 153c StGB, it is likewise essential that the court establish that the defendant held a formal or de facto managerial position within the undertaking.

The Supreme Court set aside the relevant convictions because the trial court had neither established any concrete loss to creditors nor sufficiently substantiated the defendant's managerial or executive role. In doing so, the Supreme Court clearly pointed to the necessity of unambiguously establishing the facts of the case.

On a general note, the Supreme Court again clarified that intent may be inferred from external circumstances.

2)            On procedural aspects

-                 Austrian Federal Administrative Court (BVwG), W258 2241500-1/10E (data protection, inspection rights, Art 6 ECHR)

Under Section 51(1) of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, a co-accused has an unrestricted right to access the investigation file, while data processing by public prosecutors' offices is subject to the supervisory authority of the Data Protection Authority (DSB) pursuant to Section 31 of the Data Protection Act (DSG). Personal data processed in criminal investigations are governed both by the StPO and by the specific provisions of the Data Protection Act implementing Directive (EU) 2016/680.

The BVwG confirmed the DSB's supervisory competence but overturned its finding of a violation of the right to data secrecy. It held that the disclosure of a medical expert report concerning injuries suffered by a third person to a co-accused constituted data processing but was justified under Section 51(1) StPO. The Court found that the report could also be relevant for assessing the complainant's credibility and therefore amended the DSB's decision and dismissed the data protection complaint.

-                 Austrian Supreme Court (OGH), 14 Os 95/25i (AI-generated Submissions)

Under Section 285a(2) StPO, grounds for nullity of a conviction must be stated clearly and precisely in the respective appeal, and the appeal must meet a standard appropriate for review by the Supreme Court. 

In a drug trafficking case, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's nullity appeal. While several complaints were rejected on the merits, the Court found that additional submissions – apparently drafted by "artificial intelligence" without professional supervision and containing numerous incorrect citations and references to decisions that do not exist or do not address the cited issues – failed to meet the clarity and definiteness required by Section 285a StPO. The submission did not warrant a substantive response.

-                 Austrian Supreme Court, 12 Os 67/25g (Standing to Appeal for De Facto Manager)

Under Sections 13 and 16 of the Association Liability Act (VbVG), a legal entity in corporate criminal proceedings is represented exclusively by its authorised managing directors, who exercise all procedural rights on behalf of the association. A de facto manager has no external representation powers and therefore cannot submit valid procedural declarations for the entity. 

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's rejection of an appeal filed by a de facto manager against a judgment rendered solely against the legal entity. Lacking representation authority and not being a rights-bearing party under the VbVG or the StPO, the individual had no standing to lodge a nullity appeal or any other remedy on behalf of the association.

1)             On substantial aspects

-                 Czech Supreme Court, File No. 3 Tdo 578/2025 (corporate criminal liability; exculpation under Section 8(5) of the Corporate Criminal Liability Act; compliance)

A corporate entity may be held liable for the offence of serious bodily injury under Section 147(1), (2) of the Criminal Code, where the offence arises in the course of its business from an employee's conduct undertaken with supervisors' knowledge and without mandatory training or authorisation, and where the company failed to exercise all reasonable efforts to prevent the offence within the meaning of Sections 8(1), (2) and (5) of the Corporate Criminal Liability Act (CCLA). Exculpation under Section 8(5) requires a functional, effective and integrated compliance system.

A forklift operator's licence issued by another operator cannot be used as such without proper onboarding training for the specific operator, environment and equipment. In this case, the licence presented was an invalid duplicate and the company failed to verify its validity or relevance. As the company knowingly allowed an employee to operate forklifts without the required training and authorisation, failed to take adequate action after prior incidents, and maintained deficient workplace safety, the statutory exculpation conditions were not met.

-                 Czech Supreme Court, File No. 3 Tdo 296/2025 (fraud; corporate imputability; exculpation under Section 8(5) CCLA; causation; damages; standing)

Corporate criminal liability was based on the conduct of the chairman, who knowingly maintained the unlawful status by repeatedly invoicing privileged tariffs on the basis of a fraudulently procured licence, thereby exploiting the prior error of the Energy Regulatory Office (ERO).

No exculpatory measures under Section 8(5) of the Corporate Criminal Liability Act (CCLA) were proven and such exculpation is only exceptional where the offence originates from top management. There was no reversal of the burden of proof, and fraud does not require identity between the deceived party (ERO) and the party making the property disposition (the distributor). The Supreme Court of Czech Republic therefore dismissed the company's appeal.

-                 Czech Supreme Court, File No. 21 Cdo 1239/2024 (dismissal under Section 52(f) of the Labour Code; association vs. employment; disciplinary ban; compliance)

The dismissal of an employee was based on a four-year ban from all Czech Football Association (FAČR) activities following disciplinary findings related to corruption. According to the employer, this ban made it impossible for the employee to perform a role closely connected to FAČR activities and constituted a breach of the employer's ethics and compliance requirements.

The Supreme Court quashed the decision and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to expressly assess whether the employer's legitimate job requirements included adherence to FAČR internal ethics and compliance rules (Ethical Code, Criminal Compliance Programme) and the ability to perform the same activity also as an association member. If so, an association-level disciplinary ban on all FAČR activities can objectively amount to "failure to meet requirements" under Section 52(f) of the Labour Code, notwithstanding that the sanction was imposed within the association sphere.

1)             On substantial aspects

-                 Oradea Court of Appeal, Decision No. 650/2025 (fraud involving EU funds)

In a decision dealing with fraud involving EU funds, the Oradea Court of Appeal examined the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 78/2000, which criminalise:

"The use or presentation of false, inaccurate or incomplete documents or statements, if the act results in the wrongful obtaining or wrongful retention of funds or assets from the budget of the European Union or budgets managed by it or on its behalf."

Although certain signatures in the submitted documents were forged, the Court concluded that this irregularity did not impact the defendant's substantive right to receive EU funds. Core eligibility documents (e.g. grazing contract, administrative certificates, the single payment application, livestock registry) were valid and demonstrated a legitimate entitlement of the beneficiary.

The Court also found no link of causality between the falsified signatures and the granting of funds. The forgery was a non-essential formal defect and not a fraudulent mechanism for obtaining money without legal grounds.

2)            On procedural aspects

-                 Cluj Court of Appeal, Decision No. 1441/2025 (lawful composition of the panel)

Pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 78/2000, first-instance corruption cases must be tried by panels specialised in such matters. Failure to meet this requirement entails the sanction of absolute nullity under Section 281(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it concerns the lawful composition of the panel. This ground of nullity may be raised ex officio or upon request, at any stage of the proceedings.

The Cluj Court of Appeal clarified that the expression "judging in first instance" does not refer solely to the moment of delivering the judgment, but applies throughout the procedural course. Thus, the rule is applicable not only to the trial panel but also to the preliminary chamber judge, whose procedural decisions directly influence the final court decision.

Given that a case is assigned through a single random distribution procedure at the time of its registration, the Court emphasised that allocation must, from the outset, be made only among judges who have the functional competence to handle corruption cases.

As a result, under Section 421(1)(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the first-instance judgment was entirely voided and the case was referred back for retrial in the preliminary chamber stage, in accordance with Section 386¹ of the Criminal Procedure Code.

1)             On substantial aspects

-                 Slovenian Supreme Court, Decision No. I Ips 62094/2013 (preferential treatment of creditors) 

Under Article 227 of the Slovenian Criminal Code (KZ-1), anyone who, being aware that they or another person as debtor is insolvent, pays a debt or otherwise intentionally places a particular creditor in a more favourable position, thereby causing economic damage to other creditors, faces imprisonment of up to five years – or one to eight years if the act causes substantial economic damage.

The Supreme Court clarified what constitutes "economic damage" in this context. It noted that this criterion is not fulfilled by the damage suffered by an individual creditor or the aggregate damage caused to all creditors collectively. Instead, the relevant "economic damage" is the value for which the perpetrator unjustifiably repaid some of the creditors or secured them a (different) more favourable position. Such conduct caused damage to all creditors directly, in an amount corresponding to the total effect of the damage caused. This damage is assessed primarily on the basis of the market value of the recognised false claim, falsified contract or other fraudulent act that diminished the assets intended to secure repayment of creditors.

2)            On procedural aspects

-                 Slovenian Supreme Court, Decision No. I Ips 15714/2010 (confiscation of the proceeds of crime – money laundering) 

The Supreme Court addressed whether, in proceedings for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime (Article 498.a of the Slovenian Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP)), the court is bound by the description of the offence and its statutory elements set out in the indictment (or request for investigation) – even if these proceedings ended with a dismissal or rejection of the charge – or whether the court may conduct a new fact-finding process to establish the elements of money laundering.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the court deciding under Article 498.a ZKP is indeed bound by the description of the criminal offence. It also affirmed that the person subject to confiscation proceedings must be informed of the alleged criminal offence.

-                 Slovenian Supreme Court, Decision No. I Ips 54651/2018 (allegedly unlawfully obtained evidence)

The case concerned multiple corruption-related offences. Among other things, the Supreme Court addressed whether certain audio recordings made by a private individual were obtained unlawfully. In short, a person who believed he was being financially blackmailed recorded a conversation with two of the accused. Although these two were later acquitted of this specific act – because the transaction in question was deemed to involve an inherently corrupt purpose and therefore could not be the subject of criminal-law protection – the recordings have already triggered further investigative measures. 

The accused argued that all the evidence gathered in this case stemmed from these audio recordings, and because the individual who made them was ultimately not a victim of a criminal offence, he had no legitimate basis for making the recording.

The Supreme Court rejected this notion, holding that although the accused were later acquitted of this specific criminal act, the individual had reasonably believed at the time of recording that he was being financially extorted and recorded the conversation to protect his own constitutional rights (personal dignity, safety and property). Therefore, the conduct was considered legitimate and proportionate, and the recordings were lawfully usable in criminal proceedings. The Court also rejected claims that these actions violated the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination or constituted entrapment. These protections apply only in vertical relationships (to state actions, not private individuals).

ECtHR, 6 November 2025, Guyvan v. Ukraine (46704/16)

The processing of employees' mobile communication data, including roaming information revealing their location and contacts, falls within the scope of "private life" under Article 8 of the ECHR. In disputes between private parties, States have positive obligations to provide a legal and judicial framework that allows courts to assess such monitoring in light of privacy and data-protection requirements, including whether the data qualify as personal data and whether their collection and use were justified and proportionate.

The Court held that Ukraine failed to fulfil its positive obligations under Article 8 because the domestic courts concluded that the roaming data did not constitute the applicant's personal data and did not assess the lawfulness and necessity of their collection and processing by the employer. It therefore found a violation of Article 8.

ECJ, 9 October 2025, C-798/23 Abbottly (European Arrest Warrant)

Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 allows the refusal of a European Arrest Warrant only in specific cases, and only when the underlying decision was delivered in the person's absence. "Trial resulting in the decision" refers to the proceedings that directly led to the final conviction.

The Court held that converting a measure of police supervision into a prison sentence is not merely an enforcement decision. As the court has discretion and the new sentence is a separate sanction for breaching supervision conditions, this conversion is a "decision" within the meaning of Article 4a(1). The proceedings leading to this conversion therefore count as the relevant "trial" under the Framework Decision.

ECJ, 20 November 2025, C-57/23 Policejní prezidium (storage of biometric and genetic data)

The Court held that EU law does not preclude national legislation allowing the indiscriminate collection of biometric and genetic data from any person accused or suspected of an intentional criminal offence, provided that the purposes of the processing do not require distinguishing between those categories and that controllers comply with all relevant principles and specific requirements. The Court further ruled that national legislation may permit police authorities, on the basis of internal rules, to assess the need for continued storage of such data. Where national law provides for an appropriate periodic review of strict necessity, it is not required to set a maximum storage period.

As of 13 November 2025, amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act (the "Act") entered into force, introducing a more efficient and comprehensive system of whistleblower protection, aligned with OECD recommendations and recent EU legislative developments. The Act expands the scope of protection to individuals reporting irregularities related to white collar crime, including criminal offences against the economy, offences against official duty, embezzlement and other offences that undermine the public interest.

In addition, the Act further extends protection to individuals reporting irregularities directly to the police or the state attorney's office, granting them the same level of protection previously afforded only to those reporting to the Ombudsman. To ensure faster and more effective protection, the Act introduces binding judicial deadlines and significantly increased monetary penalties for misdemeanours.

19 November 2025 – Draft Act – Ministry of Justice – 944/25

Draft Act amending Act No. 104/2013 Coll., on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

The aim of the draft act is to ensure the adaptation to Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 on the European Production Order and the European Preservation Order for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings (the "Regulation"), which must be implemented by 18 August 2026, and to ensure the implementation of Directive (EU) 2023/2843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023.

Romanian Law No. 319/2024 on combating corruption among foreign public officials in international economic transactions has recently undergone substantial amendments. The changes reinforce Romania's ongoing commitment to align more closely with international anti-corruption standards, in particular with the OECD Convention. In September 2025, Romania was invited to join the OECD's Working Group on Bribery and become a party to the Anti-Bribery Convention.

The relevant changes to Law No. 319/2024 concern the following:

Redefined and extended offence (Section 3)

• The law currently criminalises the offering or giving, directly or indirectly, of money or other unlawful advantages to a foreign public official. The definition of the offence has been extended to include "any other improper use" of the foreign official's position, not just classical acts related to decisions or administrative acts.

Increased corporate and individual fines

• A new day-fine amount applies to both individuals and legal entities. For companies, fines range from RON 3,000 (approx. EUR 600) to RON 300,000 (approx. EUR 60,000) per day-fine, potentially reaching tens of millions of euros depending on the limits of penalties for the corruption offence concerned. Following the recent amendments, companies presently risk a maximum fine of RON 180m (approx. EUR 36m).

Compliance programmes as mitigating circumstance

• Companies may benefit from judicial mitigating circumstances if, at the time of the offence, they had an effective internal compliance system designed to prevent the perpetration of such corruption offences. This is a major incentive for businesses to adopt robust anti-bribery policies and compliance systems.

Strengthened confiscation measures

• The amendments extend confiscation to include:
• indirect benefits obtained through the offence;
• equivalent-value assets when direct proceeds are unavailable; and
• revenues generated by the use or transfer of such assets.

Extended competence of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate ("DNA")

• The DNA is now empowered to investigate not only foreign official bribery but also related offences, such as money laundering, forgery and tax evasion when connected to the primary offence.

Enhanced whistleblower protection

• Whistleblowers reporting corruption involving foreign officials are protected under Law No. 361/2022, which encourages internal and external reporting of misconduct. These protective measures also apply to persons who report directly to the criminal investigation authorities.

Increased duration of undercover investigations

• The law allows undercover investigators to exceed the previous 60-day term provided for investigations, enabling operations to last more than one year in the case of offences falling under the jurisdiction of the DNA under this law.