to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 2/2026

1. On procedural aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 17 December 2025, 15Os123/25i (diversion; media offences; publication order; cost decisions)

Under Section 37(1) of the Austrian Media Act, a court may order the publication of a brief notice of initiated proceedings if it is likely that the objective elements of a media offence are fulfilled. This allows the affected person to inform the public at an early stage that legal action has been taken in response to the original media report. The publication order is a provisional safeguarding measure with a warning and preventive function and is permissible only while the proceedings are not yet finally concluded.

By ordering the publication of a notice pursuant to Section 37(1) of the Media Act after a final decision on the media law applications, the Court's decision violated the law. The Supreme Court therefore annulled the publication order. It clarified that an order to publish a notice of the proceedings initiated after they have already been legally concluded would be outdated in content and, therefore, cannot serve the purpose of the publication obligation under Section 37(1) of the Media Act.

Vienna Court of Appeals, 7 October 2025, 20Bs245/25p (data seizure; reasoning requirements; evaluation periods)

Under Section 115f StPO, orders authorising the seizure of data carriers or data must be substantiated, including with respect to the purpose of the measure and the periods during which the data may be evaluated.

The Court held that the first-instance decision authorising the seizure and evaluation of data over roughly one and a half years was defective because the evaluation periods were either entirely unreasoned or, in the case of the "multimedia" data category, not defined at all. It further stated that empty references to police reports or witness statements were insufficient to justify the purpose of an investigative measure and the evaluation period. Consequently, the decision of the first-instance court was overturned and the court was instructed to render a new, substantiated decision.

1. On substantial aspects:

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 5 Tdo 701/2025 (criminal liability of legal entities; subsidy fraud and damage to the financial interests of the EU)

Under Section 8(1)(c) of the Corporate Criminal Liability Act (CCLA), a legal entity commits a criminal offence if it is committed by a person who exercises decisive influence over its management, provided that the person's conduct was at least one of the conditions giving rise to the consequence establishing the legal entity's criminal liability.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the accused legal entities and confirmed their guilt for partly completed and partly uncompleted subsidy fraud and damage to the financial interests of the EU at the attempt stage. The key factor was the attribution of conduct under Section 8(1)(c) of the CCLA to the legal entities, as the decisive steps were taken by a person in a leading position who actually managed the implementation of the projects. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, for the purposes of subsidy fraud, false information need not be contained solely in the application itself, but may also appear in the supporting documents necessary for the payment of the subsidy (final report, payment re-quest, attendance sheets).

2. On internal investigations:

Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, File No. 21 Cdo 2618/2025 (Employer's Right to Monitor Work Computers vs. Employee Privacy Protection)

The case involved an employee who, during his notice period, had been explicitly and repeatedly informed that the computer was for work purposes only, yet he used his administrator privileges to circumvent security measures and transfer internal documents for use by a competitor. When the employer detected suspicious activity, they inspected the computer and immediately terminated the employment relationship.

The Supreme Court upheld the employer's actions, confirming that while employees retain privacy rights, employers may conduct inspections when there is reasonable suspicion of misconduct, provided certain safeguards are met. Key requirements include clearly communicating rules prohibiting personal use of work devices, transparently informing employees of these policies with documented proof, implementing monitoring mechanisms to detect potential violations, and conducting inspections only when justified suspicion exists. Crucially, any inspection must be proportionate, accessing only those documents and communications necessary to verify the specific suspected breach, without intruding into genuinely private materials. The Court emphasised that if employees are prohibited from using company assets for personal purposes and employers have the right to enforce this prohibition, employers must have practical means to conduct such checks and obtain evidence of violations.

1. On procedural aspects:

Romanian Supreme Court, Decision No. 430/2025 (tax evasion, legality of the indictment, requirement of specific evidence – a tax expert report)

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 10 of the Tax Evasion Act No. 241/2005 to mean that failure to supply a specialised expert report as mandatory evidence renders the indictment irregular, resulting in the case being referred back to the prosecutor's office.

If the indictment is issued in the absence of a specialised tax expert report (on the amount of damage), the prosecution act is flawed as to an essential aspect of the tax evasion case. Assessing the damage based on a tax expert report is not a mere evidentiary option for the prosecution but an express legal requirement. The consequence is a legal remedy specific to the preliminary chamber procedure: the indictment is deemed irregular and the case is referred back to the prosecutor's office for completion of the criminal investigation with the expert opinion required by law.

Slovenian Supreme Court, 13 November 2025, Decision No. I Ips 43892/2015 (right of defence)

The Supreme Court clarified the criteria for distinguishing incriminating from defence witnesses, relying among others on Škobrne v. Slovenia. It held that the decisive factor is the purpose of the defence request: whether it merely seeks to test prior statements or to substantiate arguments contesting the charges.

The Supreme Court held that the witness in question has both exculpatory and inculpatory character (being simultaneously the person that filed the criminal complaint and a witness material to the defence case). It therefore assessed the request under two safeguards: the right to confront incriminating witnesses and the right to adduce exculpatory evidence.

Regarding confrontation, the Court found no violation where the witness was not re-examined at trial and prior statements were read, given that the defence had previously cross-examined the witness twice, the witness later refused to testify or claimed memory loss despite confirmed capacity, the defence did not object to the reading of the statement, and the trial court properly assessed the evidence as a whole.

Regarding exculpatory evidence, the Court held that the same criteria apply to witnesses of mixed character, as both rights stem from the unitary guarantee of the right to defence.

It concluded that the trial court took all reasonable steps to secure the testimony, which ultimately proved unobtainable, justifying the refusal to examine the witness.

Slovenian Supreme Court, Decision No. I Ips 35131/2013 (enforcing prison sentence by alternative means)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its settled case law that, when assessing the conditions for enforcing a prison sentence by alternative means, such as through community service, courts must consider both objective circumstances (the severity and manner of commission of the offence) and subjective circumstances relating to the defendant. These factors, assessed cumulatively, must demonstrate that alternative enforcement is justified, expedient and appropriate.

In the present case, the defendant was found guilty of a serious economic offence through which he obtained EUR 436,500 of unlawful proceeds for his personal benefit, of which he repaid only EUR 2,500; he showed no understanding or acceptance of his conviction or its consequences; and his return to economic activity created a risk that he might again engage in conduct involving the misuse of company assets. The Supreme Court confirmed that these factors cumulatively rendered enforcement of the prison sentence through alternative means inappropriate. 

ECtHR, 15 January 2026, Biliński v. Poland (judicial independence; transfer of judges; access to court; Article 6 ECHR)

Under Article 6(1) ECHR, judges are entitled to protection against arbitrary transfers affecting their judicial independence and must have access to a review by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The Court held that the applicant's involuntary transfer between two divisions of the same court, combined with the lack of judicial review of the National Council of the Judiciary's resolution and that council's lack of independence, impaired the very essence of his right of access to a court, amounting to a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR.

ECJ, Advocate General Opinion, 15 January 2026, C-748/24 Kotaňák (presumption of innocence; preliminary procedural decisions; Directive 2016/343)

The case comes from Slovakia and concerns criminal proceedings for alleged defamation. A first-instance court had discontinued the case, considering that the acts in question were not criminal. That decision was annulled twice by the appellate court, which sent the case back for further examination.

Under Directive (EU) 2016/343 and Article 48(1) of the Charter, suspects and accused persons must not be presented as guilty in judicial decisions that do not rule on guilt; preliminary procedural decisions may rely on suspicions or incriminating material, provided the person is not described as guilty.

The Advocate General explains that, at a preliminary stage, an appellate court may examine the case file and assess whether the legal elements of the alleged offence may be present, including by referring to evidence gathered during the investigation, even if that evidence has not yet been fully examined in court – so long as the assessment remains procedural.

Draft Act amending Act No. 37/2021 Coll., on the registration of beneficial owners, as amended (AML)

The aim of the proposal is to transpose the new requirements of Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024, on mechanisms to be implemented by Member States to prevent the use of the financial system for money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and amending and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AML), which concern access to data on beneficial owners in the register of beneficial owners (UBO) on the basis of so-called legitimate interest.

The proposal changes the public nature of the register of beneficial owners, making it fundamentally non-public. In practice, however, the Ministry of Justice decided on 17 December 2025 to make the register inaccessible to the public, taking into account the latest case law of Czech and European courts. As a result, access to the UBO Register currently works only for authorised persons with a legal interest.

Following the example of the AML, the draft law establishes procedures for verifying legitimate interest in accessing the register. It introduces a comprehensive procedure for verifying legitimate interest in accessing data on beneficial owners, including the definition of categories of entities for which legitimate interest is presumed. Furthermore, new types (categories) of entities with privileged access to the data in question (relevant national and international authorities, attorneys and others) are added based on so-called remote access. Rules for making data inaccessible in justified cases are added.

Important amendments to the international sanctions enforcement framework have recently been adopted in Romania. Law No. 224/2025, which entered into force in December 2025, significantly reshaped the main law on international sanctions. The new law transposes Directive (EU) 2024/1226 and strengthens Romania's obligations towards an effective implementation of the EU restrictive measures (sanctions).

An entirely separate section on criminal liability, along with a new set of criminal offences, has been introduced under the new law, demonstrating that Romania continues its efforts to align national law with EU foreign policy and security objectives.

The relevant changes include:

• the introduction of new criminal offences related to EU sanctions, i.e. Law No. 224/2025 introduces a comprehensive list of criminal offences covering breaches of EU sanctions;
• aggravated forms of offences and increased penalties, including a special day-fine system applying to sanctions for companies, with highly increased penalty limits;
• strengthened confiscation and precautionary measures, based on which funds and economic resources involved in sanctions-evasion offences, particularly those related to asset concealment or falsified reporting, are subject to mandatory freezing; in addition, all such assets may become subject to confiscation by the State should the necessary legal requirements be met at the time of the conviction;
• persons reporting breaches of sanctions benefit from whistleblower protection under the law; at the same time, the law expressly preserves the legal professional privilege, safeguarding attorney–client confidentiality.