to the point: White Collar Crime Law in CEE 5/2026

(i) On procedural aspects

Austrian Supreme Court, 7 April 2026, 15Os32/26h (pre-trial detention – risk of reoffending; special acceleration requirement in detention cases)

The decision concerns a fundamental rights complaint against the continuation of pre-trial detention in a large-scale white-collar criminal investigation involving allegations of aggravated fraud, breach of trust, fraudulent insolvency and falsification of evidence. The Vienna Higher Regional Court had upheld detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending under art 173 (2) (3) (a) and (b) of the Austrian Criminal Procedure Code (Strafprozessordnung, StPO), citing the repeated commission of offences, their seriousness and the exceptionally high overall damage. The defendant argued that the acceleration requirement under arts 9 (2) and 177 (1) StPO had been violated.

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It confirmed that the nature, repetition and scale of serious property offences with significant damage may justify the assumption of a risk of reoffending. As to the acceleration requirement, the Court held that it does not permit neglecting the thorough establishment of facts. Given the complexity of the investigation – involving multiple factual complexes, cross-border measures and large volumes of data – no significant delay was found.

(i) On substantial aspects

Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice, resolution no. 5/2026 (abuse of office, remote work, acquittal)

The High Court has ruled that performing professional duties remotely excludes, per se, a case of abuse of office, when the nature of the duties does not require mandatory physical presence, and the absence of time sheets or additional administrative formalities does not prove that no work was performed.

Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice, resolution no. 54/2026 (perjury, declining to testify)

The elements of the offense of perjury are met in the case of a total refusal by a person summoned as a witness to testify in a criminal proceeding, whether before or after taking the oath or making a solemn declaration, provided that the witness has been informed of the purpose of the hearing and the related procedural obligations, and the witness does not fall under any of the legal exceptions to the obligation to testify.

Bucharest Court of Appeal, resolution no. 1348/2025 (abuse of office, specific duty expressly provided for by law)

The Bucharest Court of Appeal acquitted the defendants of the charge of abuse of office. The Court emphasised that, for the analysis of the criminal nature of abuse of office, it is not sufficient for the alleged act to relate to generally applicable regulatory provisions; rather, the primary regulation must explicitly, unequivocally and relatively precisely establish specific official duties that were violated in the exercise of those duties. In the absence of such specific duties prescribed by law, the elements of the offence are lacking, and consequently, the act is not covered by criminal law.

Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice, resolution no. 3/2026 (compensation, penalty interest accrual date)

In cases where compensatory and/or punitive damages are awarded to cover the harm caused by a tortious act, the statutory penalty interest on such damages accrues from the date the harm occurred. This ruling applies regardless of whether or not the tortious act is classified as a criminal offence.

ECtHR, 2 April 2026, Alengoz and Others v. Ukraine (length of criminal proceedings – reasonable time; lack of effective remedy)

The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings and the availability of an effective remedy in this regard under arts 6 (1) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It arises from several proceedings in Ukraine which lasted between approximately three and more than fifteen years, in some instances remaining pending without final resolution. The applicants complained that the duration of the proceedings exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement and that no effective domestic remedy was available.

The Court found violations of arts 6 (1) and 13 ECHR. It held that the overall length of the proceedings was excessive and could not be justified in light of the established criteria, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the authorities, and what was at stake. It further found that the applicants lacked an effective remedy to challenge the duration of the proceedings, thereby reinforcing the obligation on States to ensure both timely adjudication and adequate procedural safeguards.

ECJ, 16 April 2026, C-328/24 P (EPPO – judicial review of procedural acts; jurisdiction of the General Court)

The judgment concerns the judicial review of procedural acts of the Euro-pean Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), in particular whether the General Court has jurisdiction under art 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to review such acts. It arises from proceedings in Romania in which the applicant sought the annulment of an EPPO resolution ordering that he be brought before a national criminal court, arguing that the lack of EU-level review infringed his right to an effective remedy and a fair trial. The General Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, which was challenged on appeal before the Court of Justice.

The Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and held that the General Court does not have jurisdiction to review procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. It found that art 86 (3) TFEU allows the EU legislature to establish specific rules on judicial review and that, in this context, jurisdiction was validly conferred on national courts. It further held that this allocation of jurisdiction does not infringe the right to effective judicial protection, as EPPO acts remain subject to review by national courts and, where appropriate, by the EU courts.

ECJ, C-696/23 P, 23 March 2026, Pumpyanskiy v. Council (international sanctions)

The Court notes that only the manifestly inappropriate nature of a criterion serving as the basis for the imposition of restrictive measures can affect its legality. Such a criterion cannot be considered unlawful since it targets categories of persons who have an objective connection – even if indirect and even independent of any personal conduct – with the third country that the European Union seeks to sanction. In the present case, the Court notes that there is an objective link between, on the one hand, prominent businesspeople operating in economic sectors that are profitable for Russia and, on the other hand, the objective of increasing the pressure on that country, as well as the cost of Russia's actions to destabilise Ukraine.

The Court confirms that, in order to determine whether the restrictive measures are proportionate, it is necessary only to verify that they are not manifestly inappropriate for achieving the legitimate objective pursued and that they do not manifestly exceed what is necessary to achieve that objective

Romania

The Government is currently examining a draft resolution proposing the abrogation of Government resolution no. 603/2011, the act that established the rules under which the National Office for the Prevention and Control of Money Laundering (ONPCSB) supervises the implementation of international sanctions. This legislative initiative arises from the previous substantial amendments which updated the legal framework governing the enforcement of international sanctions and redefined ONPCSB's responsibilities in this area.

According to the said amendments, ONPCSB is designated as the national authority responsible for supervising the implementation of asset‑freezing measures and other restrictive sanctions by the reporting entities under its supervision. In this context, the rules adopted in 2011 no longer correspond to the current legislative framework and must be replaced with regulations aligned with the Office's expanded mandate.

The draft Government resolution therefore aims to eliminate an outdated normative act and create the legal conditions required for approving new rules consistent with the current legislation and with European standards on international sanctions. In the context of the expanded restrictive measures adopted at EU level, particularly in response to the conflict in Ukraine, updating the national legislation is essential to ensure the effective and uniform application of international sanctions.

The Council of the European Union has adopted a directive on combating corruption, establishing an EU-wide framework that harmonises the definition of corruption offences across Member States and introduces common levels of penalties. The directive covers key offences including bribery in the public and private sectors, misappropriation, trading in influence, obstruction of justice, enrichment from corruption offences and concealment, ensuring that these are defined and treated in a similar way throughout the EU. It will replace existing instruments, namely the 2003 framework on corruption in the private sector and the 1997 convention on corruption involving EU and Member State officials, and incorporates international standards, in particular those set out in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

The directive further provides that Member States must establish minimum levels of penalties for corruption offences, including prison sentences ranging from three to five years for individuals and fines for legal entities amounting to 3 % to 5 % of total worldwide turnover or between EUR 24 million and EUR 40 million. It also requires the establishment of specialised bodies to prevent corruption and raise public awareness. The directive will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Member States will have 24 months to transpose its provisions into national law, with a longer period of 36 months applying to provisions on risk assessments and national strategies.