This contribution focuses on the currently applicable criminal law provisions, without overlooking the impact of the new Belgian Criminal Code (NCC). Indeed, in 2024, the NCC was adopted in order to replace the current Criminal Code (CC), set to enter into force on 8 April 2026, unless the legislator decides to postpone its entry into force. The impact of the NCC is briefly addressed under Q1, Q22 and Q27.

In Belgium, both individuals, such as directors and officers, and legal persons can be held criminally liable. In practice, certain offences are more commonly charged to legal persons than others. The criminal offences outlined below are commonly used in criminal proceedings against legal entities and natural persons.

Currently, a vast number of criminal offences can be punished with imprisonment. In order to calculate the corresponding criminal penalty for a legal person, the CC includes a conversion mechanism (Article 41bis CC) to convert prison sentences, prescribed by law, to criminal fines to be imposed on legal entities: if a lifelong prison sentence is prescribed by the law, a legal entity faces a criminal fine of 240.000 EUR – 720.000 EUR. For other cases in which the statutory provision provides a prison sentence, the minimum fine for the legal entity is 500 EUR multiplied by the number of months prescribed as the minimum prison sentence. The criminal fine should not be lower than the minimum fine prescribed by the statutory provision for natural persons. The maximum fine for a legal person is 2.000 EUR multiplied by the number of months of the maximum prison sentence and not less than double the maximum fine provided by law for natural persons.

Bear in mind that the amounts of the fines as prescribed by law or as converted with the help of Article 41bis CC must be increased by a multiplication factor. Belgian law has provided this system to adjust the prescribed fines to the current value of money and inflation so that they retain their deterrent effect without needing to formally change the CC or the many Acts and Codes that include criminal law provisions every time. Since 1 January 2017, this multiplication factor is eight. Therefore, a 100 EUR fine is to be multiplied by eight. In the following overview, the amounts mentioned for the respective fines, are not yet multiplied. Thus, they must still be increased by multiplication factor eight.

As outlined below, other criminal penalties than imprisonment and fines, such as confiscation orders or professional bans can be imposed, subject to some conditions.

In the following sections, the constituent material and moral elements of the relevant criminal offences are briefly addressed. If one or more of these elements are not present, the offender cannot be convicted. The moral element of those offences typically consists of general or specific intent or negligence.

(IT) forgery, the use of forged documents or forged IT data (Articles 193-197, 210bis, 213 and 214 CC)

Classic forgery requires the following constituent elements:

• A written document protected by law;
• Manipulation of the truth, for instance by using a forged signature or by drawing up a false contract;
• Fraudulent intent or intent to harm;
• A (possible) prejudice.

In order to come within the scope of the offence of forgery, a document needs to impose itself on the public trust. This is the case when the government, legal persons or individuals who consult the document, are entitled to rely on the deed or the legal fact recorded in the document.

Forgery and the use of forged documents are two separate offences. Therefore, one can be guilty of forgery without actually using the forged documents or one can be guilty of the use of forged documents even if one did not forge the documents oneself.

Both the nature of the documents and the capacity of the perpetrator have an impact on the applicable sanctions. For instance, a public official risks heftier penalties when he forges a public record than a private individual who falsifies a contract. The most commonly charged forgery, falsification of a commercial or private document can in theory be punished by imprisonment from five to ten years. However, in practice, a court will for procedural reasons, accept mitigating circumstances and the punishment will be lowered to a prison sentence ranging from one month up to five years and a fine of 26 EUR – 2000 EUR. IT forgery is punishable by imprisonment of six months up to five years and/or a fine of 26 EUR – 100.000 EUR. The equivalent sanction for legal entities is a fine of 500 – 120.000 EUR, or a fine of 3000 EUR – 200.000 EUR for IT forgery.

In addition to those sanctions, confiscation can be ordered, for instance confiscation of property that constituted the object of the offence, tools to commit the offence or goods produced by the criminal offence. Moreover, financial proceeds or cost savings obtained with the help of the offence too can be subject to confiscation. Confiscation orders shall be without prejudice to any restitution or compensation that may be owed to other parties.

Other sanctions such disqualification of certain political and civil rights can be imposed.

Lastly, pursuant to Article 1 of Royal Decree No. 22 of 24 October 1934 criminal trial courts may impose a management ban on the defendant, regardless whether the defendant is a natural or legal person, for a period ranging from three to ten years.

Specific statutes such as the Belgian Social Criminal Code, tax legislation or the Royal Decree of 31 May 1933 contain specific criminal offences regarding forgery, use of forged documents.

The NCC includes classic forgery and use of forged documents, as well as IT forgery and use of false IT data in one provision of the NCC (Article 451) and allocates penalty level three to those offences. That penalty level applies to several of the key offences addressed in this section. See also Q27.

Embezzlement (Article 491 CC)

Embezzlement requires the following constituent elements:

• Precarious possession of movable property with economic value;
• Misappropriation or dissipation of that moveable property;
• A possible prejudice;
• Fraudulent intent.

The item that is embezzled by the offender must have been delivered previously to the offender spontaneously, without any deception by the offender. However, the delivery must be conditional: the offender was bound to return the item or use it for a specific purpose but has not done this. For instance instead of returning a company car at the end of one’s employment contract, the employee fraudulently sells it and pockets the proceeds of the sale.

The items eligible for such offence are, since 18 September 2023, movable property with economic value, such as IT data or money.

Embezzlement is punishable by imprisonment of one month up to five years and a fine of 26 EUR –  500 EUR. Legal entities face a fine of 500 EUR – 120.000 EUR.

Additional sanctions, such as confiscation, disqualification of certain political and civil rights and a management ban can also be imposed.

Article 475 NCC does not significantly alter the constituent elements of the offence and includes a penalty of level three. See also Q27.

Misuse of corporate assets (Article 492bis CC)

Misuse of corporate assets, comprises the following constituent elements:

• Use of the corporation’s funds or credit by one of its (de facto or de jure) directors;
• Use that is significantly detrimental to the financial interests of the corporation and those of its creditors or shareholders;
• Use for personal purposes, directly or indirectly;
• Fraudulent intent.

“Corporate funds” are not defined by law, but courts interpret this rather largely.

Natural persons, guilty of this offence, may be punished by a prison sentence of one month up to five years and a fine of 100 EUR – 500.000 EUR and may be disqualified of certain civil rights (Article 33 CC). Legal entities may be punished by a fine between 500 EUR and 1.000.000 EUR.

Additional sanctions, such as confiscation, disqualification of certain political and civil rights and a management ban can also be imposed.

Article 476 NCC does not significantly amend the constituent elements of misuse of corporate assets and includes a penalty of level three. See also Q27.

Criminal fraud (Article 496 CC)

Countless types of fraud have been and are prosecuted under this classic fraud offence. It presupposes the use of fraudulent means in order to seek to obtain an undue economic advantage.

Since 18 September 2023, this offence has been significantly broadened. Acts committed prior to that date are still subject to the previous legal provisions.

The current constituent elements of criminal fraud are:

• Seeking to obtain an undue economic advantage for themselves or for another person;
• Through fraudulent means;
• With a fraudulent intent.

The fraudulent means targeted by Article 496 CC are false names, false capacities or deceptive tricks. Those deceptive tricks are used to deceitfully gain the trust of another person, for example by using false invoices or other false documents. In a digital context, suspects can, depending on the modus operandi, also face charges under Article 504quater CC (IT fraud).

The fraudulent intent consists of the aim to appropriate another person’s property. Fraudulent intent is also established when the offender aims to obtain the advantage for a third person.

Natural persons guilty of criminal fraud can be punished by imprisonment of one month up to five years and a fine of 26 EUR – 3.000 EUR. Legal entities will be punished with fines ranging from 500 EUR – 120.000 EUR. An increased minimum sentence applies if fraud is committed against vulnerable victims.

Additional sanctions, such as confiscation, disqualification of certain political and civil rights and a management ban can also be imposed.

The impact of the NCC on the constituent elements of offences is limited and the most relevant changes relate to the applicable sanctions. The applicable penalty level is level three, or level four if the victim is a minor or a vulnerable person.

Money laundering (Article 505 CC)

Article 505 CC defines three different money laundering offences: (1) the act of buying, receiving, exchanging, possessing, keeping, or managing proceeds with an illicit origin, while the offender knew or should have known about that illicit origin; (2) the act of converting or transferring proceeds with an illicit origin, whereby the offender must have the intent to conceal the illicit nature of the proceeds or to help any person involved in the predicate offence to avoid legal consequences, and; (3) the act of concealing or disguising the nature, the origin, the location, the disposal, the movement, or the ownership of proceeds with an illicit origin, while the offender knew or should have known about this illicit origin.

The predicate offence which has generated the proceeds does not need to be proven. It suffices that the trial court excludes that they were obtained legally. The offender of the original crime cannot, subject to limited exceptions, commit the first money laundering offence. However, this restriction is abolished by the NCC.

A money laundering conviction can lead to a prison sentence of fifteen days up to five years and/or a fine of 26 EUR – 100.000 EUR for natural persons. Legal entities risk a fine between 500 EUR and 200.000 EUR.

Additional sanctions, such as confiscation, disqualification of certain political and civil rights and a management ban can also be imposed. A specific statutory confiscation regime applies to money laundering.

The NCC makes a number of amendments to the three money laundering offences and the applicable penalty level is level three, while a specific additional fine of 200 – 2000.000 EUR or whose amount may be increased to the equivalent of the value of the laundered assets.

In addition to Article 505 CC, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 18 September 2017 addresses the prevention of AML and CTF. Failure to comply with this act can result in administrative fines and in some cases criminal prosecution.

Bribery (Articles 246-252 and 504bis-504ter CC)

The Belgian Criminal Code makes a distinction between different types of bribery: passive, active, public and private bribery.

Articles 246-252 CC criminalize active and passive bribery of domestic and foreign public officials and Articles 504bis-504ter CC criminalize active and passive bribery of private persons. Active bribery means proposing, directly or through intermediaries, to a person (public or private), an offer, promise or benefit of any kind in favour of this person or a third party to have certain acts performed or to refrain from certain acts. Passive bribery is requesting, accepting or receiving, directly or through intermediaries, in favour of themselves or a third party, an offer, a promise or a benefit of any kind to perform certain acts or to refrain from performing certain acts.

The applicable sanctions vary and depend on the passive or active nature of the bribery and the public or private capacity of the targeted person.

In accordance with Article 638 NCC the applicable penalty level is penalty level three for public corruption, while Article 639 provides specific additional fines. Article 487 NCC prescribes penalty level two for private corruption.

Other relevant offences

Various other offences are relevant in a white collar context. Reference can for instance be made to:

• Tax fraud (e.g. Articles 449 and 450 Income Tax Code)
• Market abuse (Act of 2 August 2002 on the supervision of the financial sector and on financial services)
• Financial statement fraud (Article 3:44 Companies and Associations Code)
• Sanctions violations (e.g. Article 6 of the Act of 13 May 2003 implementing the restrictive measures taken by the Council of the European Union against states, certain individuals and entities)
• Bankruptcy and insolvency offences (Articles 489-490quater CC)
• Violations of the Social Criminal Code

Since 2 July 1999, legal entities can face criminal liability in Belgium. The key provision on this matter, Article 5 CC, has been amended a few times since 1999.

In principle, all offences under Belgian criminal law may give rise to the criminal liability of legal entities, provided:

• The offence is materially attributable to the legal entity;
• The offence is morally attributable to the legal entity.

Legal entities bear autonomous criminal liability, which is distinct from that of the natural persons acting on their behalf. Consequently, the criminal liability of a legal entity does not preclude the liability of natural persons. Conversely, the mere establishment of the constituent elements of an offence by directors or employees is in principle insufficient to hold the legal entity criminally liable.

For an offence to be materially attributable, it must have an intrinsic connection to the legal entity. This entails that the offence must have been committed in pursuit of the entity’s corporate purpose, in its interest, or on its behalf, as evidenced by the specific circumstances. An offence is considered to have been committed on behalf of the legal entity if the entity derives a benefit from it. Material attribution does not require that the offence was exclusively intended to benefit the legal entity or that it actually did so, nor that it caused no harm to the entity.

The moral element of the offence must also be present at the level of the legal entity. Depending on the nature of the offence, this may involve negligence, general or specific intent, or intent to participate. The offence must stem from a deliberate decision taken within the legal entity or from negligence at the entity level that is causally linked to the offence. In this regard, the policy and decisions of the entity’s governing bodies are decisive. Moral attribution may be established when the offence results from a conscious and intentional decision made within the entity’s authority structure, which may include both formal and de facto authority. It is not necessary for this authority to originate from a natural person with a formal management mandate.

When assessing the criminal liability of a legal entity, the court may consider the conduct of natural persons, as legal entities are fictitious constructs that necessarily act through individuals who legally or factually manage or represent them. For instance, if a legal entity is managed by a single natural person, the actions of that individual may be determinative of the entity’s conduct. In such cases, the court may assess the moral element of the offence at the level of the legal entity by examining the behaviour of that individual.

Certain public law legal entities—such as the State, the regions, provinces, and municipalities—may also be held criminally liable, since 30 July 2018. However, courts are not empowered to impose actual sanctions on these entities and can only decide that such legal person is guilty of the criminal offence. Nonetheless, a criminal conviction may be crucial for establishing civil liability for damages resulting from the offence.

We refer to Q1. Company directors and officers are often prosecuted along with the company, unless the company is the victim of an offence committed by a director or officer, such as embezzlement of assets belonging to the company.

In Belgium, several institutions can investigate financial crime.

The most common authorities with investigative powers are the public prosecutor’s office and investigating judges. Investigations can be led by the public prosecutor’s office, who also has the power to prosecute the offences at the criminal trial stage. However, some investigations require more far-reaching measures. In that case, an investigating judge has more extensive powers to impose such measures. This constitutes a judicial inquiry. The actual investigation will often be conducted by (specialized teams within) the police, under the direction and authority of the public prosecutor or the investigating judge. At the end of a judicial investigation a filtering mechanism, the criminal pre-trial court, decides on a suspect’s referral to a criminal trial court. No such mechanism is available if the prosecutor leads the investigation.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has investigative powers and powers to prosecute as well. It is responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU, such as the misuse of funds, money laundering, VAT fraud and corruption. The EPPO exercises the functions of the prosecutor in the competent courts of the participating EU country, such as Belgium. It is completely independent from the member states and works in the interests of the EU: it does not take instructions from anyone outside of the EPPO, including national authorities.

Not only the Belgian and European public prosecutor’s office or investigating judges are competent to carry out certain investigations. Some other authorities, enjoy certain investigative powers, such as the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA), the tax administration, the Economic Inspection and the different Social Inspection services.

Lastly, customs authorities are worth mentioning. The General Law regarding Customs and Excises of 18 July 1977 (GLCE) governs the investigation, the prosecution and the sanctions regarding customs and excises. The GLCE addresses the cooperation between the customs authorities and the EPPO. The GLCE defines certain punishable behaviours regarding customs, for example, certain forms of fraud regarding the movement or the amount/nature of goods or false documents and declarations. Investigations regarding violations of customs and excises rules are entrusted to the customs authorities.

As a general rule, financial crime is adjudicated by the criminal trial courts. At first instance, cases are heard by either a single judge or a panel of three judges. The default arrangement involves a single judge; however, where the complexity, significance, or other relevant circumstances of the case so require, the president of the court of first instance may assign the matter to a three-judge panel.

If a party contests the judgment rendered by the court of first instance, the case may be appealed before the court of appeal. In such proceedings, the case is typically heard by a panel of three judges.

Should a party wish to challenge the court of appeal’s ruling, an appeal on points of law may be lodged with the Court of Cassation.

For the principal financial offences referenced under Q1, jury trials are not used. These cases are adjudicated exclusively by professional judges at all levels of jurisdiction—namely, at first instance, on appeal, and before the Court of Cassation.

There are several avenues through which a criminal investigation may be initiated in Belgium, depending on the type of investigation involved.

A preliminary inquiry may be initiated in several ways. First, an offence may be reported by a victim or witness to the police or directly to the public prosecutor’s office. Second, the public prosecutor may initiate an investigation on their own initiative. Furthermore, another service may report suspicions of an offence to the public prosecutor’s office. The public prosecutor’s office can then open an investigation.

A judicial inquiry, led by an investigating judge, may be initiated by one of three parties. First, the (alleged) victim may file a formal complaint directly with the investigating judge (Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP)). In such cases, the investigating judge is legally required to open an investigation and has no discretion to refuse to do so. Second, the public prosecutor’s office may request the initiation of a judicial inquiry, typically when more intrusive investigative measures are required, measures for which only the investigating judge has the necessary authority. Third, an investigating judge may exceptionally  initiate an inquiry independently (Articles 28septies and 59 CCP), for instance following a request from the public prosecutor for a specific investigative act that falls outside their competence, but without a formal request for a full judicial inquiry.

Both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge may request that individuals involved in the case provide documents deemed relevant to uncovering the truth. However, suspects are in general not required to hand over documents to the authorities, yet specific statutory provisions provide powers to compel the production of documents. The public prosecutor or investigating judge may also ask third parties to produce certain documents.

During a judicial inquiry, the investigating judge is empowered to carry out far-reaching investigative measures, provided all legal conditions are met. These may include, for example, conducting searches. Documents discovered during such searches may be seized by the investigating judge or the public prosecutor’s office. Specific rules apply to privileged documents.

Specific cooperation duties are enshrined in the CCP, for instance to obtain information of financial institutions or cooperation of telecom providers or ISP’s.

The EPPO exercises its powers either by conducting its own investigations or by using its right of evocation, which means that the national authority is then no longer allowed to conduct investigations or prosecutions. To this end, the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union and the competent national authorities must report any (suspected) criminal offences to the EPPO. Specific reporting procedures exist for this purpose.

For offences punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 4 years of imprisonment, the European Delegated Prosecutors are entitled to request specific measures such as searches (art. 30 EPPO-Regulation).

The customs authorities are responsible for investigations regarding violations of customs and excises rules. Therefore, they enjoy a broad range of investigative competences. They can for instance open all kinds of boxes or all kinds of packages to verify their content and the amount and nature of the goods contained by the packages. Secretly im- or exported goods, falsely or non-declared goods, irregularly transported or saved goods or goods that have served to cover up smuggled goods can be seized by the customs authorities. Even the means of transport may be seized. The authorities may seize books, letters and other documents.

Both the public prosecutor’s office and the investigating judge can interview any suspect, victim or witness. In practice, interviews are often carried out by police officers.

The European Delegated Prosecutors are entitled to order any measure in their member state that is available to prosecutors under national law in similar national cases (art. 30 EPPO-Regulation). However, the investigative measures themselves are carried out by the Belgian investigators. Therefore, the EPPO is competent to request interviews, which will be carried out by the Belgian investigators.

Customs authorities can conduct interviews too.

Furthermore, specific services such as Social Inspection services can conduct interviews too.

Belgian law provides a number of minimum safeguards to protect individuals during questioning. These protections vary depending on the status of the person being questioned—whether they are a suspect, a witness, or a victim.

Firstly, specific information must always be communicated to the person being questioned, tailored to their legal status. Secondly, there are detailed rules governing the use of documents during interrogation, the mandatory content of the official interview record, and the procedures for reviewing and correcting that interview record. These procedural safeguards apply regardless of whether the individual is a suspect.

The most extensive protections are afforded to suspects who have been deprived of their liberty. Distinctions are also made based on the nature of the alleged offence and whether the individual is questioned as a suspect or merely as a witness.

All categories of suspects must be informed, among other things, that:

• They have the right to remain silent and are not obliged to incriminate themselves;
• All questions and answers will be recorded verbatim;
• They may consult and use any documents in their possession;
• They may request specific investigative measures;
• They are entitled to free interpretation and translation services.

If the alleged offence is not punishable by a custodial sentence, the suspect is not formally informed of his right to assistance by a lawyer. However, this right remains intact and cannot be denied.

In cases where the offence is punishable by imprisonment, the suspect must be informed of his right to a prior confidential consultation with a lawyer of his choice or one appointed to them, and of the right to be assisted by that lawyer during the interrogation. A suspect who has already been deprived of liberty is, in principle, granted a 30-minute consultation period before the interrogation begins and may interrupt the interrogation once for additional consultation.

Witnesses and victims – i.e., individuals who are not suspects – do not, in principle, have a legal right to a prior confidential meeting with a lawyer. However, they are free to arrange such a meeting independently and can be assisted by a lawyer during the interview.

Furthermore, a suspect does not have an unlimited right to be informed of the details of the offence for which they are being questioned. They are entitled to be informed of the nature, location, and time of the alleged offence, but not to broader access to the case file.

As a general rule, interrogations are transcribed in writing. Audiovisual recordings are not routinely made.

Belgian courts have jurisdiction to prosecute criminal offences that took place wholly or even partially on Belgian territory. An offence is considered to have been committed on Belgian territory if at least one of its material constituent elements can be located in Belgium.

However, certain offences, even if committed abroad, can be brought before Belgian courts if certain conditions, prescribed by Articles 6 – 14/15 of the Preliminary Title of the CCP, are met. For example, according to Article 7 of the Preliminary Title any person who commits a criminal offence of a legal entity with its registered office in Belgium may be prosecuted in Belgium, provided, at least if the offence is committed in peacetime, the Belgian or foreign suspect can be found in Belgium.

The European Union has established several regulatory frameworks enabling member states to cooperate in matters of extradition, evidence collection, and the seizure or confiscation of assets, as well as the execution of convictions. Each of these activities is governed by specific legal provisions.

In addition to the EU, the Council of Europe has also developed frameworks to facilitate cooperation with foreign authorities. Furthermore, numerous bilateral and multilateral treaties exist between Belgium and states that are not members of either the EU or the Council of Europe.

Belgium does not permit extradition in the absence of a legal basis, such as a bilateral or multilateral treaty. Within the EU, such a basis is provided by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA concerning the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between EU member states. As a member of the Council of Europe, Belgium is also party to the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957, which outlines the rules applicable to extradition among its member states. As previously noted, multilateral and bilateral treaties further establish the legal framework for extradition between Belgium and other countries.

Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the European Investigation Order in criminal matters provides a legal framework for the collection of evidence during investigations. The Council of Europe has also adopted several legal instruments concerning evidence collection, which have been incorporated into Belgian law. Belgium is party to various other agreements and treaties with third countries concerning mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Examples of investigative cooperation include the exchange of financial data, surveillance across borders, and cross-border pursuits.

With regard to the seizure and confiscation of assets, a distinction must be drawn between cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with non-EU Member States. In the context of the EU, the applicable legal instruments include Directive 2014/42/EU on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime, as well as Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

In contrast, cooperation with states outside the EU requires the existence of bilateral or multilateral treaties.

Additionally, various legal instruments govern the enforcement of sanctions imposed by one state and executed in another, as well as the supervision of such enforcement.

As previously mentioned, investigations may also be conducted within Belgian territory under the authority of the EPPO.

In the Belgian legal system, legal professional privilege is a cornerstone of the confidentiality between attorneys and their clients. This privilege ensures that any communication or documentation exchanged for the purpose of legal advice remains protected from access, duplication, or seizure by third parties, including judicial authorities. Only the intended recipient(s) may consult such materials.

When the privileged status of certain documents is contested, they are typically placed under seal upon seizure. A subsequent review, conducted in the presence of a representative from the Bar Association, determines whether the contents fall within the scope of legal professional privilege.

Any breach of legal professional privilege constitutes a criminal offence under Article 458 CC, underscoring the seriousness with which such violations are treated.

Specific protection is offered to advice, requests for advice and preparatory documents of in-house lawyers.

Both types of judicial investigation, the preliminary and the judicial inquiry, are secret. Therefore, the criminal files can only be consulted with the authorization of the public prosecutor’s office or the investigating judge. Article 460ter CC even states, in the context of abuse of access to a criminal case file that intentionally disclosing information from a criminal case file to the detriment of one of the persons concerned is punishable.

Furthermore, data requests can be made in accordance with the CCP, for instance by a suspect.

The public prosecutor’s office is permitted to disclose information from a criminal file only when such disclosure is required by the public interest and is carried out with full respect for the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, individual privacy, and human dignity. Wherever possible, the identities of individuals named in the file must remain confidential.

Article 20 of the Preliminary Title of the CCP prescribes that the criminal proceedings expire when the offender passes away. A legal entity may “pass away” through various mechanisms, such as the closing of a liquidation, judicial dissolution, or dissolution without liquidation, such as a merger or an acquisition.

However, the termination of legal personality does not automatically preclude the continuation of criminal proceedings as some exceptions are foreseen. Prosecution may still be pursued if the liquidation, judicial dissolution, or dissolution without liquidation was intended to evade criminal liability, or if the investigating judge has already charged the legal entity, if the pre-trial courts have already referred the case to the criminal trial court, or if the legal entity has already been directly summoned to appear in criminal trial court, prior to the loss of its legal personality. In case of those exceptions, the criminal proceedings can still be pursued.

In case of a partial acquisition, the criminal liability for offences that have been committed prior to that acquisition remain in principle with the initial offender.

The public prosecutor’s office has a certain discretionary authority in case of preliminary inquiries. It can decide not to prosecute for several reasons:

• Insufficient evidence;
• Statute of limitations;
• Death of suspect;
• Prosecution is not opportune;
• …

The public prosecutor’s office will, for example, take into account the National Security Plan, which was validated by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Internal Affairs. This Plan determines for which offences prosecution is a priority on national level. Further, each territory of a public prosecutor’s office has determined prosecutorial priorities, bearing in mind the available resources (amongst others).

A decision not to prosecute can be revoked by the prosecutor’s office, for instance if the same suspect is suspected of new offences or if new evidence comes to light.

The public prosecutor’s office can also decide to initiate criminal mediation, seek a criminal settlement or to request an investigating judge to initiate a judicial inquiry.

An investigating judge, on the other hand, is obliged to conduct a judicial investigation when requested to do so. The case must then be referred to the pre-trial courts, which examine whether there are sufficient indications of guilt to refer the case to a criminal trial court for the facts listed in the prosecutor’s written requisition. The criminal pre-trial court has also other competences, for instance in the context of pre-trial detention, or with regards to a criminal settlement in a judicial investigation.

In Belgium, the evidential standard in criminal matters is the beyond any reasonable doubt standard.

The statute of limitations period depends on the nature of the criminal offence. In Belgium, a distinction is, until the entry into force of the NCC, made between three types of offences, depending on their “seriousness”: infractions, misdemeanours and crimes. The type of offence, and for crimes the possible sanctions, will determine the expiry of the statute of limitations:

• Infractions expire after one year;
• Misdemeanours expire after ten years;
• Crimes that could lead to minimum 5 years and maximum 20 years of imprisonment expire after 15 years;
• Crimes that could lead to maximum 30 years of imprisonment expire after 20 years;
• Crimes that could lead to life imprisonment expire after 30 years.

Moreover, certain offences cannot be time-barred, albeit offences like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and certain serious sexual or violent crimes.

Where several offences constitute the successive and continued execution of the same criminal intent, the limitation period shall commence from the last proven act, provided that no period equal to or longer than the limitation period has elapsed between the various acts.

In principle, the statute of limitations period runs continuously. However, it is possible that this period is suspended. This means that the running statute of limitations period (temporarily) stops due to the impossibility to continue the criminal proceedings.

Since a legal amendment in 2024, there is no longer an interruption mechanism, which in the past triggered a new statutory period within which the criminal offence could be prosecuted.

Once the case is brought before the criminal trial court, it can no longer be time-barred.

Article 216bis CCP provides that the prosecution of offences may be terminated through a criminal settlement: the suspect pays a lump sum, as well as the relevant costs, and provided the statutory conditions are met, the criminal proceedings lapse. However, this is only possible under certain conditions:

• The offence does not appear to be of such a nature that it requires a prison sentence of more than two years, and there was no serious impairment of physical integrity;
• The criminal trial court has not yet delivered its final judgment at first instance;
• The suspect has acknowledged in writing his civil liability for the damage caused by the offence;
• The uncontested part of the damage has been compensated by the suspect;
• In the case of a tax or social offence, the suspect has paid the taxes or social security contributions due, and the tax or social security administration has approved the settlement.

If all these conditions are met, the public prosecutor’s office may propose that the suspect pay a lump sum to avoid a conviction by the criminal court. In addition, the public prosecutor’s office may require confiscation or relinquishment of proceeds or a professional ban for certain offences. The amount of the lump sum is also subject to specific conditions, depending on the applicable penalties for the offence committed.

Judicial approval is required if the criminal settlement is concluded during a judicial investigation or during the criminal trial stage.

Specific rules apply to settlements with the customs authorities.

Several statutes provide the possibility to pursue an administrative (sanction) track instead of criminal proceedings.

Article 216 CCP provides an option for offenders to admit their guilt in exchange for a certain sentence, agreed upon in advance. This is only possible when certain conditions are met:

• The offence does not appear to be of such a nature that it requires a prison sentence of more than five years;
• The suspect acknowledges in writing his guilt in the facts of the charges against him;
• The offence does not fall within the list in article 216, §1, al. 3 of offences not eligible for plea bargaining;
• In case of a judicial inquiry, the public prosecutor’s office has asked the binding advice of the investigating judge
• The damage has been completely compensated, or the suspect has acknowledged his civil liability in writing and the uncontested part of the damage has been compensated;
• In the case of a tax or social offence, the suspect has paid the taxes or social security contributions due, and the tax or social security administration has approved the settlement.

The agreement is only valid if approved by a judicial body, depending on the stage of the criminal proceedings: either the pre-trial courts or the correctional courts.

In exchange for the admission of guilt by the suspect, the public prosecutor’s office can propose either a lower penalty than it would have claimed if the offender had not agreed to admit his guilt or a suspended (wholly or partly) penalty, potentially subject to certain conditions.

Article 29 CCP stipulates a reporting duty for public officials who become aware of an offence during their official duties.

Article 30 CCP requires, yet no criminal sanction applies in case of non-compliance, witnesses to inform the prosecutor of attacks against public safety, one’s live or property.

Specific statutes, such as the AML legislation include a notification duty.

Belgian law does not explicitly grant, at least not a generally applicable, formal advantage to individuals or legal entities that voluntarily disclose offences they have committed. While such cooperation may be taken into account during sentencing, there is no codified incentive for self-reporting, except for specific exceptions. Such as specific exception is for instance available in specific public procurement fraud cases (Article 314 CC).

However, there is a provision that provides a possible advantage for offenders to cooperate and become a key witness.  To this end, such suspects or participants must make substantial, revealing, sincere and complete statements about the involvement of third parties and, where applicable, about their own involvement. Furthermore, the offences in question must be serious offences that are exhaustively listed in the law. This regime also applies to legal entities. In exchange, the public prosecutor’s office may offer certain concessions, such as a reduced sentence. This regime is governed by Article 216/1-216/14 CCP.

As described under Q1, the law provides a minimum and maximum sentence for every offence. This leaves a margin of appreciation to the courts as the lower and upper limits are often far apart.

Courts can take mitigating circumstances into account during sentencing. They can take everything into account they consider relevant, such as the lack of past convictions or co-operation with authorities during the investigation. Mitigating circumstances are commonly used. In a number of cases this is done for procedural reasons, such as avoiding jury trials.

In addition to mitigating circumstances, other rules too can result in a reduced sentence. For instance, if courts find that the person has not been tried within a reasonable time, this can lead to a sentence reduction, a simple finding of guilt or a sentence below the statutory minimum sentence. A person’s precarious financial situation can also result in a lower fine than the statutory minimum fine. Regarding confiscation, courts can reduce the extent of the confiscation in order to avoid unreasonably severe penalties. Specific rules apply in the context of confiscation in money laundering prosecutions.

Other mechanisms, such as rules on repeat-offending or aggravating circumstances may increase the applicable penalties.

Since 4 August 2025, Article 7 CC explicitly outlines the sentencing goals judges should consider:

• Expressing society’s disapproval of the violation of criminal law;
• Promoting the restoration of social balance and the repair of the damage caused by the offence;
• Promoting the social rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender;
• Protecting society.

Furthermore, that provision requires courts to seek a fair balance between the offence and the sentence.  The courts are required to consider not only the sentencing goals, but also the undesirable side effects of the punishment on the persons directly involved, their surroundings and society.

While there is no general “adequate procedures” defence, a clear and effectively implemented compliance policy can be helpful to challenge corporate criminal liability. Furthermore, such compliance procedure can, if the corporation is found guilty, be considered during sentencing as a mitigating circumstance.

Offences listed under Q1 will often give rise to a fine for natural persons. A (suspended) prison sentence can be added to such fine. They also risk additional sentences such as confiscation, including the proceeds of the offence, a management ban or the disqualification of civil rights. Offenders can request the courts to impose community service in order to avoid a prison sentence. In complex white collar cases the proceedings might not be concluded within a reasonable time. This can and often does result in lower sentences.

Legal entities usually face a fine, possibly combined with a confiscation order. They also risk a prohibition from carrying out activities part of their object or a closure of (one of) their establishments and they can face a management ban.

A number of criminal cases are settled, for instance by means of a criminal settlement or mediation in criminal matters.

The NCC will introduce new sentences, such as community service for legal persons or an additional monetary fine (Article 55 NCC). That specific fine will be determined on the basis of the benefit that the offender gained or hoped to gain from the offence, if the offence was committed in order to obtain (directly or indirectly) a pecuniary gain. This sentence is imposed when the courts consider that a classic additional fine is not sufficient to achieve an adequate punishment. In such a case, the criminal judge may sentence each of the perpetrators to pay an amount equal to a maximum of three times the value of the pecuniary gain that the perpetrator(s) obtained or hoped to obtain (in)directly from the criminal offence. This sentence may be imposed in addition to confiscation. Practice will show how often courts will impose such a fine, also in light of their duty to seek a fair proportional balance between the offence and the sentence.

The different parties to the criminal proceedings can file an appeal within a set period of time. However, the victim can only appeal the part of the judgment regarding the civil liability, while the defendant can file an appeal regarding the criminal law aspects and the civil liability. The defendant is not obliged to appeal against the entire judgment but may limit his appeal to certain aspects of it.

To file an appeal, one must clearly specify which parts of the judgment are being challenged. This delineation determines the scope of the appeal, as other aspects of the judgment will become final and binding, subject to the scope of the appeal of other parties.

An appeal against the first judgment will, in most cases, bring the matter before the court of appeal. An appeal on points of law can be filed against the appellate judgment. That appeal is handled by the Court of Cassation.

Under certain conditions a party who was judged in absentia can ask for a new trial.

Financial crime is actively prosecuted, yet authorities regularly point out that they lack the required resources, including manpower to do so effectively. Furthermore, other areas of crime, require significant resources, which has an impact on the availability of resources. For instance, in 2025 the EPPO publicly stated that the lack of investigators caused significant delays in the Belgian cases handled by the EPPO. Other enforcement mechanisms, such as administrative fines should not be overlooked.

Several trends are noteworthy. Social fraud receives attention of the different inspection services and the prosecuting authorities. The Social Criminal Code has undergone reform in 2024 to combat social fraud more effectively. Moreover, a significant number of investigations into corruptions have been launched in the last five years, involving allegations of corruption of EU officials. Cybercrime too is and remains highly relevant. EPPO investigations are also on the rise as 30 investigations have been opened in 2024. Furthermore, violations of for instance EU sanctions, as well as AML/CTF remain areas of focus. Environmental crime prosecutions are also an area of focus and Belgium has included ecocide in the NCC which should enter into force in 2026.

A number of high profile white collar crime cases are ongoing, such as investigations into allegations of corruption involving EU officials, and have been handled in the past year. For instance one of the criminal trial courts has ruled on an international bribery case. In that case the prosecutor’s office has meanwhile appealed the ruling of the criminal trial court that had declared the criminal proceedings inadmissible on procedural grounds.

The adoption of the Private Investigations Act, which entered into force on 16 December 2024 is noteworthy as it significantly impacts private investigations.

Given its importance, we focus only on the New Criminal Code (NCC) here.

The NCC has been adopted in 2024 and is expected to enter into force on 8 April 2026, unless the entry into force is postponed by the legislator.

The general aim of the NCC is to make Belgian criminal law more accurate, more coherent and to simplify it.

Book I of the NCC contains the general rules of criminal law, such as the rules relating to the material and moral elements of the criminal offence, perpetrators and criminal participation, criminal attempt and the various penalties. A number of provisions in Book I are familiar because they correspond to some extent to provisions in the CC or are a codification of case law. Nevertheless, modifications or simplifications have also been made to existing concepts.

A number of concepts have already been amended recently and will not be thoroughly reformed by the NCC. An example is the provision on criminal liability of legal persons.

On the other hand, other provisions and concepts have indeed been revised. A first example is the abolition of the classical distinction between crimes, misdemeanours and infractions. In the new code, the term “criminal offence” will be used. This will, among other things, put an end to the current technique whereby a reduction of a crime to a misdemeanour takes place in order to allow the regular criminal  trial courts to handle cases and to limit jury trials to a limited list of offences.

A very relevant provision is article 7 NCC. That provision addresses the moral element of criminal offences. As a minimum, the moral element requires the perpetrator to act knowingly and voluntarily. This provision further clarifies that the law may impose additional requirements for the moral element to be established. Not only are general and specific intent discussed further in that provision, but the moral element of unintentional criminal offences is also explained. With regard to the latter offences, there is an explicit reference to serious fault. This is defined as serious negligence or lack of caution. Currently, the lightest fault still suffices for i.e. involuntary manslaughter and involuntary assault and battery, but the NCC raises the bar. Thus, for a number of criminal offences, the unity of criminal and civil fault will come to an end. Nevertheless, specific statutory provisions can still criminalise simple negligence or lack of caution in accordance with article 78 NCC.

Another relevant innovation is the extension of criminal attempt to all intentional offences. At present, attempts to commit a crime are punishable, but attempts to commit a misdemeanour are not punishable unless the law so provides. As a result, an attempt to commit fraud is punishable, but an attempted embezzlement is not. This distinction will therefore disappear, yet specific rules apply with regards to offences included in other statutory provisions than the NCC.

The rules regarding perpetrators and criminal participation have also been updated. The NCC defines various forms of participation. For example, a natural or legal person who knowingly and intentionally contributes significantly to a criminal offence is punishable if he or she fails to act and thereby directly promotes or facilitates the commission of the offence. The new regime abolishes the distinction between co-perpetrators and accomplices and allows participants to be punished as perpetrators.

Another innovation concerns the sentences applicable to natural and legal persons. For the sake of clarity and consistency of criminal sentences, a scale of principal sentences, divided into 8 penalty levels, will be introduced. With regard to legal persons, the old fine conversion mechanism enshrined in article 41bis CC will be replaced by separate penalty levels for legal persons. As a result, the penalties for natural persons no longer need to be converted in order to know which penalty is applicable to legal persons. For example, for a natural person, penalty level three is a prison sentence of more than three years up to a maximum of five years, or a treatment during deprivation of liberty of more than two years up to a maximum of four years. For legal persons, penalty level three corresponds to a fine of more than 360.000 EUR up to a maximum of 600.000 EUR.

By applying mitigating circumstances, it will still be possible to reduce the sentence to a lower penalty level. For example, courts can impose a sentence of penalty level one or two if they adopt mitigating circumstances with regards to an offence such as embezzlement which carries a sentence of level three. In addition, the judge may not impose a prison sentence for criminal offences punishable by a principal sentence of level one. For legal persons, the possibility of imposing a community service sentence will be introduced, an equivalent of the community service for natural persons.

The NCC also provides for a number of optional or mandatory additional sentences, such as an additional fine or confiscation, a prohibition on exercising a profession or the closure of an establishment. Courts may impose an additional monetary fine as discussed under Q22.

When the new legislation comes into force, the fine multiplicator will be set at zero so that, at least temporarily, pecuniary penalties under the NCC will not have to be multiplied by eight, as is currently the case.

Important for business criminal law are the rules governing the relationship between Book I and the extensive specific criminal offences incorporated in provisions other than the NCC. Unless otherwise provided, the provisions of Book I apply to the offences criminalised in other statutes. The NCC also introduces a conversion mechanism. This will be used for the conversion and determination of the penalty when the specific legislation does not use penalties of level one – eight. This could include, for example, the Code of Economic Law or the Social Criminal Code.

Book II NCC contains the criminal offences related to the violation of the most important values and legal assets of society. Therefore, according to the legislator, it largely reflects the values and norms worthy of protection in our society. The reform includes, among other things, the depenalisation or decriminalisation of certain offences, the introduction of new offences, the adjustment of penalties for certain offences or the amendment of criminal provisions in order to form a coherent whole in the NCC and/or to better reflect reality.

One such newcomer is ecocide, which was already briefly mentioned. Ecocide is defined by Article 94 NCC as the intentional commission of an unlawful act, by act or omission, that causes serious, widespread and long-lasting damage to the environment. Intent is required, as well as knowledge on the part of the natural or legal person that the act would cause such damage to the environment. For the purposes of this new criminal offence, the concepts of environment, serious, widespread and long-lasting damage are enshrined in law. To qualify as ecocide, the damage must, among other things, (i) be irreversible or not capable of being restored by natural regeneration within a reasonable time (long-lasting) and (ii) extend beyond a limited geographical area (large). In addition, the act is only punishable under Belgian law if it relates to a violation of federal or international law or if the act cannot be located in Belgium. The competence of the regions in the field of environmental protection thus severely limits the scope of the offence.

Another new offence is concealment of evidence. This offence includes the destruction, concealment or removal from investigation of objects on or with which the offence has been committed, or other traces of the offence or objects that could be used to establish the truth. The required moral element is the intent to cover up a crime committed by a third party or to prevent or hinder its detection, prosecution or punishment.

Other existing offences are modified. For example, the provision on bid rigging has been redrafted and expanded. The new criminal offence is defined as follows: Obstruction or interference of the freedom of auction or registration is the fraudulent or with intent to harm artificial restriction of the call for competition or the distortion of normal conditions of competition, by force, threat or any other fraudulent mean, in the allocation of rights to movable or immovable property, a contract, a supply, an exploitation or any service, or in the award of a public contract or a concession. With regard to insolvency offences, it is noteworthy that several offences  – currently punishable by imprisonment – will be reduced to category 1. The provisions on money laundering will also amended once again.

While there is room for improvement in the financial crime legal framework, the most important challenge is ensuring that sufficient resources, including manpower, are available to handle financial crime effectively and within a reasonable time.