The core financial crime offences are set out in the new BCC (for older facts, the old BCC) and in special legislation. The offences below apply to companies and individuals alike, subject to the corporate liability rules described in question 2.

Fraud (Art. 496 old BCC / Art. 479 new BCC)

Fraud is committed where a person seeks to obtain an undue economic advantage for themselves or for a third party by means of fraudulent conduct (such as the use of a false name, false capacity or other deceitful tricks) and acts with fraudulent intent.

Under the new BCC, fraud no longer requires an actual transfer or delivery of assets. The mere intent to obtain an unlawful economic advantage through fraudulent conduct may now suffice.

Under the old BCC, fraud is punishable by imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and/or a fine between EUR 26 and EUR 3,000 for natural persons, while legal entities may be fined between EUR 500 and EUR 120,000. Under the new BCC, fraud is classified as a level 3 offence.

Abuse of Trust (Art. 491 et seq. old BCC / Art. 475 new BCC)

Abuse of trust consists of the fraudulent appropriation or dissipation, to the detriment of another person, of movable property with economic value that was entrusted to the offender under an obligation to return it or to use or apply it for a specific purpose.

The new BCC expands the offence to cover any asset with economic value, including intangible assets such as software, databases and proprietary information.

Under the old BCC, abuse of trust is punishable by imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and/or a fine between EUR 26 and EUR 500 for natural persons, while legal entities may be fined between EUR 500 and EUR 120,000. Under the new BCC, abuse of trust is classified as a level 3 offence.

Forgery and the Use of Forged Documents (Art. 193 old BCC / Art. 451 new BCC)

Forgery occurs where a legally protected written document is altered or created in a manner that distorts the truth, with fraudulent intent or an intent to cause harm, and where such conduct is capable of causing prejudice. The document must be one that commands public trust.

Forgery and the use of forged documents are separate offences: a person may be convicted of one without the other.

Under the old BCC, forgery of commercial or private documents may in theory be punished by imprisonment of five to ten years, although in practice courts routinely accept mitigating circumstances and impose imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and/or a fine between EUR 26 and EUR 2,000 for natural persons, while legal entities may be fined between EUR 500 and EUR 120,000. Under the new BCC, forgery of commercial or private documents is classified as a level 3 offence.

Abuse of Corporate Assets (Art. 492bis old BCC / Art. 476 new BCC)

Abuse of corporate assets arises where a director of a legal entity intentionally uses the assets of the company, directly or indirectly for personal purposes or for the benefit of a third party, while knowing that such use is significantly detrimental to the financial interests of the company, its creditors or its shareholders.

Under the old BCC, abuse of corporate assets is punishable by imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and/or a fine between EUR 100 and EUR 500,000 for natural persons, while legal entities may be fined between EUR 500 and EUR 1 million. Under the new BCC, abuse of corporate assets is classified as a level 3 offence.

Bankruptcy-Related Criminal Offences (Art. 489 – 490quater old BCC / Art. 489 – 495 new BCC)

Belgian law recognises various bankruptcy-related offences aimed at protecting creditors and the integrity of insolvency proceedings. These offences typically target directors who, in the context of insolvency or bankruptcy, engage in fraudulent or seriously negligent conduct, such as misappropriation of assets, falsification of accounts or unlawful preferential treatment of creditors. Sanctions vary depending on the offence.

Public Bribery (Art. 246 et seq. old BCC and Art. 638 new BCC)

Public bribery concerns domestic and foreign public officials, irrespective of whether the bribery is active or passive.

Under the old BCC, public bribery is punishable by imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and/or a fine between EUR 100 and EUR 100,000 for natural persons, and a fine between EUR 3,000 and EUR 200,000 for legal entities. Under the new BCC, public bribery is classified as a level 3 offence (see question 1.6). Under both the old and the new BCC, several aggravating circumstances apply to bribery offences, e.g. where the offence involves a foreign public official.

Private Bribery (Art. 504bis old BCC and Art. 487 new BCC)

Private bribery concerns private-sector actors and applies irrespective of whether the bribery is active or passive.

Under the old BCC, private bribery is punishable by imprisonment ranging from six months to two years and/or a fine between EUR 100 and EUR 100,000 for natural persons, while legal entities may be fined between EUR 3,000 and EUR 200,000. Under the new BCC, private bribery is classified as a sentencing level 2 offence.

Insider Dealing

Insider dealing is criminalised under Article 40 of the Act of 2 August 2002 on the supervision of the financial sector and on financial services. The offence is committed where a person possesses inside information and knowingly and willingly uses that information by acquiring or disposing of financial instruments to which the information relates, for their own account or for a third party, directly or indirectly. Inducing or encouraging another person to engage in insider dealing is a separate criminal offence.

Sanctions include imprisonment from three months to four years and/or a fine of EUR 50 to EUR 10,000 for natural persons, and fines from EUR 1,500 to EUR 96,000 for legal entities. In addition, courts may order payment of up to three times the financial benefit obtained from the offence.

Market Abuse (Market Manipulation)

Market abuse is criminalised by Article 39 of the Act of 2 August 2002. It covers conduct such as transactions, trading orders or other behaviour that give or are likely to give false or misleading signals as to the supply, demand or price of a financial instrument, or that secure or are likely to secure prices at an abnormal or artificial level. Conduct carried out for legitimate reasons and in accordance with accepted market practices does not constitute an offence.

Market abuse is punishable by imprisonment from one month to four years and/or a fine of EUR 300 to EUR 10,000 for natural persons, and fines from EUR 500 to EUR 48,000 for legal entities. The offender may also be ordered to disgorge up to three times the financial benefit derived from the abuse.

Illicit Banking Activities

The unlawful provision of credit institution services is criminalised by Article 348 of the Banking Act of 25 April 2014. The offence consists of carrying out credit institution activities without the required prior authorisation.

Sanctions include imprisonment from one month to one year and/or a fine of EUR 50 to EUR 10,000 for natural persons, and fines from EUR 500 to EUR 24,000 for legal entities.

Tax Fraud

Tax fraud is categorised into ordinary tax fraud and serious tax fraud. Ordinary tax fraud involves deliberate violations of tax regulations, such as failing to declare income. Sanctions include imprisonment ranging from 8 days to 2 years and/or a fine between EUR 250 and EUR 500,000.

In the case of serious tax fraud, which often features organized criminal activity, penalties include sentences of up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine between EUR 250 and EUR 500,000, both are punishable under Article 449 of the Income Tax Code (WIB).

In addition, Belgium has implemented preventive measures against tax evasion, including mandatory annual tax declarations under Article 305 WIB, anti-abuse provisions under Articles 344 and 344/1 WIB, and reporting obligations such as DAC6 disclosures for cross-border tax arrangements.

Money Laundering

Money laundering offences are criminalized under Article 505 of the BCC. There are three main offences:

• The first offence involves anyone who buys, exchanges, receives free of charge, possesses, keeps or manages assets, while knowing, or having a duty to know, at the time of starting these actions what the criminal origin of those assets is;
• The second offence consists of anyone who converts or transfers assets with the intention of concealing or disguising their illegal origin, or of helping a person involved in the offense from which those assets originate to evade the legal consequences of their acts;
• The third offence refers to anyone who conceals or disguises the nature, origin, location, disposition, movement or ownership of the assets, or having a duty to know, at the time of starting these actions that those assets have a criminal origin.

Belgian law imposes a specific obligation to prevent money laundering, as stipulated in the Act of 18 September 2017, on the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing. Failure to comply with this obligation may result in criminal, administrative, or civil penalties. The Financial Intelligence Processing Unit (CFI) is the competent authority responsible for receiving and forwarding suspicious transactions to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The penalties for money laundering offences include imprisonment ranging from 15 days to 5 years and fines between EUR 26 and EUR 100,000.

Article 502 of the new BCC imposes a punishment of sentencing level 3.

Under Belgian law, a legal entity may incur criminal liability where the offence is intrinsically linked to its corporate object or interests, or was committed on its behalf. From 2026, the new BCC has replaced the former reference to the “corporate purpose” with the notion of “corporate object”, expressly referring to the entity’s actual activities. Liability is autonomous and requires establishing the mental element at the level of the legal entity, which may be inferred from organizational failures, lack of supervision, or intent or negligence attributable to its governing bodies.

Belgian law allows for the cumulative prosecution and conviction of legal entities and natural persons for the same offence. There is no statutory hierarchy between prosecuting companies, individuals, or both; prosecutors assess factors such as personal involvement, organizational failure, the benefit obtained and deterrence considerations. Managers and directors are not automatically criminally liable solely because a legal entity is convicted, and the constituent elements of the offence must be independently established for each individual. For unintentional offences committed before 30 July 2018, only the party whose conduct constitutes the most serious fault may ultimately be convicted.

Belgian law does not attach criminal liability to the corporate mandate as such. A director or officer is only punishable where the material and mental elements of an offence are established in their own person, either as the individual who committed the offence or as a participant who knowingly and meaningfully contributed to it. A conviction of the company therefore never automatically entails a conviction of its management, and vice versa (see question 2).

Within that framework, prosecutions of directors typically concern offences committed in the management of the company: forgery and the use of forged documents, fraud, abuse of trust, abuse of corporate assets, and money laundering. Where the company runs into financial difficulty, the bankruptcy-related offences come into play, misappropriation of assets, falsification of the accounts, unlawful preferential treatment of creditors and the failure to file for bankruptcy within the statutory one-month period.

Furthermore, under the Belgian Code of Companies and Associations (“BCCA”), the failure to keep statutory accounting records or to file the annual accounts with the National Bank of Belgium is criminally sanctioned, with heavier penalties where fraudulent intent is established (Article 3:43 BCCA)

Criminal procedure

In Belgium, the Public Prosecutor’s Office bears the overall responsibility for the prosecution of criminal offences. Belgian criminal procedure distinguishes between a preliminary investigation, conducted under the authority of the Public Prosecutor using measures not requiring prior judicial authorisation, and a judicial investigation, conducted under the supervision of an investigating judge with broader coercive powers, including searches, seizures and special investigative techniques. A judicial investigation is typically ordered in complex cases or where intrusive measures are required, and is mandatory when a complaint with civil party status is filed directly before the investigating judge.

Prosecutors exercise discretion in deciding whether to prosecute, settle or dismiss cases. Investigations are carried out by the police, including specialised units dealing with economic and financial crime. At federal level, the Federal Judicial Police plays a central role in large-scale or cross-border white-collar cases, and includes a dedicated Central Anti-Corruption Office. Belgium does not have separate criminal courts exclusively dedicated to white-collar crime.

Civil and Administrative Enforcement

In addition to criminal enforcement, certain white-collar offences may also give rise to administrative or civil enforcement by sector-specific authorities, such as the FSMA or the National Bank of Belgium for financial misconduct, the Belgian Competition Authority for competition law infringements, and the Belgian Data Protection Authority for data protection breaches. These authorities may impose administrative sanctions independently of criminal proceedings. Where the same facts give rise to both criminal and administrative proceedings, Belgian law requires compliance with the ne bis in idem principle, meaning that a person may not be sanctioned twice for the same facts where the sanctions are criminal in nature, and enforcement must be coordinated to avoid duplication.

Criminal procedure

In Belgium, the Public Prosecutor’s Office bears the overall responsibility for the prosecution of criminal offences. Belgian criminal procedure distinguishes between a preliminary investigation, conducted under the authority of the Public Prosecutor using measures not requiring prior judicial authorisation, and a judicial investigation, conducted under the supervision of an investigating judge with broader coercive powers, including searches, seizures and special investigative techniques. A judicial investigation is typically ordered in complex cases or where intrusive measures are required, and is mandatory when a complaint with civil party status is filed directly before the investigating judge.

Prosecutors exercise discretion in deciding whether to prosecute, settle or dismiss cases. Investigations are carried out by the police, including specialised units dealing with economic and financial crime. At federal level, the Federal Judicial Police plays a central role in large-scale or cross-border white-collar cases, and includes a dedicated Central Anti-Corruption Office. Belgium does not have separate criminal courts exclusively dedicated to white-collar crime.

Civil and Administrative Enforcement

In addition to criminal enforcement, certain white-collar offences may also give rise to administrative or civil enforcement by sector-specific authorities, such as the FSMA or the National Bank of Belgium for financial misconduct, the Belgian Competition Authority for competition law infringements, and the Belgian Data Protection Authority for data protection breaches. These authorities may impose administrative sanctions independently of criminal proceedings. Where the same facts give rise to both criminal and administrative proceedings, Belgian law requires compliance with the ne bis in idem principle, meaning that a person may not be sanctioned twice for the same facts where the sanctions are criminal in nature, and enforcement must be coordinated to avoid duplication.

A criminal investigation takes one of two forms. A preliminary investigation is led by the public prosecutor and may be opened following a complaint or report, information received from supervisory authorities or the Financial Intelligence Processing Unit (CTIF-CFI), or on the prosecutor’s own motion. A judicial investigation is led by an investigating judge and is opened either upon application by the prosecutor, where measures beyond the prosecutor’s powers are required, or upon a complaint with civil-party status filed by a victim directly before the investigating judge, who is then obliged to open an investigation.

Searches of business premises occur frequently in financial cases. Searching premises and seizing documents or electronic data in principle requires a warrant from an investigating judge. The authorities may also invite companies and third parties to produce material voluntarily, and certain regulated entities, including financial institutions and telecommunications operators, are subject to binding disclosure obligations under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assets, including bank accounts and crypto-assets, may be traced, frozen and seized during the investigation. These powers are limited by the privilege against self-incrimination and by legal professional privilege (see question 11).

Interviews may be conducted at every stage of the proceedings. The power to question lies with the public prosecutor’s office and, in a judicial investigation, with the investigating judge, although the actual questioning of suspects, victims and witnesses is in most cases delegated to the police.

Witnesses can be summoned and are in principle required to appear. Suspects can be invited or, within the limits of the law, arrested and interviewed, but they cannot be compelled to answer: the privilege against self-incrimination applies in full.

Belgian law distinguishes four categories of interviewees, with rights granted incrementally according to the vulnerability of the person and the seriousness of the facts:

• Category I: persons not accused of any offence (witnesses and injured parties);
• Category II: suspects who are not deprived of their liberty, interviewed about an offence for which no custodial sentence can be imposed (minor offences);
• Category III: suspects who are not deprived of their liberty, interviewed about an offence punishable by a custodial sentence, subdivided according to whether they received a written invitation stating the facts and their basic rights (IIIa) or not (IIIb);
• Category IV: suspects who are deprived of their liberty.

The category determines the scope of the right to a prior confidential consultation with a lawyer and to assistance during the interview (see question 8).

Right to silence

A suspect has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves or to cooperate actively with the investigation, a guarantee flowing from the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Silence cannot in itself establish guilt and no formal adverse-inference regime exists.

Right to information

Before the interview begins, the interviewee must be informed concisely of the facts the interview will concern. A suspect is additionally informed of their rights: the right to silence, the fact that their statements may be used in evidence and, where they are not under arrest, that they are free to leave at any time.

Prohibition of coercion

Interviewing under duress, threat or deception is prohibited; statements so obtained may not in principle be used in evidence against the interviewee.

Right to a lawyer

All suspects are in principle entitled to a prior confidential consultation with a lawyer and to assistance by a lawyer during the interview, following the categories described in question 7. Where the suspect is deprived of liberty, the authorities must actively organise the consultation before the first interview through an on-call system of the bars; a suspect without counsel is put in contact with one. Suspects at liberty who received a written invitation stating the facts and their rights are presumed to have consulted a lawyer; those interviewed without such an invitation may have the interview postponed once. During the interview, counsel supervises the suspect’s freedom to answer or remain silent, the absence of improper pressure or coercion, and the regularity of the interview, and may have observed violations recorded. An adult suspect may waive consultation or assistance in writing; minors cannot waive either right. Witnesses and injured parties have no statutorily organised right to assistance, although an accompanying lawyer is in practice usually admitted.

Pre-interview disclosure

There is no right of access to the case file prior to the interview. The suspect is informed only of the facts the interview will concern, either in the written invitation or at the outset of the interview. Access to the file arises at later stages of the proceedings.

Recording and transcription

Interviews are recorded in an official written record. The interviewee may require that questions and answers be noted verbatim, may use and attach documents, may express themselves in the language of their choice with an interpreter where needed, and may formulate remarks on the written record. Audiovisual recording is possible but is not the default; a detained adult suspect who waives assistance may request that the interview be filmed as a safeguard. A free copy of the record can be obtained.

Belgian criminal law is primarily based on the principle of territoriality, meaning that offences committed on Belgian territory are, in principle, subject to Belgian criminal jurisdiction. Belgian courts nevertheless have jurisdiction where an offence is deemed to have been committed in Belgium because one of its constituent or aggravating elements occurred on Belgian territory, even if other elements took place abroad.

Beyond territorial jurisdiction, Belgian law provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in the cases expressly defined by law, which are set out in the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Belgian nationals or persons with their habitual residence in Belgium may be prosecuted in Belgium for crimes or misdemeanours committed abroad, provided the conduct is also punishable under the law of the place where it was committed. Jurisdiction also exists where offences are committed for the account of a legal entity with its registered office in Belgium. In addition, Belgian courts may assert jurisdiction over acts of public bribery committed abroad where the alleged offender is present in Belgium, irrespective of nationality or habitual residence and regardless of whether the conduct is criminalised in the country where it occurred.

Mutual Legal Assistance and International Cooperation

Belgian authorities rely on international mutual legal assistance mechanisms to investigate and prosecute white-collar offences with a cross-border dimension. Within the European Union, cooperation is facilitated by a comprehensive legal framework governing extradition, evidence gathering, seizure and confiscation of assets, and the execution of judgments. Evidence may be collected across borders through the European Investigation Order, which allows Belgian judicial authorities to request investigative measures directly from other EU Member States.

For the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets within the EU, Belgian authorities rely on Directive 2014/42/EU and Regulation (EU) 2018/1805. Outside the EU, mutual legal assistance and asset recovery depend on bilateral or multilateral treaties, including instruments adopted by the Council of Europe. Belgium is also party to numerous bilateral agreements with non-EU states governing judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

Extradition

Belgium does not permit extradition in the absence of a clear legal basis, such as a bilateral or multilateral treaty.

Within the European Union, extradition between member states is governed by the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system, which replaces traditional extradition procedures with a streamlined judicial surrender mechanism. An EAW issued by a judicial authority in one member state is enforceable throughout the EU and may be used either to enable criminal prosecution or to secure the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order. Refusal to execute an EAW is limited to exhaustively defined grounds, such as for example the existence of a final judgment for the same facts in another member state.

Outside the EU framework, Belgium applies the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957, which governs extradition with other Council of Europe member states. That convention excludes extradition for political offences, prohibits surrender where the person faces the death penalty, and allows states to refuse the extradition of their own nationals.

In addition, Belgium is bound by various bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties with non-EU states.

Participation in International Enforcement Frameworks

Belgian authorities are actively involved in international enforcement networks addressing economic and financial crime. Belgium actively cooperates within Europol, whose European Financial and Economic Crime Centre (EFECC) provides operational and analytical support in financial investigations and asset tracing, and Eurojust, which supports and coordinates cross-border investigations and prosecutions. In addition, Belgium participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which is competent to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union. At the international level, Belgium is a member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the OECD Working Group on Bribery.

In Belgium, legal professional privilege (beroepsgeheim) is governed by Article 458 of the Criminal Code and is considered a fundamental element of the rights of the defence. It covers all information that came to a lawyer’s knowledge during the exercise of their function, while being consulted in that capacity, insofar as the information is reasonably connected to that function and is inherently confidential or was explicitly or implicitly entrusted to the lawyer under a condition of secrecy. This protection extends to legal advice, defence and representation in proceedings, and advice on initiating or avoiding proceedings.

When a search is conducted at a lawyer’s office, the Bar President (stafhouder) or their designee must be present and must ensure that the search and any possible seizure do not relate to documents covered by professional secrecy, reviewing the documents the investigating judge wishes to examine and giving their opinion on what falls within the privilege; however, the investigating judge is not bound by the Bar President’s position and has the final say on whether a document is seized.

In Belgium, individuals enjoy a right to privacy and to the protection of their personal data under, inter alia, Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This protection extends to personal financial and banking information. Companies do not, as such, enjoy data-subject rights under the GDPR, which protects natural persons, although Article 8 ECHR may protect a company’s registered office, business premises and correspondence. Interference by public authorities with the right to privacy is permissible only where it has a sufficiently precise legal basis, pursues a legitimate aim and responds to a pressing social need, and is proportionate to that aim.

The applicable data-protection regime depends on the authority processing the data. Where personal data are processed by competent authorities, such as the police, public prosecutor or criminal courts, for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting criminal offences, the principal regime is Title 2 of the Law of 30 July 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, which implements Directive (EU) 2016/680. That regime provides data subjects with rights including information, access and rectification, but allows those rights to be restricted where this is necessary and proportionate to avoid prejudicing criminal investigations or proceedings. In respect of processing by the public prosecutor and criminal courts, and personal data contained in a judicial file or processed in the course of judicial investigations or criminal proceedings, those rights are exercised in accordance with the applicable rules of criminal procedure.

In principle, criminal proceedings against a legal entity come to an end when it ceases to exist, including following liquidation or dissolution without liquidation, such as a merger or demerger. Prosecution may nevertheless continue where the restructuring is aimed at evading criminal liability or where the loss of legal personality is established by an investigating judge. Outside these specific situations, successor entities created through a merger or demerger are not criminally liable for offences committed prior to the restructuring, although civil liability may continue. Other corporate transactions, such as transformations or asset acquisitions, do not automatically terminate criminal proceedings.

The decision whether to charge rests with the procureur des Konings (public prosecutor), who enjoys broad but not unlimited discretion under the opportuniteitsbeginsel (principle of prosecutorial opportunity). Taking into account the criminal policy guidelines established by the competent minister pursuant to Article 143quater of the Judicial Code, the public prosecutor judges the expediency of prosecution and must state the reasons for any decision not to prosecute (seponering) (Art. 28quater Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure).

Pursuant to Article 151, §1, first paragraph of the Constitution, the public prosecutor is independent in individual investigation and prosecution, without prejudice to the right of the competent minister to order prosecution and to establish binding criminal policy guidelines.

The decision not to prosecute is by its nature not binding and does not prevent the public prosecutor from reversing it and still instituting criminal proceedings; no constitutional or statutory provision nor any general legal principle obliges the public prosecutor who reverses a decision to discontinue to state the reasons for that subsequent decision to prosecute, notwithstanding the obligation under Article 28quater to state reasons for the sepot itself.

The presumption of innocence applies and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. Guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt; any remaining doubt benefits the accused.

Belgian law distinguishes between the limitation of criminal prosecution and the limitation of the execution of sentences.

Limitation of criminal prosecution

The limitation of the criminal prosecution was fundamentally reformed by the Act of 9 April 2024, which entered into force on 28 April 2024 and applies to all offences that were not yet time-barred on that date.

The applicable limitation periods for prosecution are now:

• 30 years for offences punishable by life imprisonment;
• 20 years for offences punishable by more than 20 up to 30 years’ imprisonment;
• 15 years for offences punishable by more than five up to 20 years’ imprisonment;
• 10 years for misdemeanours, which includes most financial and economic crimes such as fraud, abuse of trust, misuse of corporate assets and money laundering;
• one year for infractions.

These periods start to run, as a rule, on the day the offence is committed and are no longer affected by mitigation through attenuating circumstances. Once the case is brought before a trial court, the limitation period can no longer expire. Certain offences are not subject to any limitation period, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and a limited category of particularly serious sexual or violent offences.

For continuing offences, the limitation period begins only when the unlawful situation has ended. Where multiple acts form part of a single, ongoing criminal scheme driven by the same intent, the limitation period runs from the date of the last established act, provided that the time between successive acts does not exceed the applicable limitation period.

Limitation of the execution of sentences

Once a conviction has become final, separate rules apply to the limitation of the execution of sentences, which were harmonised under the new Criminal Code entering into force in April 2026. The limitation period runs from the date the judgment becomes final and is determined by the level of the principal sentence imposed, applying equally to ancillary penalties.

Sentences for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not subject to limitation. For other offences, the execution limitation periods are:

• 20 years for sentence levels 8 and 7;
• 10 years for sentence levels 6, 5 and 4;
• 5 years for sentence levels 3, 2 and 1.

These periods may be interrupted or suspended, notably by concrete steps taken to enforce fines or confiscation.

Belgian law does not provide for deferred or non-prosecution agreements in the Anglo-Saxon sense, but it does recognise statutory alternatives to a criminal trial, in particular those set out in Articles 216, 216bis and 216ter of the CCP.

Under Article 216 of the CCP, a guilty plea procedure allows the public prosecutor to agree in advance on a penalty with a suspect or accused who acknowledges guilt in writing. This mechanism is available only if the offence does not appear to be punishable by more than five years’ imprisonment, the offence is not excluded by law, the damage has been fully compensated or civil liability has been acknowledged, and, in the case of tax or social offences, the amounts due have been paid. The agreement becomes effective only after judicial review and approval.

Article 216bis of the CCP provides for a criminal settlement whereby the public prosecutor may propose the payment of a sum of money if the offence does not appear to be punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment and does not involve serious physical harm. Proceedings are discontinued once the agreed amount is paid, confiscation has been executed and the damage has been compensated.

Finally, Article 216ter of the CCP allows the public prosecutor to invite the offender to compensate for the damage caused by the offence or to propose their compliance with certain conditions, if the offence does not appear to be punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. If the suspect agrees to and fully complies with the proposed measures or conditions, and civil liability is acknowledged where applicable, the criminal action lapses and no trial may take place.

Yes, under article 216 CCP (please, see our answer to question 17).

There is a general statutory obligation on public officials, but no general obligation on private parties, to report discovered misconduct.

Every public authority, public officer or civil servant who, in the exercise of their duties, becomes aware of a crime or offence is obliged to immediately notify the procureur des Konings of the court within whose jurisdiction the crime or offence was committed or where the suspect may be found, and to transmit all relevant information, official reports and documents to that magistrate. This obligation is found in Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

AML reporting obligations. Entities (banks, auditors, notaries, etc.) under the Law of 18 September 2017 are required to report suspicious transactions or facts to the CTIF/CFI via the stafhouder/bâtonnier in the case of lawyers, but they do so through the AML regime rather than under Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Voluntary cooperation with and disclosure to the prosecuting authorities may be taken into account by the public prosecutor in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Similarly, in the crown witness procedure under Articles 216/1–216/14 (spijtoptant), the procureur des Konings may make commitments to a person who provides substantive, revealing, sincere and complete statements concerning the involvement of third parties and, where appropriate, their own involvement, in respect of committed or attempted offences, where the investigation requires it and other investigative means do not appear sufficient to uncover the truth.

Sentencing is currently governed by statutory penalty ranges, while courts retain broad discretion to determine the appropriate sanction in light of the circumstances of the case. Under the new Belgian Criminal Code, offences are classified according to an eight-level sentencing system. In determining the sentence, courts may consider factors such as prior convictions, the seriousness and duration of the offence, the benefit obtained, remediation efforts, compliance measures and co-operation with the authorities. Mitigating circumstances constitute an open-ended concept and may justify sentencing of a lower statutory level.

Belgian law also provides several leniency-type mechanisms. Co-operation and self-disclosure, for example. Under Article 216/1 CCP, the public prosecutor may grant concessions to persons providing substantial, revealing, sincere and complete statements concerning their own involvement and that of third parties (spijtoptant).

Belgian law does not recognise compliance programmes as a formal defence to criminal liability. However, prosecuting authorities and courts may take compliance measures into account when assessing corporate intent or negligence, sentencing, and the overall conduct of the company.

When determining penalties, courts may consider the adequacy of internal controls and compliance measures. For legal entities, factors such as corporate culture, governance and compliance efforts may justify a more lenient sentence, although they do not exclude liability.

Belgian courts have broad discretion in sentencing and will consider, among other factors, the seriousness of the conduct, the amounts involved, the offender’s role and any prior convictions.

Individuals may face fines and imprisonment, although custodial sentences in white-collar cases are often suspended, particularly for first-time offenders. More serious or repeated misconduct may lead to effective imprisonment. Confiscation of criminal proceeds can also have a significant financial impact.

For companies, fines are the principal criminal sanction. Courts may also order confiscation and, in appropriate cases, impose additional measures such as restrictions on certain activities or closure of an establishment.

In practice, the sentence imposed will therefore often be substantially lower than the statutory maximum and will depend heavily on the circumstances of the case.

Belgian law provides several rights of appeal in criminal proceedings. Following a judicial investigation, if the Council Chamber dismisses a case, both the civil party and the public prosecutor may appeal that decision before the Chamber of Indictments, which may still refer the case to trial. Once a criminal court has rendered judgment, the ordinary appeal mechanisms under Belgian criminal procedure remain available.

A convicted party may lodge an appeal on the merits to the court of appeal within thirty days of the judgment; the civil party may also appeal, but only as regards its civil interests. The Public Prosecutor can also lodge an appeal.

Belgian authorities are institutionally active but face significant structural constraints (see question 25). Since 2023, multidisciplinary investigation teams (MOTEM) combining federal judicial police and tax inspectors have been deployed in major fraud cases, and asset recovery teams (“plukteams”) are embedded in investigations from the outset.

A further strengthening is in the pipeline: in May 2026, a bill was introduced to establish a financial prosecutorial unit as a financial crime section within the federal prosecutor’s office, specialising in serious economic, financial and fiscal offences, organised social fraud and bribery. The section would be led by a financial deputy federal prosecutor and would comprise ten federal magistrates, assisted by ten tax officials and ten lawyers with a financial profile.

Proceedings in complex financial crime cases are notoriously lengthy. Belgium has been condemned on multiple occasions for exceeding the reasonable time requirement under Article 6 ECHR, and parliamentary inquiries have described the backlog in financial crime cases in stark terms. Prescription and the risk of exceeding the reasonable time limit have become structural problems, and the minnelijke schikking (criminal settlement) has in practice been used as an emergency measure to avoid prescription rather than as a coherent prosecution policy. Additional resources have been allocated to address these delays, but the problem remains acute.

Yes. Over the past five years, the CFI has observed a clear trend towards more professionalised, cross-border and technology-enabled financial crime. Professional money-laundering networks increasingly provide laundering services to third parties, using networks of companies, bank accounts, money mules and nominees in Belgium and abroad.

Fraud, serious tax and social fraud, and laundering linked to drug trafficking have remained prominent categories in cases referred by the CFI to the judicial authorities. Online and technology-enabled fraud has also become increasingly important, with greater use of payment service providers, neobanks, crypto-assets and other digital payment infrastructure. In 2025, the CFI described the use of technology as a common thread across money-laundering schemes.

From a sectoral perspective, construction, cleaning and transport have repeatedly been identified in connection with social and tax fraud and related laundering schemes. Corruption, including public-procurement-related corruption, also remains relevant. More recently, the CFI has highlighted sanctions evasion, noting that it is increasingly confronted with structures designed to mix transactions breaching financial sanctions with legitimate trade flows.

Several significant investigations have highlighted the continued focus on corruption, procurement fraud and cross-border financial crime. In December 2025, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) conducted searches at the College of Europe and the European External Action Service as part of an investigation into suspected procurement fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest and breaches of professional secrecy relating to an EU-funded programme. Three individuals were formally notified of the accusations, and the investigation remains ongoing. EPPO has also continued to pursue large-scale cross-border VAT fraud, including through coordinated searches and arrests involving Belgium.

Another notable development is the continued impact of the SKY ECC investigations. In February 2026, Belgian authorities reported that the exploitation of the encrypted communications network had resulted, over five years, in 673 judicial files, 1,206 convictions and approximately EUR 224 million in seized assets. The investigations have uncovered not only drug trafficking and organised crime, but also money laundering and corruption, and have reinforced the authorities’ emphasis on a specialised “follow the money” approach to organised and financial crime.

The Belgian Parliament adopted the legislative proposals introducing Books I and II of the new Belgian Criminal Code, which will replace the 1867 Code and aim to modernise and future-proof Belgian criminal law.

Book I reformulates the general principles of criminal law; abolishes the traditional distinction between crimes, misdemeanours and contraventions; raises the fault threshold for unintentional offences; extends punishable attempt to all intentional offences; restructures participation and corporate liability; and introduces a coherent eight-level sentencing scale applicable to both natural and legal persons.

Legal persons may now be sentenced to new forms of punishment, including the provision of services for the benefit of the community and probationary sanctions, under conditions largely mirroring those applicable to natural persons. Fines are directly regulated for legal persons within the same penalty-level structure as for individuals, with amounts decreasing progressively across sentencing levels and assessed in light of the entity’s financial capacity and social impact, allowing courts to reduce fines below statutory minima where financial distress is proven.

Book II reorganises and updates substantive offences, decriminalises certain conduct, adjusts penalties, and introduces new offences, most notably ecocide and concealment of evidence.

Overall, the reform seeks greater coherence, proportionality and alignment with contemporary societal values.

Although the entry into force of the new BCC was initially scheduled for 8 April 2026, it was postponed at the last minute to 1 September 2026 due to practical issues within the judiciary.

Belgium’s AML/CFT framework is technically largely aligned with the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) standards, but the 2025 FATF evaluation identified significant shortcomings in its effective implementation and enforcement. A central concern is the persistent lack of human, financial and technological resources available to the police and judicial authorities. This limits Belgium’s ability to prioritise and investigate complex money-laundering cases, with investigations often focusing on the predicate offence without a sufficiently in-depth financial investigation. The FATF also found that Belgium lacks a sufficiently strategic and targeted approach to dismantling professional and organised money-laundering networks.

Further improvements are required in relation to virtual assets, including appropriate licensing and supervision of virtual asset service providers, as well as the reliability of beneficial-ownership information and AML supervision of certain non-financial sectors. The FATF also found that confiscation and asset recovery remain insufficiently effective: financial investigations are not conducted systematically enough and the actual recovery of criminal assets remains limited.