The principal legislation governing criminal offences and criminal sanctions in the Republic of Serbia is the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia ( “Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, Nos. 85/2005, 88/2005 – corrigendum, 107/2005 – corrigendum, 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016, 35/2019, 94/2024 and 63/2026).

Several other laws also regulate specific offences relating to financial and economic crime.

In the Republic of Serbia, corporations and their legal representatives (most commonly directors) may incur criminal liability in connection with, inter alia, the following categories of offences:

• Criminal offences against the economy (Chapter XXII of the CC and the Companies Act,  “Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 36/2011 et seq., including No. 19/2025; Part Thirteen, Chapter Two), including offences such as money laundering, embezzlement and abuse of position in business operations;
• Criminal offences against official duty (Chapter XXXIII of the CC), including accepting and giving bribes, embezzlement in office and abuse of official position;
• Tax-related criminal offences (Chapter XXII of the CC and the Tax Procedure and Tax Administration Act,  “Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 80/2002 et seq., including No. 109/2025; Part Seven, Chapter One);
• Bankruptcy-related criminal offences (Chapter XXII of the CC and the Bankruptcy Act,  “Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 104/2009 et seq., including No. 44/2025; Chapter XIII);
• Criminal offences involving forgery and falsification (Chapter XXXII of the CC) and
• Criminal offences against the environment (Chapter XXIV of the CC).

It should be noted that the criminal liability of a legal entity is governed separately by the Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences, which establishes the conditions under which a legal entity may be held criminally liable for an offence committed by a responsible person. The criminal liability of the legal entity is therefore distinct from, although potentially concurrent with, the criminal liability of its director or other responsible person.

In the Republic of Serbia, legal entities (including corporations) and responsible persons within legal entities are, as a rule, subject to liability for less serious offences, namely commercial offences and misdemeanours. Exceptionally, and subject to statutory conditions, they may also incur criminal liability.

Apart from the general principles of liability set out in the principal criminal legislation, the criminal liability of legal entities is specifically regulated by the Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 97/2008; hereinafter: the “Law on the Liability of Legal Entities”).

Under this Law, there are two principal grounds of liability:

1. Liability based on the conduct of a responsible person.
   A legal entity may be held criminally liable where a responsible person, acting within the scope of the legal entity’s business activities or authority, commits a criminal offence with the intention of obtaining a benefit for the legal entity. Thus, a specific criminal connection must exist between the conduct of the responsible person and the benefit intended for the legal entity.
2. Liability based on a failure of supervision or control.
   A legal entity may also be held criminally liable where, as a result of the absence of supervision or control by a responsible person, the commission of a criminal offence for the benefit of the legal entity is made possible by another natural person who is subject to that responsible person’s supervision and control. In practical terms, this form of liability is based on a failure to exercise adequate supervision or control.

For these purposes, a “responsible person” is a natural person who has been legally or factually entrusted with a particular range of duties within the legal entity, or a person who is authorised, or may reasonably be regarded as authorised, to act on behalf of the legal entity.

Although the legal entity and the responsible person have separate legal personalities and, consequently, separate criminal liability, the basis for establishing the criminal liability of the legal entity is linked to the culpability of the responsible natural person.

Accordingly, the Law on the Liability of Legal Entities provides that, wherever possible, criminal proceedings against the legal entity and the responsible person should be conducted jointly and a single decision should be rendered.

This does not, however, mean that a conviction of the responsible person is an indispensable prerequisite for the criminal conviction of the legal entity. For example, if proceedings against the responsible person are terminated due to his or her death or another circumstance that temporarily or permanently prevents criminal prosecution, the proceedings may continue against the legal entity.

The criminal liability of a legal entity may also have consequences in cases of corporate restructuring or legal succession. Where a legal entity ceases to exist or changes its legal form, a criminal sanction may, subject to the statutory conditions, be imposed on its legal successor.

Criminal liability may also arise in respect of offences committed before or during bankruptcy proceedings. Consequently, the commencement or conduct of bankruptcy proceedings does not exclude the possibility of criminal liability of the legal entity.

For an international criminal-law guide, it is therefore important to distinguish between the criminal liability of the legal entity and that of the responsible natural person: the two are legally distinct, but the liability of the legal entity is generally constructed around the conduct and culpability of a responsible person and/or a failure of the required supervision or control.

Directors and other persons involved in the management or control of companies  including  may most commonly be prosecuted in connection with the following criminal offences:

• Organised crime offences — offences committed by an organised criminal group consisting of at least three associated persons acting with the purpose of committing serious criminal offences and obtaining financial or other material benefit;
• Fraud in the conduct of business activities (Prevara u obavljanju privredne delatnosti) — Article 223 of the Criminal Code;
• Embezzlement in the conduct of business activities (Pronevera u obavljanju privredne delatnosti ) — Article 224 of the CC;
• Abuse of the position of a responsible person (Zloupotreba položaja odgovornog lica) — Article 227 of the CC;
• Tax evasion (Poreska utaja) — Article 225 of the CC;
• Money laundering (Pranje novca) — Article 245 of the CC;
• Abuse of official position (Zloupotreba službenog položaja) — Article 359 of the CC;
• Embezzlement in office (Pronevera) — Article 364 of the CC;
• Forgery of documents (Falsifikovanje isprave) — Articles 355–357 of the CC;
• Illicit trade (Nedozvoljena trgovina) — Article 235 of the CC;
• Bribery in economic transactions — Article 367 of the CC;
• Bribery in economic transactions / giving a bribe — Article 368 of the CC;
• VAT fraud — Article 173a of the Tax Procedure and Tax Administration Act; and
• Trading in influence — Article 366 of the CC.

In the Republic of Serbia, responsibility for the detection and prosecution of financial crime is divided among the public prosecution service, the police and specialised financial and tax authorities. The public prosecutor is responsible for criminal prosecution, while the police and other competent authorities primarily detect criminal offences and collect evidence under the direction and supervision of the public prosecutor.

The public prosecutor directs the pre-investigation proceedings and decides whether criminal prosecution should be initiated against a particular person. In the context of financial crime, several levels of prosecutorial jurisdiction should be distinguished:

• The Office of the Public Prosecutor for Organised Crime (Javno tužilaštvo za organizovani kriminal) has jurisdiction over organised crime, terrorism, corruption and other serious criminal offences falling within its statutory jurisdiction;
• Four specialised departments within the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Offices in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš and Kraljevo have jurisdiction over corruption and economic-crime offences that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Organised Crime, pursuant to the Law on the Organisation and Jurisdiction of Government Authorities in Combating Organised Crime, Terrorism and Corruption ( “Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, Nos. 94/2016, 87/2018 – other law and 10/2023); and
• Basic Public Prosecutor’s Offices have jurisdiction over tax-related criminal offences and other less serious criminal offences falling within their statutory jurisdiction.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP), through the police and its specialised investigative units and criminal-police departments, acts both independently within its statutory powers and pursuant to instructions and orders of the public prosecutor.

The relevant specialised police services include, among others:

• the Service for Combating Organised Crime (SBPOK);
• the Service for the Suppression of Crime;
• the Service for Special Investigative Methods;
• the Service for Combating High-Tech Crime;
• the National Centre for Criminal Forensics; and
• other specialised criminal-investigation units.

These bodies are involved in the detection, investigation and evidentiary establishment of financial crime and related criminal offences.

Given the complexity of financial crime, the methods used to commit such offences and the need to trace often complex financial flows — frequently involving an international element — the public prosecutor and the police are assisted by several specialised services and state authorities, including:

• the Financial Forensics Service;
• the Tax Administration, including the Tax Police;
• the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering (APML), Serbia’s Financial Intelligence Unit; and
• other competent regulatory, supervisory and investigative authorities.

These institutions contribute specialist financial, tax, accounting and analytical expertise and may provide information and evidence relevant to the identification and prosecution of financial crime.

In practical terms, the public prosecutor is the central authority in the Serbian criminal justice system in financial-crime cases. The prosecutor assesses and legally qualifies the relevant conduct, directs the pre-investigation proceedings, instructs and coordinates the work of the police, commissions or obtains financial-forensic expertise and, where the statutory requirements are met, decides whether to initiate criminal proceedings and bring an indictment.

Accordingly, financial-crime investigations in Serbia are generally multi-agency investigations, with the public prosecutor coordinating the criminal-law response and specialised police, tax, financial-intelligence and forensic authorities providing the expertise and operational support required to establish the financial flows, identify the persons responsible and trace the proceeds of crime.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Law on the Organisation of Courts (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 10/2023), criminal cases involving financial and economic crime in the Republic of Serbia are heard at different levels of the court system, depending on the nature and seriousness of the offence.

The Higher Court in Belgrade – Special Department for Organised Crime has jurisdiction, pursuant to law, over cases involving: organised crime, terrorism, criminal offences against the constitutional order and the highest state authorities, corruption offences committed by high-ranking public officials, economic and financial offences where the value of the unlawfully obtained property benefit exceeds RSD 200,000 (approximately EUR 2,000) and other criminal offences committed in connection with offences falling within its jurisdiction.

Cases before the Special Department for Organised Crime are heard by a panel of three professional judges.

The Higher Courts with specialised departments for combating corruption and economic crime have jurisdiction over more serious financial and economic criminal offences which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Department for Organised Crime.

As a rule, such cases are heard by a panel consisting of one professional judge and two lay judges (sudije porotnici).

Basic Courts have jurisdiction over less serious criminal offences falling within their statutory jurisdiction.

Depending on the offence and the prescribed penalty, the case is heard either by: a single professional judge, or  a panel consisting of one professional judge and two lay judges, where the statutory requirements for panel adjudication are met.

At second instance, appeals and other statutory remedies are generally decided by a panel of three professional judges.

For the most serious criminal offences — including offences punishable by 30 to 40 years’ imprisonment, as well as organised crime and war crimes — the appellate court sits in a panel of five judges.

Certain investigative measures which may significantly interfere with the fundamental rights of the suspect or defendant are subject to judicial authorisation and/or supervision.

In particular, the preliminary proceedings judge (sudija za prethodni postupak) of the competent court has an important role in relation to measures such as: detention (pritvor), searches of premises, persons and electronic devices, special evidentiary actions (posebne dokazne radnje); and other investigative measures involving significant interference with constitutionally protected rights.

This judicial-control mechanism is particularly important in financial-crime investigations, where the collection of evidence may involve searches of corporate premises and electronic devices, access to financial and banking information, surveillance and other special evidentiary measures. The requirement for judicial involvement serves as an important safeguard against disproportionate interference with the rights of defendants and other persons affected by the investigation.

The pre-investigation proceedings (predistražni postupak) may be initiated on the basis of a criminal complaintsubmitted by the police, another public authority, institution or any individual, based on information personally obtained by the public prosecutor concerning a suspected criminal offence, or ex officio where the statutory requirements are met.

The first formal stage of criminal proceedings is the investigation (istraga). An investigation is initiated by an order of the public prosecutor against a specific person where there are grounds for suspicion that the person has committed a criminal offence, or against an unknown perpetrator where there are grounds for suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed.

The purpose of the investigation is to collect evidence and information necessary to determine whether an indictment should be filed or the proceedings discontinued. The investigation is conducted by the public prosecutor, although the defendant and his or her defence counsel may also take an active role in gathering and proposing evidence in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

The legality of the investigation is subject to judicial oversight, primarily through the role of the preliminary proceedings judge (sudija za prethodni postupak) and the judicial panel referred to in Article 21(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as through review by higher courts where statutory remedies are available.

One of the most common and important initial evidentiary measures undertaken by the public prosecutor and the police is the search of a home, business premises, office or other premises. Searches are generally carried out by the police pursuant to a court order, although the Criminal Procedure Code permits searches without a court order in specifically prescribed circumstances.

Protection of fundamental rights and the rights of the defendant is particularly important in relation to other investigative measures that interfere with individual privacy and liberty. These include, for example, special evidentiary actions involving covert surveillance, monitoring and recording, as well as other forms of covert evidence-gathering provided for by law.

Such measures are subject to specific statutory conditions and, depending on the measure concerned, require judicial authorisation and/or supervision. Their use is particularly relevant in complex financial-crime investigations, where investigators may seek to establish communications, relationships between suspects, financial transactions and the movement or concealment of criminal proceeds.

Once the public prosecutor considers that the factual and evidentiary circumstances have been sufficiently clarified, the prosecutor issues an order concluding the investigation and serves it on the suspect and his or her defence counsel.

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the public prosecutor may: discontinue the proceedings, where the statutory grounds for further prosecution are not satisfied or file an indictment, where the evidentiary threshold for prosecution has been met.

An indictment is subject to further judicial review, including judicial scrutiny of whether the statutory requirements for bringing the case to trial have been satisfied.

The police may summon citizens for the purpose of collecting information. The summons must state the reason for the summons and the capacity in which the person is being summoned. A person who fails to appear may be brought before the police by force only if the summons expressly warned the person of this possibility.

The collection of information from the same person may last for as long as necessary to obtain the required information, but not longer than four hours, unless the person providing the information consents to continue for a longer period.

A written official record of the information provided must be read to the person who provided the information. That person may make comments or objections, which the police are required to enter into the official record. A copy of the official record must be provided to the person upon request.

A citizen may be summoned again to provide information concerning a different criminal offence or perpetrator. However, the person may not be compulsorily brought in again for the purpose of obtaining information concerning the same criminal offence.

Any use of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, force, threats, coercion, deception, medical procedures or other means designed to influence a person’s freedom of will or to extract a confession or any other statement or action from a defendant or another participant in the proceedings is prohibited.

The person summoned may be accompanied by and have an attorney present during the giving of a statement.

If, during the collection of information, the police determine that the person being interviewed may be regarded as a suspect, the police must immediately inform that person of his or her procedural rights, including the applicable right to remain silent and the right to defence counsel.

In the criminal procedural law of the Republic of Serbia, particular attention is paid to respecting the rights of defendants, with an emphasis on the additional rights of persons deprived of their liberty.

The basic statutory rights of a defendant during questioning are:

1. to be informed of the reasons for the charges against him or her;
2. to freely present his or her defence, to remain silent, or to refuse to answer a particular question;
3. to have a defence lawyer;
4. to defend himself or herself without coercion, not to admit guilt, to propose evidence in his or her favour and to examine the evidence presented by the opposing party under equal conditions;
5. to use legal remedies;
6. to use his or her own language and script;
7. to be present at the trial.

An arrested defendant has additional rights:

1. to be immediately informed of the reason for the arrest;
2. to have a confidential conversation with his or her lawyer before questioning;
3. to inform his or her family that he or she has been arrested;
4. to receive medical assistance.

Serbian criminal legislation applies to anyone who commits a criminal offence within the territory of the Republic of Serbia, and to Serbian citizens in respect of any criminal offence, including financial crime, committed abroad.

Serbian criminal legislation also applies to a foreign national who, outside the territory of Serbia, commits a criminal offence against Serbia or against a Serbian citizen, provided that the foreign national is found within the territory of Serbia or is extradited to Serbia.

There are several legal arrangements for international cooperation:

1. Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters through requests from the competent authorities.

In this way, Serbian public prosecutors or courts may request another state to: hear witnesses or defendants; provide banking, tax and corporate registration documentation; provide information on companies and their beneficial owners; obtain business records; conduct searches of premises; seize documents or computers; provide information on bank accounts and transactions; temporarily freeze or permanently confiscate assets; provide judgments and other court decisions; and carry out specific procedural actions abroad.

2. Cooperation through EUROJUST and Serbian liaison officers, based on a cooperation agreement, including the establishment of Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) composed of representatives of the competent police and prosecutorial authorities.

3. International police cooperation, including cooperation through EUROPOL and INTERPOL.

4. Cooperation between other specialised authorities and bodies, including financial intelligence units responsible for preventing money laundering, tax authorities, and authorities responsible for the registration of companies, assets and other relevant information.

Serbian law provides protection for the confidential attorney-client relationship. An attorney is exempt from the obligation to testify against a client whom he or she has represented or currently represents (Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

A search of an attorney’s law office or the apartment in which the attorney resides requires the presence of a representative of the Bar Association (Article 156).

Evidence obtained in criminal proceedings in violation of these rules would constitute unlawful evidence and may not form the basis of a court decision.

Pursuant to Article 20 of the Law on the Legal Profession (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, Nos. 31/11 and 24/12 – Decision of the Constitutional Court), an attorney, as well as employees of the attorney’s office, is required to keep as a professional secret everything entrusted to the attorney by the client, as well as everything learned or obtained in connection with the matter during the preparation for, course of, or after termination of the representation.

The scope of the professional secret is not limited to information expressly communicated by the client to the attorney. It also includes documentation, information and knowledge obtained by the attorney in connection with the representation. The Code of Professional Ethics of Attorneys (Rules 14–16) further specifies that professional secrecy covers information, deeds, case files, documents, electronic, audio and video recordings, and deposits connected with the representation.

The obligation to maintain attorney-client confidentiality is not limited in time.

In Serbia, companies and individuals have the right to privacy and data protection during financial crime investigations, but these rights are not absolute. State authorities may interfere with privacy where there is a legal basis, the appropriate procedure is followed and, where required, a court order is obtained.

Accordingly, with regard to the processing of personal data in criminal proceedings, including proceedings concerning financial crime, the defence generally cannot rely on a violation of the GDPR or the Law on Personal Data Protection (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 87/2018), which is largely aligned with the GDPR. Instead, the defence may challenge the lawfulness of the investigative and evidentiary measures under the Criminal Procedure Code.

In cases of merger, acquisition, division and other corporate status changes, Serbian law expressly recognises an institution that may be described as criminal-law succession of a legal entity.

The key provision is Article 8 of the Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences. If a legal entity ceases to exist, certain criminal sanctions and the confiscation of proceeds of crime may, subject to the statutory conditions, be enforced against its legal successor.

In addition, a legal entity undergoing bankruptcy proceedings may incur criminal liability for criminal offences committed before or during the bankruptcy proceedings.

The public prosecutor must first assess whether the statutory requirements for criminal prosecution are satisfied, including whether all legal elements of the criminal offence are present, whether the evidence obtained is sufficient and lawful, whether the perpetrator has been identified, and whether any procedural impediments exist (e.g. the limitation period for prosecution has expired or the person has immunity from prosecution). In certain circumstances — only in relation to less serious criminal offences, which do not include financial crime offences — the prosecutor may also consider the expediency of prosecution.

If the above requirements are not satisfied, either upon receipt of a criminal complaint or following verification of the allegations contained in it, the public prosecutor will dismiss the criminal complaint. Following a formal investigation, the prosecutor will instead issue an order terminating the investigation.

Neither of these situations prevents the public prosecutor from subsequently pursuing criminal prosecution if new evidence or information is obtained. This possibility is excluded only where there is a final judicial decision terminating the criminal proceedings or an acquittal, in accordance with the principle of res judicata (finality of judgments).

Under Serbian law, different standards of suspicion are required for the initiation, conduct and conclusion of criminal proceedings with a conviction:

a) Initiation of criminal proceedings– “grounds for suspicion”(osnov sumnje), meaning a body of facts indirectly indicating that a criminal offence has been committed or that a particular person is the perpetrator;

b) Ordering pre-trial detention(as one of the statutory requirements) – “reasonable suspicion”(osnovana sumnja), meaning a body of facts directly indicating that a particular person has committed a criminal offence;

c) Confirmation of an indictment– “justified suspicion”(opravdana sumnja), meaning a body of facts that directly substantiate the reasonable suspicion and justify bringing the indictment;

d) Criminal conviction– “certainty”(izvesnost), meaning a conclusion, based on objective standards of reasoning, that the relevant facts indisputably exist or do not exist.

The criminal-law standard of certainty represents the highest level of proof required to establish that a criminal offence was committed, who committed it, and that the accused is criminally responsible. It broadly corresponds to the concepts of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “exclusion of any reasonable doubt.”

Yes. Under Serbian law, limitation may apply either to criminal prosecution or to the enforcement of a sentence. The rules on limitation are set out in Articles 103–108 of the Criminal Code.

As a rule, criminal prosecution may not be initiated once the following periods have elapsed from the commission of the criminal offence:

1. 20 years for an offence punishable by imprisonment exceeding 15 years;
2. 15 years for an offence punishable by imprisonment exceeding 10 years;
3. 10 years for an offence punishable by imprisonment exceeding 5 years;
4. 5 years for an offence punishable by imprisonment exceeding 3 years;
5. 3 years for an offence punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year;
6. 2 years for an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to 1 year or by a fine.

The limitation period for criminal prosecution begins to run from the date on which the criminal offence was committed. Where the consequence of the offence occurs at a later date, the limitation period begins to run from the date on which the consequence occurred.

The limitation period does not run during any period in which, under the law, prosecution cannot be initiated or continued.

The limitation period is interrupted by every procedural action undertaken for the purpose of detecting the criminal offence or identifying and prosecuting the perpetrator. It is also interrupted if, while the limitation period is running, the perpetrator commits an offence of the same or greater severity. Following each interruption, the limitation period begins to run anew.

In any event, criminal prosecution becomes time-barred once twice the statutory limitation period applicable to the offence has elapsed.

Certain particularly serious criminal offences are not subject to limitation.

Yes. In Serbia, there are mechanisms under which certain financial-crime cases may be resolved without a full trial. However, the terminology used in the question should be adapted to the Serbian legal system.

There is no general “non-prosecution agreement” or conventional “civil recovery order” equivalent to those found in common-law jurisdictions. Instead, Serbian law provides for deferred prosecution (opportunity), plea agreements, civil claims within criminal proceedings, confiscation of proceeds of crime, and special financial-investigation mechanisms.

1. Deferred Prosecution (Oportunitet)

The public prosecutor may defer criminal prosecution if the suspect agrees to fulfil one or more obligations prescribed by law. This mechanism is limited to criminal offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to five years.

The obligations may include, among other things: compensating the damage caused; eliminating or remedying the harmful consequences of the offence; paying a specified amount of money for public or humanitarian purposes; performing community service or humanitarian work; and fulfilling an obligation established by a final court decision.

If the suspect fulfils the imposed obligation, the public prosecutor dismisses the criminal complaint.

2. Plea Agreement

The public prosecutor and the defendant may enter into a plea agreement (sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela) from the issuance of the order commencing an investigation until the conclusion of the main hearing.

Unlike deferred prosecution, a plea agreement must be approved by the court. The court examines whether the statutory requirements have been satisfied and whether the agreement is lawful.

The agreement may include: an admission of guilt; the type and amount of the sentence or other criminal sanction; the costs of the proceedings; confiscation of proceeds of crime; the injured party’s property claim; in certain circumstances, the prosecutor’s waiver of prosecution for other offences; and an agreement concerning assets derived from criminal activity that are to be confiscated.

3. Property Claim of the Injured Party

An injured party may assert a property claim (imovinskopravni zahtev) within the criminal proceedings.

The claim may seek:

• compensation for damage;
• restitution of property; and/or
• annulment of a particular legal transaction.

This mechanism allows certain civil law claims to be resolved within the framework of the criminal proceedings rather than through separate civil litigation.

4. Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime

Under Serbian law, no person may retain property or other benefit obtained unlawfully. This principle is particularly important in cases involving money laundering, organised crime, corruption and other forms of financial crime.

The Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code therefore provide mechanisms for the confiscation of proceeds obtained through the commission of a criminal offence.

For more serious forms of criminality, the Law on the Confiscation of Property Derived from Criminal Offence (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 32/2013, 94/2016 i 35/2019) provides for financial investigations and special mechanisms for asset recovery. These may include: temporary seizure of assets; prohibition of disposal of assets; financial investigations; permanent confiscation of assets; and management of temporarily seized assets.

These mechanisms perform a function that is, in certain respects, comparable to civil recovery mechanisms in common-law jurisdictions, although they are based on a different legal framework and should not be treated as a direct equivalent of a common-law civil recovery order.

Yes, in the form of a plea agreement, which is similar to American plea bargaining. It is regulated by Articles 313–319 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia.

The public prosecutor and the defendant negotiate and conclude the agreement, with the mandatory assistance of a defence lawyer.

Negotiations may take place from the issuance of the order to conduct an investigation until the conclusion of the main hearing, under the conditions prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.

The defendant must be capable of understanding the nature and consequences of the agreement, and the admission must be voluntary, informed and complete.

The agreement may include, in particular: an admission of the criminal offence; an agreement on the type, amount or range of the sentence; other criminal sanctions; the costs of the criminal proceedings; confiscation of proceeds obtained through the commission of the criminal offence; the injured party’s property claim; and, under certain statutory conditions, the prosecutor’s withdrawal from prosecution for other criminal offences.

In financial crime cases, it is particularly important that the agreement may also resolve the issue of proceeds obtained through the criminal offence, and not only the sentence.

Under Serbian criminal law, any person who knows that a criminal offence punishable by five years’ imprisonment or a more severe penalty is being prepared and fails to report it while it is still possible to prevent its commission, may be held criminally liable if the offence is attempted or committed.

A person may also be held criminally liable if he or she knows that another person has committed a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment or merely knows that such an offence has been committed and fails to report it before the offence or its perpetrator is discovered.

These obligations do not apply to the perpetrator of the criminal offence himself or herself (self-incrimination), nor to the perpetrator’s spouse, common-law partner, direct blood relatives, brother or sister, adoptive parent or adopted child, or the spouse or common-law partner of any of these persons. They also do not apply to the perpetrator’s defence lawyer, physician or religious confessor.

In Serbia, there are no specifically systematised sentencing guidelines or a formal “discount policy” providing for a predetermined percentage reduction in sentence in exchange for an admission of guilt. However, there are general rules that limit the sentence that the prosecutor and the defendant may agree upon.

The Criminal Procedure Code allows the parties to agree on the type, amount or range of the sentence or other criminal sanction.

The Criminal Code establishes the framework for such negotiations, including the mandatory application of the prescribed penalties for the particular criminal offence, circumstances relevant to sentencing, the possibility of reducing a sentence (down to the general statutory minimum), the possibility of imposing a suspended sentence, special rules concerning recidivists and repeat offenders (as a particularly aggravating circumstance), and rules governing the determination of sentences for offences committed in concurrence, among others.

The court reviews whether the agreed sanction is consistent with the Criminal Code and other applicable laws.

In the Republic of Serbia, as in other jurisdictions, corporate compliance programmes are an important aspect of corporate operations. However, the existence or absence of a compliance programme is not determinative of whether a company will incur criminal liability. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be examined by the competent authorities, including the police, public prosecution service, courts, Tax Administration and Tax Police, Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering, National Bank of Serbia, Securities Commission, Market Inspectorate, and other competent regulatory and supervisory bodies.

Regarding the criminal liability of legal entities, Article 6 of the Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences is particularly relevant. It provides, in substance, that liability may arise where a responsible person commits an offence within the scope of his or her duties or authority for the benefit of the legal entity, but also where, due to a failure to exercise supervision or control, the commission of a criminal offence for the benefit of the legal entity is made possible.

Given the still relatively limited body of Serbian criminal case law in this area, one relevant example concerns the establishment of criminal liability for abuse of position and transactions between related companies, committed by persons who did not have formal but rather de facto authority to manage the companies (Supreme Court judgment No. Kzz-Ok 21/2022).

In financial-crime cases in Serbia, depending on the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the particular case, individuals may be sentenced to suspended sentences, house arrest, and effective terms of imprisonment of several years, often accompanied by fines imposed cumulatively, particularly where the offence was committed for personal financial gain, as is frequently the case with financial crime. Additional sanctions may include confiscation of proceeds of crime and disqualification from performing certain duties or activities.

In practice, Serbian courts impose a wide range of sentences and other sanctions. For example, in cases of tax evasion, the basic form of the offence, punishable by imprisonment of one to five years and a fine, most commonly results in a suspended sentence and a fine ranging from several tens to several hundreds of thousands of dinars. For the most serious form of the offence, punishable by imprisonment of three to ten years and a fine, courts most commonly impose one to three years’ imprisonment together with a fine of several hundred thousand dinars or more. For two typical financial-crime offences — abuse of the position of a responsible person and money laundering — the range of sanctions is considerably broader, extending from a suspended sentence or house arrest to imprisonment of more than ten years, generally accompanied by a fine where required by law.

In major financial-crime cases, the confiscation of assets acquired through the commission of the criminal offence may be more significant in practical terms than the sentence imposed on the responsible individual.

As regards legal entities (corporations), the sanctions most commonly imposed in practice are fines, suspended sentences and confiscation of proceeds of crime, sometimes with the legal entity being held jointly and severally liable together with the responsible person. In practice, there have been very few cases in which the sanction of termination of the legal entity has been imposed.

In criminal proceedings in Serbia, the defendant has the right to appeal against a first-instance judgment. This right is also guaranteed by the Constitution of Serbia, Article 36, which guarantees everyone the right to appeal or to use another legal remedy against a decision concerning his or her rights, obligations or legally based interests.

For criminal proceedings, the key provisions are contained in Articles 432–451 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In criminal proceedings, ordinary legal remedies include appeals against judgments and appeals against decisions, while extraordinary legal remedies include motions for a retrial, extraordinary mitigation of sentence, and requests for the protection of legality.

There are four principal grounds of appeal:

1. Substantial violations of the provisions of criminal procedure — for example, violations of the rights of the defence, the use of unlawful evidence, deficiencies in the judgment, contradictions in the reasoning, etc.;
2. Violation of criminal law — for example, an incorrect legal classification of the offence, application of an incorrect provision of the Criminal Code, or an incorrect decision on a criminal sanction in terms of the statutory limits;
3. Erroneously or incompletely established factual circumstances — for example, where the court incorrectly assessed evidence or failed to establish a decisive fact; and
4. The decision on criminal sanctions and other decisions — for example, an excessive sentence, an inappropriate type of sanction, or an incorrect decision concerning costs, a property claim, or confiscation of assets.

The competent authorities in the Republic of Serbia are active in combating financial crime, although their level of activity and effectiveness varies across different areas. This is particularly evident in the detection and prosecution of tax offences and money laundering (AML) cases.

The main practical challenge is usually not the lack of authorities competent to respond, but rather the length and complexity of the evidentiary process once an investigation has commenced.

As a general indication, court proceedings in financial-crime cases typically last: approximately 1–2 years in smaller and evidentially straightforward cases; approximately 2–5 years in cases of standard complexity; and more than 5 years in major international or corporate cases.

Over the past five years, Serbian authorities have increasingly focused on financial investigations, money laundering, tax offences, corruption and the tracing and recovery of proceeds of crime. There has also been greater attention to beneficial ownership, the use of legal entities and complex corporate structures, related-party transactions and cross-border financial flows.

From an AML perspective, particular attention has been given to the banking and real-estate sectors, gambling and online gambling, accounting and other professional service providers, as well as the emerging digital-asset sector. Serbia conducted a new National Risk Assessment in 2024, including specific assessments concerning legal persons and legal arrangements and digital assets.

The overall trend is towards a more risk-based and financially oriented approach, in which authorities seek not only to establish the underlying criminal conduct but also to identify the flow, ownership and ultimate destination of the proceeds and to facilitate their recovery.

Yes, there are several major financial crime cases that have been initiated in Serbia recently (in many of which our office is actively engaged as a defence attorney for the defendants).

During the past year, Serbia has seen a continued and strengthened focus on financial crime, particularly money laundering, corruption-related financial offences, abuse of position by responsible persons and the tracing and recovery of criminal proceeds. Significant investigations have involved multiple suspects, complex corporate structures and substantial alleged proceeds.

The authorities have also continued to strengthen the AML framework and financial investigation capabilities. A notable development has been the increased emphasis on identifying and confiscating the proceeds of crime, including through cross-border cash controls and financial investigations. The overall trend is towards a “follow-the-money” approach, whereby investigators seek to establish not only the underlying offence but also the flow, ownership and ultimate destination of the proceeds.

Yes. Serbia continues to reform its criminal justice and AML framework. Current developments include proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, further strengthening of financial investigations and asset recovery, and continued updating of the AML regulatory and implementing framework. The Ministry of Justice has also identified shortening the duration of proceedings and improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system as priorities.

We are pleased to note that our office has submitted several reasoned proposals to the Ministry of Justice to amend the systemic legal framework for combating white-collar crime and crime more broadly, with a view to further aligning it with modern European criminal-law trends.

A particular policy focus for 2026–2028 is strengthening financial investigations and the confiscation of assets connected with criminal offences.

Serbia has developed a relatively comprehensive legal and institutional framework for combating financial crime and money laundering. The principal areas for further improvement concern effectiveness rather than the absence of legislation. These include increasing the number and quality of complex money-laundering investigations, strengthening financial investigation and asset-recovery capabilities, improving the identification and verification of beneficial ownership, enhancing inter-agency information sharing and feedback, strengthening specialist investigative and prosecutorial capacity, and addressing emerging risks associated with virtual assets and increasingly complex corporate structures.

There is also scope for further development of judicial practice concerning corporate criminal liability and the relevance of effective compliance, supervision and internal-control systems when assessing whether a legal person may be held criminally liable for offences committed by its responsible persons.