tag: criminal law

These days, it is difficult to scroll through the news without coming across the recurring trio of criminal proceedings, public funds and breach of fiduciary duties. Breach of fiduciary duties has once again come into the spotlight recently, with the proceedings launched in connection with grants awarded by the National Cultural Fund (NKA) giving the issue considerable momentum. However, this offence is by no means confined to public funds and public figures: it can also arise in the management of a company's assets, the assets of a state institution or even those of a local authority. But what does breach of fiduciary duties actually mean, where is the line between a bad decision and a criminal offence, and what should anyone entrusted with managing another party's assets be aware of?

A new anti-corruption super-authority, accession to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, mandatory tax authority audits and the return of asset-growth investigations: within a few months, the system for protecting public assets has been fundamentally reshaped. Anyone who manages public funds or EU grants may, in future, find themselves facing as many as four different authorities.

In criminal cases involving a company, it has already been possible to prosecute not only the company’s executives but the company itself. In practice, however, this rarely happened. From 2026, the rules governing criminal proceedings against companies will change fundamentally, and companies are expected to be held accountable more frequently.

Recently, the tax authority’s audit practices have changed appreciably. While until recently, tax audits were mostly launched as fully standalone procedures, today the tax authority (NAV) is increasingly initiating criminal proceedings alongside its tax audits. This is particularly the case in bogus-invoice deals affecting VAT, as well as in excise-duty and certain customs matters. But what’s behind this?