White-Collar Crime 2026 Comparisons

Categories of Offences

Slovenian law distinguishes between offences governed by the Slovenian Criminal Code (KZ-1) and misdemeanours governed by the Minor Offences Act (ZP-1) and sector-specific legislation. Misdemeanours constitute less serious violations and are subject to a separate liability and sanctions regime, typically involving fines.

Constituent Elements and Culpability

The constituent elements of an offence are human conduct (an act or omission), fulfilment of the offence’s statutory elements, unlawfulness and culpability.

Culpability requires criminal liability capacity and, where applicable, intent or negligence, as well as awareness of the unlawfulness of the conduct. A person may be held criminally liable if, at the time of the offence, they were at least 14 years of age and had the requisite mental capacity. In white-collar crime, most offences are punishable only when committed intentionally. Negligent conduct is punishable only where expressly provided by law.

Attempt

An individual who tries but does not complete the commission of an intentional offence can be punished for the attempt if the offence is punishable by at least three years of imprisonment. For other offences, attempting the crime is only punishable if explicitly stated in KZ-1.

Slovenian law guarantees the presumption of innocence and the prosecution bears the burden of substantiating the charge. The prosecutor must state the facts on which the charge is based and propose the supporting evidence. The accused is not required to present facts or evidence in their defence.

The prosecution must establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where reasonable doubt remains as to a decisive fact, the principle of in dubio pro reo applies, requiring the doubt to be resolved in favour of the defendant.

Under KZ-1, there are two types of limitation periods: for criminal prosecution and for enforcement of a sentence. The limitation period is the same for both and ranges from six to 50 years, depending on the prescribed sentence of the offence. The applicable limitation period is determined by the most severe penalty prescribed for the offence where multiple penalties are prescribed. There are, however, exceptions to this rule where a different limitation period applies or the offence is not subject to limitation at all.

Commencement and Running of the Limitation Periods

The limitation period for criminal prosecution begins to run on the date on which the offence was committed. The limitation period does not run during periods when, under the law, prosecution may not be commenced or continued or when the perpetrator is unavailable to the state authorities.

In continuing offences, the time of commission is the moment the unlawful state ceases to exist.

The limitation period for criminal prosecution is interrupted if, during its running, the perpetrator commits an offence of the same or greater severity. It then begins to run again.

The limitation period for the enforcement of a sentence begins when the judgment becomes final. It does not run during periods when enforcement is legally suspended, postponed or evaded. The limitation period for imprisonment ceases to run once the sentence begins and if the convicted person escapes, the remaining sentence is not subject to limitation.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Slovenian criminal law provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction based on several jurisdictional principles under KZ-1:

• territorial principle: jurisdiction over offences committed in Slovenia, including on Slovenian vessels or aircraft, regardless of location;
• protective principle – jurisdiction over certain offences committed abroad affecting Slovenian interests;
• active nationality principle – jurisdiction over offences committed abroad by Slovenian citizens, subject to statutory conditions, including dual criminality and, in certain circumstances, the consent of the Minister of Justice;
• passive nationality principle – jurisdiction over offences committed abroad by foreign nationals against Slovenia or its citizens, subject to statutory conditions; and
• universal jurisdiction – jurisdiction over offences committed abroad by foreign nationals where the person is apprehended in Slovenia and not extradited, as well as offences falling under Slovenia’s jurisdiction pursuant to international treaties or generally recognised principles of international law.

Mutual Legal Assistance and Cross-Border Co-Operation

Slovenia has a comprehensive framework for international co-operation in criminal matters. The principal domestic framework includes the Act on Co-Operation in Criminal Matters with the Member States of the European Union (ZSKZDČEU-1) and the Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP), supplemented by bilateral and multilateral treaties. The Ministry of Justice acts as the central authority for international legal assistance.

Within the EU, co-operation is primarily based on mutual recognition and includes:

• European Arrest Warrant (EAW);
• European Investigation Order (EIO);
• freezing and confiscation measures;
• transfer of proceedings; and
• joint investigation teams (JITs).

Outside the EU, international treaties and Slovenian law govern mutual legal assistance and extradition. Slovenia has no general blocking statute preventing international legal assistance, although co-operation remains subject to safeguards, including fundamental rights.

Slovenia participates in Eurojust, Europol, EPPO and INTERPOL and is also a member of the OECD Working Group on Bribery and MONEYVAL, which conducts AML/CFT assessments. A cross-border enforcement example is a EUR500 million VAT fraud investigation involving Italy and Slovenia, supported by Eurojust.

Extradition

Article 47 of the Slovenian Constitution provides that a Slovenian citizen may not be extradited unless an international treaty creates an obligation to extradite. For EU Member States, the EAW surrender procedure has largely replaced traditional extradition.

Slovenia does not generally exclude extradition or surrender for white-collar offences. Fraud, corruption, money laundering and other economic offences may constitute extraditable offences, subject to the applicable statutory and treaty requirements.

Criminal Liability of Legal Persons

A legal person may be held criminally liable for an offence committed by a perpetrator, under the Act on the Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences (ZOPOKD) if the offence was committed in its name, on its behalf or for its benefit and if any of the following requirements are met:

• the offence resulted from an unlawful decision order or approval of its management or supervisory bodies;
• its management or supervisory bodies influenced or enabled the perpetrator to commit the offence;
• it obtained an unlawful financial benefit or property resulting from the offence; or
• its management or supervisory bodies failed to exercise due supervision over the lawful conduct of their subordinate employees.

A legal person shall be prosecuted where the above conditions are met and the offence is one for which legal persons may be held liable, as listed in Article 25 of ZOPOKD. In exceptional circumstances, the state prosecutor may decide not to request the initiation of criminal proceedings against a legal person where this would not be expedient, considering the circumstances of the case.

The criminal liability of a legal person does not exclude the liability of natural persons who acted as perpetrators, instigators or aiders in respect of the same offence. A legal person’s liability is accessory in nature, but not strictly dependent on the perpetrator’s guilt.

Under ZKP, defence counsel may not represent two or more defendants in the same criminal proceedings, including a legal and a natural person.

Successor Liability

In the event of a merger, the successor may be subject to sanctions for an offence committed by the predecessor if its management or supervisory bodies were aware of the offence before the predecessor ceased to exist. Otherwise, authorities may confiscate only the proceeds of the offence and the objects used in its commission.

In an acquisition, successor criminal liability generally does not arise: in a share deal, the acquired entity continues to exist and remains subject to its criminal liability, while in an asset deal, criminal liability generally does not transfer to the acquirer.

The assessment of penalties for white-collar offences is governed by the general sentencing rules under KZ-1 and ZKP. For legal persons, the ZOPOKD also governs sanctions.

After establishing guilt, the court sets the sanction within the statutory range, considering:

• the offence’s severity;
• the perpetrator’s culpability; and
• mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

These include, but are not limited to:

• motives;
• harm;
• the circumstances of the offence;
• the perpetrator’s personal and financial circumstances;
• previous conduct;
• conduct after the offence; and
• the expected impact of the sentence on the perpetrator’s future life.

For legal persons, the court also considers their economic strength.

The principle of opportunity is a key principle governing criminal prosecution in Slovenia and includes, in particular, diversion mechanisms such as settlement (Article 161.a ZKP) and deferred prosecution (Article 162 ZKP). The principle of opportunity does not, however, imply arbitrary decision-making, as state prosecutors remain bound by the principles of legality, professional conduct and equal treatment. To ensure consistent decision-making, the State Prosecutor General defines prosecution policy and issues general instructions and other acts governing, inter alia, settlement, deferred prosecution, referral of cases to the settlement procedure and the proposal of sanctions in cases involving an admission of guilt or a plea agreement. The Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office monitors and supervises prosecutorial decisions.

Corporate culture and remediation efforts are not expressly identified as sentencing factors under KZ-1. However, post-offence conduct, including compensation for damages, may be relevant to mitigation.

Victims of white-collar offences may seek compensation through civil proceedings by filing a lawsuit in civil court or by asserting an indemnification claim in criminal proceedings. Under ZKP, such a claim may concern compensation for damage, restitution of property or annulment of a legal transaction. The claim may be submitted up to the end of the main hearing before the criminal court of first instance. The criminal court will adjudicate the indemnification claim only if it does not unduly delay the criminal proceeding; otherwise, it will refer the injured party to civil litigation. Under established Slovenian criminal-court case law, where the amount of damage is a statutory element of the offence, the criminal court must decide the injured party’s damages claim and cannot refer it to civil proceedings.

Collective Redress

Slovenia has a statutory framework for collective actions under the Collective Actions Act (ZKolT). It allows collective claims, including collective damages claims, for mass harm arising from civil, commercial or employment-law violations. The framework is not limited to white-collar crime and does not provide a general criminal law class action. In principle, however, loss resulting from conduct that also constitutes a white-collar offence may be pursued through a collective damages action, provided that the requirements under ZKolT are met.

Responsible Authorities

The Slovenian State Prosecution Service comprises the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office, the Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office (Specializirano državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije; SDT) and 11 District State Prosecutor’s Offices.

The SDT is the principal prosecution authority specialising in white-collar crime. It has nationwide jurisdiction over the most complex offences requiring specialised organisation and expertise. In cases of doubt as to which national state prosecutor’s office has jurisdiction, jurisdiction lies with the SDT.

State prosecutors rely on the police to detect and investigate criminal offences and gather evidence.

Other Enforcement Mechanisms

Administrative, regulatory and misdemeanour enforcement is available under sector-specific legislation. Commission for the Prevention of Corruption conducts preventive and supervisory proceedings concerning corruption, integrity, conflicts of interest, lobbying and related matters and acts as a misdemeanour authority under the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act (“ZIntPK”).

The Financial Administration oversees financial and tax inspections, assesses unpaid taxes and interest, imposes misdemeanour sanctions and files criminal complaints where it identifies elements of an offence. The Competition Protection Agency may investigate infringements of Slovenian and EU competition law and impose administrative monetary sanctions, including in cartel cases. Other supervisory authorities, including the Securities Market Agency, the Bank of Slovenia and the Office for Money Laundering Prevention, exercise their respective supervisory, investigative or reporting powers.

Conflicts and Co-Ordination

Slovenian law contains no separate jurisdiction rule for white-collar cases. The same conduct may be examined by prosecutors and sector regulators, but each exercises distinct powers. KZ-1 and ZP-1 govern overlaps between criminal and misdemeanour proceedings; however, ZP-1 does not apply to the administrative sanctioning of legal persons under competition, insurance-supervision, securities-market, anti-money-laundering or Bank of Slovenia legislation. Such proceedings are governed by the relevant sectoral legislation and remain subject to constitutional and EU ne bis in idem safeguards where the administrative sanction is criminal in nature. Civil proceedings remain separate, although a civil court is bound by a final criminal conviction regarding the existence of the offence and the offender’s criminal liability.

Specialised Units

The National Bureau of Investigation (Nacionalni preiskovalni urad) is a specialised unit of the Criminal Police Directorate responsible for the most serious and complex economic and corruption crime. Economic-crime units also operate within regional police directorates. At the judicial level, specialised departments currently operate in district courts in four major cities; they are staffed by judges with specialised experience, rather than separate courts.

For complex economic or corruption cases requiring co-ordinated action by several authorities, the competent state prosecutor may establish and lead a specialised investigation team.

As of July 2026, the Government submitted a reform bill proposing to replace the SDT with an expanded specialised prosecution office, establish a closer institutional link with the National Bureau of Investigation and replace the four specialised court departments with a single nationwide specialised court. The proposal remains subject to the legislative process. For more details, see 5.1 The Year Ahead.

White-collar criminal investigations may be initiated on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by an individual or a legal entity; information obtained by the police or the state prosecutor independently; or a report from a regulatory or supervisory authority, such as:

• the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption;
• the Financial Administration;
• the Competition Protection Agency;
• the Securities Market Agency; or
• the Office for Money Laundering Prevention.

In addition, state authorities and bodies exercising public powers must report offences prosecuted ex officio and preserve the available evidence. Any person may also report such an offence orally or in writing, to the competent state prosecutor.

Once there are “grounds for suspicion” that an offence prosecuted ex officio has been committed, the police must take necessary steps to identify the perpetrator, secure evidence and collect information. The state prosecutor may direct the police and relevant regulatory authorities through instructions and requests for information or other measures.

Gathering Information and Documents

Where there are “grounds for suspicion” that an offence prosecuted ex officio has been committed, the police may collect information, identify persons and inspect company premises and documentation in the presence of the responsible person. The state prosecutor directs the pre-trial proceedings and may request information or measures from the police, companies and competent regulatory authorities.

A company may be required to surrender documents or other items that may constitute evidence or be subject to confiscation. The request must identify the items specifically or in an objectively identifiable manner. In certain cases, an order of the investigating judge, issued upon application by the state prosecutor, is required.

Searches and Seizures

Company premises may be searched where there are “substantiated grounds for suspicion” that a specified person committed an offence and relevant evidence, traces or objects will probably be found. A search generally requires a reasoned court order and must comply with statutory safeguards. Warrantless searches are permitted only in the limited urgent circumstances specified by law. Documents, electronic devices and other objects that may constitute evidence or be subject to confiscation may be seized during the search.

Questioning

The police may summon employees, officers, directors and third parties to provide information and may compel attendance where the statutory requirements are met. At this stage, the police are collecting information rather than formally examining the person as a witness.

A formally summoned witness must attend and testify, subject to testimonial privileges and the right to refuse to answer. A person questioned as a suspect has the right to remain silent and to legal counsel. The individual’s procedural status, rather than their position within the company, determines their rights and obligations.

Digital Assets

Authorities may trace, freeze and seize digital assets. Slovenian criminal law treats virtual currency as movable property, while ZKP permits the investigating judge to order virtual-currency service providers to disclose or monitor relevant accounts, wallets and transactions. Electronic devices, data carriers and private keys may be searched and secured, generally based on consent or a court order. Where digital assets may represent criminal proceeds, the court may order provisional measures if there is a risk that the assets will be concealed, transferred or otherwise disposed of to prevent or materially hinder their confiscation. In money-laundering or terrorist-financing cases, the Office for Money Laundering Prevention may additionally suspend a transaction for up to three working days where there are “substantiated grounds for suspicion”.

Use by Authorities

Slovenian enforcement authorities use digital forensics, database searches, financial-flow analysis and tools for reviewing large volumes of data. Police policy documents identify AI-assisted analysis as an important area of development. Publicly available information does not establish routine use of predictive policing or blockchain-analysis tools in white-collar investigations.

Legal Framework

Slovenian legislation does not specifically govern AI in white-collar investigations. Authorities remain subject to the ZKP and, when processing personal data for law-enforcement purposes, the Act on the Protection of Personal Data in the Area of Treatment of Criminal Offences, including its requirements of lawfulness, necessity, proportionality, security and data-protection impact assessment.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act is also relevant, as Article 5(1)(d) prohibits assessments predicting whether an individual will commit an offence where they are based solely on profiling or personality traits. Certain law-enforcement AI systems are classified as high-risk under Article 6 and point 6 of Annex III, with the corresponding requirements applying from 2 December 2027 under the current transition timetable.

Company Investigations

No special approval procedure applies to AI-assisted internal investigations. A company may submit its report and supporting analysis with a criminal complaint, but the authorities and courts independently assess the material’s legality, authenticity, integrity and evidential weight.

Requirements, Evidential Relevance and Applicable Laws

Slovenian law imposes no general obligation to conduct internal investigations and provides no single statutory framework for them. Entities subject to the Whistleblower Protection Act (ZZPri) must establish an internal reporting channel and ensure that qualifying reports are assessed and followed up, but it does not require a formal investigation in every case. Additional duties may arise under sector-specific legislation, particularly in regulated financial sectors.

Internal reports have no special evidential status and are subject to the same independent assessment by the authorities and courts as described above under 2.4 Use of Technology in Investigations.

Internal investigations involving employees’ personal data must comply with the GDPR, Slovenian Personal Data Protection Act and the Slovenian Employment Relationships Act.

Disclosure to Authorities

Private companies are not required to disclose internal-investigation findings. Specific reporting duties nevertheless apply in regulated sectors; for example, obliged entities must report suspicious transactions to the Office for Money Laundering Prevention under Article 76 of the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act (“ZPPDFT-2”).

Legal Privilege

The clearest protection applies to confidential communications with an independent attorney for obtaining legal advice or preparing a defence. Although Slovenian law does not recognise the common law “work-product doctrine” as a distinct standalone privilege, attorney-prepared materials and attorney-client communications are protected under professional secrecy and legal privilege. However, pre-existing documents, facts and reports prepared principally for managerial, HR or compliance purposes do not become privileged merely because an attorney subsequently reviews them.

White-collar offences are generally prosecuted ex officio. Following pre-trial investigation, the state prosecutor must commence prosecution where the evidence establishes a “well-founded suspicion” that a specified person committed an offence prosecuted ex officio. Depending on the procedure and the severity of the criminal offence(s) in question, the prosecutor does so by requesting a judicial investigation, filing a direct indictment if certain conditions are met or filing an indictment proposal in summary proceedings.

Prosecutorial discretion is limited by ZKP. The exceptions and alternative mechanisms, together with the prosecutorial policy and guidance governing them, are addressed under 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties and 4.2 De Minimis. For legal persons, including the expediency exception, see 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability.

Slovenian law envisages mechanisms such as settlement and deferred prosecution, as outlined under 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties.

Deferred prosecution is available for eligible offences, subject to the consent of the victim and the suspect. The suspect must perform specified obligations imposed by the State Prosecutor; if completed within the prescribed period, the criminal complaint is dismissed without conviction.

The State Prosecutor’s limited power not to prosecute or to withdraw from prosecution is addressed under 4.2 De Minimis, while plea agreements are addressed under 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

Slovenian law does not provide for a separate, self-contained category of “criminal company law” or “corporate fraud” offences. The most relevant offences are primarily contained in the KZ-1 chapter on offences against the economy.

The principal offences relevant in the corporate context include:

• unlawful restriction of competition (Article 225 KZ-1);
• causing damage to creditors (Article 226 KZ 1);
• business fraud (Article 228 KZ-1);
• falsification or destruction of business documents (Article 235 KZ-1);
• disclosure or unlawful acquisition of trade secrets (Article 236 KZ-1);
• misuse of inside information (Article 238 KZ-1);
• abuse of position or trust in business activities (Article 240 KZ-1);
• acceptance or giving of illicit gifts (Article 241 and 242 KZ-1);
• counterfeiting currency (Article 243 KZ-1);
• money laundering (Article 245 KZ-1); and
• tax evasion (Article 249 KZ 1).

Other chapters of KZ-1 also contain offences that may arise in a white-collar context, for example:

• fraud (Article 211 KZ-1);
• abuse of official position or rights (Article 257 KZ-1);
• acceptance or giving of a bribe (Articles 261 and 262 KZ-1); and
• acceptance or giving of a benefit for unlawful intermediation (Articles 263 and 264 KZ-1).

The constituent elements of these offences are based on the general requirements for criminal liability described under 1.1 Criminal Offences, together with the specific statutory elements.

For example, for abuse of position or trust in business activities under Article 240 KZ-1, the statutory requirements are that a person, in the course of business activities, abuses their position or the trust placed in them, exceeds their rights or fails to perform their duties arising under a law, another regulation, an act of a legal person or a legal transaction concerning the disposal or management of another person’s property or benefits or their representation and thereby obtains an unlawful pecuniary benefit for themselves or another person or causes pecuniary damage.

The applicable sanctions depend on the offence and range from monetary fines to imprisonment. Various security measures may also be ordered. Where the statutory requirements are met, criminal liability may also extend to legal persons as described under 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability.

Under Slovenian law, accepting and giving bribes, as well as influence peddling and giving a benefit for influence peddling, are offences under KZ-1.

Accepting a Bribe – Article 261 KZ-1

Accepting a bribe is committed when a public official or public employee requests or accepts a reward, gift or other benefit or a promise or offer thereof, for themselves or another person, in exchange for performing, omitting or influencing an official act, including by abusing their position.

Giving a Bribe – Article 262 KZ-1

Giving a bribe is committed when a person promises, offers or gives such a benefit to a public official or public employee in exchange for performing, omitting or influencing an official act or otherwise using their position.

Influence Peddling – Article 263 KZ-1

Influence peddling is committed when a person requests or accepts a benefit in exchange for using their position or real or supposed influence to intervene in the performance or non-performance of an official act. It also covers using such position or influence to cause an official act that should not be performed to be performed or to prevent an act that should or may be performed.

Giving a Benefit for Influence Peddling – Article 264 KZ-1

This offence is committed when a person promises, offers or gives a benefit to another person in exchange for that person using their position or real or supposed influence to intervene in the performance or non-performance of an official act.

Sanctions

Sanctions for these offences range from monetary fines to imprisonment. In aggravated cases, courts may impose imprisonment of:

• up to eight years and a monetary fine for accepting a bribe; and
• up to six years and a monetary fine for giving a bribe, influence peddling and giving a benefit for influence peddling.

Obligation to Prevent Bribery and Maintain Compliance Programmes

Slovenian law does not impose a general obligation on private entities to maintain an anti-bribery compliance programme, nor is failure to implement such a programme a standalone offence. However, certain anti-bribery obligations may arise under ZIntPK and, for specific sectors, under ZPPDFT-2.

ZIntPK primarily regulates corruption prevention, conflicts of interest, gifts and lobbying, particularly in the public sector. For example, public officials are prohibited from accepting gifts or other benefits in connection with their public duties, subject to limited exceptions. They must refuse prohibited gifts and, where applicable, hand them over to their employer. Public-sector entities must also keep and report a register of gifts exceeding EUR50.

Entities subject to ZPPDFT-2 must maintain appropriate internal controls and risk-management procedures and comply with applicable reporting obligations. Certain entities are obliged to perform KYC procedures. Non-compliance may result in administrative or misdemeanour sanctions.

The existence and effectiveness of compliance measures may be relevant to the assessment of corporate liability and enforcement.

Reporting Suspected Bribery

No private individual or company has a general obligation to report suspected bribery. Under the ZKP, state authorities and organisations exercising public authority must report offences prosecuted ex officio when they become aware of them. Failure to report may constitute an offence in certain circumstances.

For entities subject to ZPPDFT-2, a separate mandatory reporting regime requires reporting suspicious transactions to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering where there are grounds to suspect that assets originate from an offence that constitutes a predicate offence for money laundering.

Slovenian law regulates insider dealing and market abuse through the EU Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”), the Financial Instruments Market Act (“ZTFI-1”) and KZ 1.

Insider Dealing and Unlawful Disclosure – Article 238 KZ-1

Insider dealing and unlawful disclosure are criminalised as abuse of inside information. The offence includes obtaining inside information through one’s position, employment or activities and using it to trade, cancel or amend a trading order. It also covers unlawfully disclosing inside information, recommending another person to trade or unlawfully obtaining and using such information. It is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or up to five years in cases involving high-value financial instruments.

Market Manipulation – Article 239 KZ-1

Market manipulation is separately criminalised. It consists of intentionally manipulating the financial instruments market to obtain an unlawful financial benefit, including through transactions or orders that create false or misleading signals, fictitious or fraudulent practices, dissemination of false or misleading information or manipulation of benchmark calculations. It is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or up to five years where a large financial benefit or damage is involved.

Breaches of MAR and ZTFI-1 may result in administrative or misdemeanour sanctions imposed by the competent financial-market authorities.

Unauthorised Financial Activities

Banking and other regulated financial activities are subject to licensing and supervision. Unauthorised provision of such services may result in regulatory or misdemeanour sanctions and, depending on the circumstances, may also constitute an offence, such as fraud or abuse of position.

Tax Evasion – Article 249 KZ-1

Under KZ-1, tax evasion occurs where a person, with the intention of enabling themselves or another person to avoid the payment of taxes, contributions or other statutory obligations or to obtain an unlawful tax refund in Slovenia or another EU Member State, provides false information concerning income, expenses, objects, goods or other circumstances relevant to the determination of such obligations or otherwise deceives the competent tax authority. The total amount of unpaid or evaded obligations or unlawfully refunded tax must reach a large pecuniary value, ie, EUR50,000, irrespective of the type of obligation or tax, within a period of up to 12 consecutive months.

The offence also covers a person who, with the same intention, on one or more occasions fails to report income or other circumstances relevant to the determination of taxes, contributions or other statutory obligations, where such reporting is mandatory, provided that other above-stipulated conditions are met.

Article 249 KZ-1 separately criminalises conduct intended to prevent the determination of the actual tax liability. This includes, at the request of the competent tax authority:

• failing to provide information;
• failing to keep or submit required books and records;
• keeping materially inaccurate books or records;
• failing to provide explanations concerning the subject matter of tax supervision; or
• otherwise obstructing tax supervision.

Tax evasion under the first two forms of the offence is punishable by one to eight years’ imprisonment. If committed as part of a criminal association, it is punishable by three to twelve years’ imprisonment. Conduct aimed at preventing the determination of the actual tax liability is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years.

Tax Reporting and AML Obligations

Slovenia has implemented the reporting obligations under EU Directives through amendments to the Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2). The regime requires the reporting of certain cross-border arrangements meeting specified hallmarks of potentially aggressive tax planning. The obligation generally falls on intermediaries and, in certain circumstances, on the taxpayer. Reports are submitted to the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia (FURS).

Under ZPPDFT-2, obliged entities, including banks, lawyers, notaries, accountants and tax advisers, must implement preventive AML/CFT measures and report suspicious transactions and other information to the Office for Money Laundering Prevention of the Republic of Slovenia.

Under Slovenian law, no standalone offence specifically addresses financial record-keeping. Criminal law protects against this through several offences, including;

• causing damage to creditors through fraudulent or negligent business conduct (Article 226 KZ-1);
• falsification or destruction of business documents (Article 235 KZ-1); and
• tax evasion (Article 249 KZ-1).

The constituent elements of the offence under Article 226 KZ-1 are that the offender knows that they or another debtor is insolvent and thereby prevents or reduces the possibility of satisfying creditors’ claims by fraudulently or negligently worsening the debtor’s financial position, for example by concealing, disposing of or destroying assets, creating fictitious debts, manipulating records or otherwise reducing assets. The offence is punishable by six months to five years’ imprisonment or by one to eight years where the result is large pecuniary damage.

The offence under Article 235 KZ-1 covers falsifying business books, records and other documents required by law or regulations and required by law and relevant to business or tax matters. It includes entering false information, omitting important information, certifying documents containing false information or enabling the creation of documents with false content. It also covers using falsified documents as genuine or destroying, concealing or rendering them unusable. The offence is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and attempt is also punishable.

For a detailed description of tax evasion see 3.5 Tax Fraud.

Unlawful restriction of competition (Article 225 KZ-1) is committed when, in the course of economic activity and contrary to competition law, a person participates in prohibited restrictive agreements between undertakings, abuses a dominant position or creates a prohibited concentration, thereby preventing, significantly restricting or distorting competition in Slovenia or the EU market (or a substantial part thereof) or significantly affecting trade between EU Member States.

For the conduct to constitute an offence, it must result in a large pecuniary benefit for the undertaking(s) or large pecuniary damage to another undertaking. The offence is punishable by imprisonment from six months to five years.

Cartel conduct may therefore constitute an offence where these requirements are met. The Competition Act (ZPOm-K2) separately provides for administrative and misdemeanour consequences for cartel agreements.

The court may waive the penalty where the offender reports the restrictive agreement before its discovery, co-operates in its investigation and remediation and has not coerced others to participate in or continue the restriction.

Slovenian law does not provide for a standalone offence specifically concerning consumer protection. Consumer protection is primarily regulated by the Consumer Protection Act (ZVPot-2). Most infringements constitute misdemeanours.

In this category, most relevant offences under KZ-1 are:

• deceiving purchasers (Article 232 KZ-1) – covering false information about products, essential contractual terms or price reductions; punishable by a monetary fine or imprisonment of up to two years;
• production or distribution of harmful products (Article 184 KZ-1) – covering the production or distribution of food or other products harmful to human health; punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or up to twelve years in aggravated cases; and
• careless inspection of meat intended for human consumption (Article 185 KZ 1) – punishable by imprisonment of up to one year.

Cybercrime and Information Systems

An attack on an information system (Article 221 KZ-1) is an offence and includes:

• unauthorised access or intrusion;
• interception of data during non-public transmission;
• unauthorised use, alteration, copying, transfer or destruction of data; and
• obstruction of access to or the functioning of an information system.

Penalties range from up to two years’ imprisonment or, in aggravated cases, up to five years’ imprisonment.

Misuse of an information system (Article 237 KZ-1) in the course of economic activity is criminalised when committed with the intent to obtain unlawful financial benefit or cause financial damage. It includes unauthorised access or interference, interception, manipulation or destruction of data or obstruction of data transmission or system functioning. It is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, depending on the severity.

Trade Secrets

Disclosure and unlawful acquisition of trade secrets are offences under Article 236 KZ-1. They include unauthorised disclosure, transfer or acquisition of trade secrets for unauthorised use or disclosure. The offence is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or up to five years in aggravated cases involving particularly important information, transfer abroad or a profit motive. If committed negligently, it is punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment.

Article 374.a KZ-1 criminalises dealing in, transferring, importing, exporting, providing access to, acquiring or holding restricted goods, technology, money or other property contrary to applicable sanctions. Intent is required and the offender must obtain a large pecuniary benefit exceeding EUR50,000. The penalty is imprisonment for six months to five years, together with mandatory confiscation of the property.

Misdemeanour Enforcement

Article 10.a of the Act on Restrictive Measures (ZOUPAMO) separately treats prohibited dealings or services, circumvention, satisfaction of prohibited claims, failure to provide information or co-operate with authorities and failure to establish required sanctions controls as misdemeanours. Fines are prescribed for both legal and natural persons. Confiscation is mandatory for substantive breaches.

However, Slovenia’s sanctions framework is not limited to national sanctions. Slovenia implements UN Security Council sanctions, directly applicable EU restrictive measures and national measures adopted under the ZOUPAMO.

Concealment under Article 217 KZ-1 constitutes a criminal offence when a person buys, accepts as security, otherwise acquires, conceals or distributes movable or immovable property, knowing that it was obtained through a criminal offence. The offence may also be committed negligently, where the person should and could have known the property’s criminal origin.

The basic offence is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, while negligent conduct is punishable by a monetary fine or imprisonment of up to one year. Aggravated cases are punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

Knowledge of the criminal origin of the property is a subjective element of the offence and must be established by the court based on objective facts and evidence.

Predicate Offences

Under KZ-1, concealment is an accessory offence and may concern only property directly obtained through a predicate offence that establishes unlawful control over it. Examples include:

• theft (Article 204 KZ-1);
• misappropriation (Article 208 KZ-1); and
• embezzlement (Article 209 KZ-1).

The perpetrator of the predicate offence may also be liable for concealment, provided that the concealment is committed subsequently. It is not necessary, however, that the perpetrator of the predicate offence is criminally liable.

Instigation

A person who intentionally instigates another person to commit a criminal offence is punishable as if they had committed the offence themselves. If the offence carries a statutory penalty of imprisonment of three years or more, the instigator may also be punished even where the offence was not attempted.

Aiding

A person who intentionally assists another person in committing an intentional criminal offence is punishable as if they had committed the offence themselves. KZ-1 expressly stipulates that a lesser penalty may be imposed. Assistance includes, but is not limited to, providing advice or instructions, making means available, removing obstacles or promising in advance to conceal the offence, its perpetrator, means, proceeds or objects resulting from the offence.

The instigator or aider may be exempted from punishment if they voluntarily prevent the offence or make a genuine and appropriate effort to prevent its consequences.

Money Laundering – Article 245 KZ-1

Money laundering is committed when a person accepts, exchanges, holds, disposes of, uses in economic activity or otherwise handles money or property, knowing it was obtained through a criminal offence, with the purpose of concealing or attempting to conceal its criminal origin. The offence also applies where the person is the perpetrator or participant in the predicate offence.

The basic form of the offence is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. Where the money or property is of large value, the penalty is up to eight years’ imprisonment and a monetary fine, while commission as part of a criminal association is punishable by one to ten years’ imprisonment and a monetary fine. Negligent money laundering is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment.

Any criminal offence may constitute a predicate offence, as Slovenian law does not provide for a closed list of predicate offences. Proceeds of crime are subject to confiscation.

AML Obligations

ZPPDFT-2 imposes AML obligations on obliged entities, including customer due diligence, risk assessment, transaction monitoring, record-keeping and reporting of suspicious transactions to the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering. Failure to comply with these obligations generally constitutes a misdemeanour and may result in fines for the obliged entity and its responsible persons.

The Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering and the competent sectoral supervisory authorities supervise AML compliance, while state prosecutors prosecute criminal offences. A breach of AML obligations may constitute the criminal offence of money laundering only if the constituent elements of Article 245 KZ-1 are fulfilled.

Slovenian law does not recognise a separate category of ESG criminal offences. ESG-related conduct is addressed through individual offences and misdemeanours under KZ-1 and sector-specific legislation concerning environmental protection, human rights, labour and corporate governance.

Environmental (E)

Chapter XXXIII of KZ-1 regulates environmental criminal offences and covers conduct that causes or threatens harm to the environment, human health, animals, plants, natural resources or protected areas. They include:

• pollution;
• improper handling of waste or hazardous substances;
• destruction of forests or protected habitats;
• illegal exploitation of wildlife and plants; and
• unlawful handling of radioactive materials.

Depending on the offence, actual harm or concrete danger may be required, with aggravated forms applying serious injury, death or significant damage results. Certain offences may be committed negligently where expressly provided by law.

Sanctions range from monetary fines to imprisonment of up to 15 years for the most serious offences, particularly where death or serious environmental consequences result.

Social (S)

Offences against employment and social security protect labour rights, workplace safety, freedom of employment and association and social-security rights. They include:

• unlawful restriction of employment rights;
• unlawful employment practices;
• workplace harassment;
• violations of trade union and employee participation rights;
• breaches of occupational health and safety requirements; and
• unlawful deprivation or abuse of social-security rights.

Certain offences require circumstances or consequences, such as violations affecting at least 20 employees or lasting at least two years or serious injury or death resulting from unsafe working conditions.

Sanctions range from a monetary fine or imprisonment of up to one year to imprisonment of up to 12 years in the most serious cases, including where workplace safety violations result in death.

Human trafficking and slavery are separate offences under Articles 112 and 113 of KZ-1, covering placing or keeping a person in slavery or a similar relationship and recruiting, transporting, transferring or otherwise controlling a person for purposes of exploitation, including sexual exploitation, forced labour, begging, servitude or organ trafficking. Consent of the victim does not exclude liability for human trafficking.

Sanctions range from one to ten years’ imprisonment and a monetary fine or, in aggravated cases, from three to 15 years’ imprisonment and a monetary fine.

Governance (G)

Governance-related offences include corruption and bribery, abuse of position or trust, business fraud, falsification or destruction of business records, disclosure of trade secrets, money laundering and anti-competitive conduct, as well as other offences.

Sanctions vary by offence and range from monetary fines to up to eight years’ imprisonment or, in aggravated cases, up to ten years’ imprisonment and a monetary fine.

Slovenian criminal law does not provide for a separate category of criminal offences specifically addressing the misuse of artificial intelligence, algorithmic trading or automated decision-making in financial or commercial activities. The use of such technologies is therefore not, in itself, criminalised.

Depending on the circumstances, however, conduct involving AI or automated systems may fall within existing offences under KZ-1, including fraud, computer-related offences, abuse of position or trust, offences affecting market integrity, accounting offences and money laundering. The applicable constituent elements and sanctions depend on the particular offence, including the nature of the conduct, the required form of intent, any unlawful pecuniary benefit or damage and other statutory requirements.

In Slovenia, crypto-assets are regulated primarily by Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) and its Slovenian Act Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-assets (ZIUTK). MiCA distinguishes between asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens and other crypto-assets. Crypto-assets qualifying as financial instruments fall outside the scope of MiCA and remain subject to financial-services legislation.

Slovenian criminal law does not provide for autonomous criminal offences specifically concerning crypto-assets. They may instead be involved in general offences, particularly fraud, tax evasion and money laundering. The constituent elements do not change because crypto-assets are involved, although their use may affect how the offence is committed and investigated. Crypto-assets may also constitute proceeds of crime and therefore be subject to confiscation.

Crypto-asset service providers must be authorised or otherwise entitled to provide crypto-asset services under MiCA and comply with MiCA and ZIUTK. They are also subject to the Slovenian AML framework under ZPPDFT-2, including customer due diligence, risk assessment, transaction monitoring, record-keeping and suspicious transaction reporting. Supervision is carried out by the competent Slovenian authorities, including the Securities Market Agency and, where applicable, Bank of Slovenia.

Non-compliance may result in supervisory measures, administrative fines or withdrawal of authorisation. Criminal liability may arise where the conduct fulfils the constituent elements under KZ-1.

Slovenian criminal law does not provide for a specific defence model for white-collar offences. A defendant may contest whether the statutory elements of the alleged offence are established, including the required intent, as well as whether the conduct was unlawful and culpable. A mistake of fact or law may also affect criminal liability where the relevant statutory requirements are met. Procedural objections, including those concerning the admissibility of evidence, the lawfulness of investigative measures and compliance with the defendant’s procedural rights, may also be raised.

An effective compliance programme is not, in itself, a general defence to criminal liability. However, effective internal controls, compliance measures and supervision may be relevant to determining whether the constituent elements of an offence or the liability of a legal person or responsible person are established, as well as to the assessment of sanctions (eg, as mitigating circumstance).

Slovenian criminal law does not provide for a general de minimis exception specifically applicable to white-collar offences. Under Article 161 ZKP, a state prosecutor may dismiss a criminal complaint where the offence is of minor significance and criminal prosecution would be disproportionate to the negligible danger and consequences of the offence. This differs from the principle of opportunity under Article 163 ZKP, under which a state prosecutor is not required to initiate, or may discontinue, criminal prosecution in certain circumstances specified by law, regardless of whether the offence is of minor significance.

Certain white-collar offences also contain statutory financial thresholds that must be met for criminal liability to arise. For example, see 3.5 Tax Fraud. These thresholds are elements of the respective offences, not general de minimis exceptions.

Plea Agreements

Slovenian law permits plea agreements between the defendant and the state prosecutor. Under ZKP, the parties may agree on the defendant’s admission of guilt and, within statutory limits, on the type and amount of the sentence, its execution, costs and certain other obligations. The agreement may also provide for the prosecutor’s withdrawal from prosecution for offences not covered by the admission. The court shall approve the agreement if certain statutory conditions are met. The agreed sentence must remain within the statutory sentencing framework.

Self-Disclosure and Co-Operation

Slovenian criminal law does not provide a general self-disclosure mechanism for white-collar offences. However, voluntary disclosure of the offence, admission of guilt (unless admitted at the end of the trial), genuine remorse, compensation for damages and co-operation with the authorities may be considered mitigating circumstances when determining the sentence. Their significance is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

No general criminal-law leniency programme provides immunity from prosecution solely for co-operation with investigators or prosecuting authorities.

Slovenia provides statutory protection for whistle-blowers under the ZZPri. ZZPri protects persons who report information about workplace violations obtained and prohibits retaliation, including dismissal, harassment, discrimination, reduction of pay and other adverse measures. The whistle-blower’s identity must be kept confidential, subject to statutory exceptions.

Whistle-blowers may report internally through a reporting channel or externally to the competent authority. Employers subject to ZZPri must appoint a trusted person to receive and handle internal reports and establish procedures for protecting whistle-blowers. External reporting is available, for example, where internal reporting is inappropriate or ineffective or where retaliation is reasonably feared. Anonymous reporting is also permitted.

No general financial reward or other specific incentive exists for reporting white-collar offences. The principal protections are confidentiality, protection against retaliation and, where applicable, protection from certain forms of liability arising from the disclosure.

If whistle-blowers face retaliation for reporting corruption and suffer adverse consequences, they have the right to claim compensation from their employer for the damage caused.

Separately, a whistle-blower who becomes a witness in criminal proceedings may, in serious cases, also qualify for protection under the Witness Protection Act (ZZPrič).

In multi-jurisdictional white-collar cases, differences in substantive and procedural law, parallel proceedings and rules on evidence, detention, asset freezing and confiscation may affect defence strategies. Defence counsel may therefore need to co-ordinate proceedings in Slovenia with those in other jurisdictions and challenge the jurisdiction or the lawfulness and proportionality of cross-border investigative measures.

There is no formal state mechanism for co-ordinated cross-border defence in Slovenia.

In recent years, Slovenia has placed an emphasis on investigating and prosecuting economic and corruption-related crime. This focus is expected to continue, particularly in cases involving corruption, money laundering and misuse of public funds. Such cases remain challenging because they are often complex and document-intensive.

Reflecting this focus, proposed legislation currently under consideration would reorganise the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of serious corruption organised crime and related economic offences. The proposal would strengthen and rename the Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office, align its jurisdiction more closely with that of the National Bureau of Investigation and replace the four specialised court departments with a single nationwide specialised court. The proposed reform would also abolish the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption as an independent institution, representing a significant change to Slovenia’s existing anti-corruption framework. The proposal has, however, attracted criticism from legal scholars, the State Prosecutor’s Office and the State Prosecutorial Council. They have warned that certain proposed changes could weaken prosecutorial autonomy and increase executive involvement in prosecution. They have also questioned whether the proposed institutional changes would necessarily result in faster or more efficient proceedings. Until the proposal is adopted and enters into force, the existing institutional framework remains applicable.

Further reforms will be driven mainly by EU rules on asset recovery, anti-money laundering and restrictive measures. Slovenia must transpose the Asset Recovery Directive by 23 November 2026, while the new EU AML framework will apply largely from 10 July 2027, including to crypto-asset service providers.