White-Collar Crime 2024 Comparisons

Criminal offences in Greece are distinguished into felonies and misdemeanours. Any act punishable by life or temporary imprisonment (five to 20 years) is a felony. Any act punishable by imprisonment (ten days to five years), by confinement in a special youth detention facility or only by monetary penalty or community service is a misdemeanour.

Felonies and misdemeanours are punishable only when committed with malicious intent. Exceptionally, in cases specified by law, misdemeanours are also punishable when committed with negligence.

Crimes (felonies and misdemeanours) are punishable not only when committed but also when attempted; in the latter event, a reduced sentence shall be imposed.

The burden of proving the guilt of the defendant lies on the prosecution, which must prove the particulars of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Defendants have the right to be presumed innocent until the hearing of their case and the issuance of a final judgment by the competent criminal tribunal.

Reasonable doubts on guilt result in an acquittal (in dubio pro reo principle).

The statute of limitations for felonies is 20 years if there is a life-sentence provision and 15 years in any other case. The statute of limitations for misdemeanours is five years. In cases of financial crimes, the otherwise applicable statute of limitations for felonies (15 years) is extended to 20 years, on condition that the criminal acts are directed against the property of the Greek State.

For both felonies and misdemeanours, the limitation period commences on the day on which the offence was committed.

The limitation period shall be suspended for as long as the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or continued, or as long as the main proceedings last and until the decision for the conviction becomes irrevocable. In any case, the suspension may not last more than five years for felonies and three years for misdemeanours. The limitation period for felonies against a minor is suspended until the victim reaches adulthood.

In repeated offences, the rule is that each act retains its autonomy and is time-barred independently. However, if it turns out that the perpetrator, by the most part of his/her actions, aimed at the overall result, the limitation period begins with the last partial behaviour.

Greek criminal law applies to an act (felony or misdemeanour) committed (i) by a native abroad or (ii) by a foreigner abroad and directed against a Greek citizen, provided that, in both cases, the punishable act under the Greek Criminal Code (GCC), with its specific characteristics, is also punishable according to the laws of the country in which it was committed or if it was committed within a country with no clear constitutional structure. The latter condition does not apply in the case of certain expressly prescribed crimes, such as the bribery of a person exercising a public function or service for a foreign country, false testimony in the context of proceedings pending before the Greek authorities, crimes related to currency and other means of payment, terrorist acts, drug trafficking and human trafficking.

If the criminal act is committed within a legal entity, the criminal liability is held by the individual who has been the agent of the will of the legal entity and who has actually committed the crime.

The general rule is that criminal liability lies only with those individuals/directors who have been exercising executive powers or representing the legal entity at the time the criminal offence was committed. Exceptionally, in specific criminal offences (eg, in the case of non-payment of overdue debts towards the State), the criminal liability also lies with future representatives provided that they continue not to pay the said debts.

Beyond that, in accordance with Articles 134-135 of Law 5090/2024, if the crime of influence peddling or bribery of politicians, public sector officials or judicial officers is committed, or participation in the above crimes occurs, for the benefit of or on behalf of a legal person or entity, by a natural person acting either individually or as a member of a body of the legal person or entity and holding a managerial position within it or having the power to represent it or the authorisation to make decisions on its behalf or to exercise control within it, a fine of EUR50,000 to EUR10 million shall be imposed on the legal person or entity. The fine may reach up to twice the pre-tax annual net profits of the legal entity, if this amount exceeds EUR10 million. Moreover, when the lack of supervision or control by a natural person as described above has made it possible for a hierarchically inferior executive or an agent of the legal person or entity to perform any of the above-mentioned acts for the benefit or on behalf of the legal person or entity, a fine of EUR10,000 to EUR5 million shall be imposed on the legal person or entity. The fine may reach up to the amount of the pre-tax annual net profits of the legal entity, if this amount exceeds EUR5 million. In both the above cases, the year of the commission of the offence or of the last individual act thereof is considered as the reference year and, in addition to the fine, the legal person or entity may have imposed upon it, cumulatively or disjunctively, definitively or temporarily, the revocation or suspension of its operating licence or a ban on the exercise of business activity. A sanction imposed against a legal person or entity is also executed against a legal person or entity that enters into the rights and obligations of the sanctioned person as its general or special successor, up to the value of the assets transferred to each. Most special successors are jointly and severally liable for the payment of monetary penalties. The jurisdiction of the Greek criminal courts for the aforesaid crimes is also established in cases where these are committed abroad by natural persons as described above for the benefit or on behalf of a domestic legal person or entity, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, even if the act is not punishable, with its specific characteristics, according to the laws of the country in which it was committed or does not fulfil the relevant conditions of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the GCC.

Regarding the guidelines in the event of a plea agreement, see 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

Article 79 of the GCC lists a number of criteria to be taken into account when determining sentences upon individuals. Factors to be considered by the court include the nature of the offence committed, any special circumstances under which the perpetrator acted, the personality of the perpetrator, and the motives for the criminal act.

Article 84 of the GCC contains a number of generally applicable leniency factors to be taken into consideration before sentencing – eg, the impious causes of the crime, the fact that the defendant led a lawful life prior to the offence or for long after the offence, or that they showed remorse and seriously tried to minimise the consequences of their criminal acts. The unreasonable duration of the criminal proceedings without any relevant fault of the accused is also considered a mitigating circumstance, pursuant to Article 84 of the GCC.

Class actions are not admitted in the Greek jurisdiction for white-collar matters.

A victim of a criminal offence who is entitled under the Civil Code to compensation or reparation for pecuniary injury caused by the crime or to an indemnity for moral damage, or the victim’s family members who are entitled under the Civil Code to an indemnity for mental anguish in the event of the death of the victim, are entitled to appoint an attorney and appear before the criminal court, declaring themselves as a damaged party in the criminal proceedings.

However, after the recent amendment of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP), civil claims (ie, claim for compensation or moral damage or mental anguish) cannot be brought before the criminal courts but only before the civil courts, following a civil lawsuit filed by the injured party.

Criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the State by the public prosecutor of the Court of Misdemeanours, as a rule (Article 27 paragraph 1a of the GCCP).

Regarding financial crime, a Department of Financial Crime has been established – pursuant to Articles 33-36 of the GCCP – within the public prosecutor’s office of the Court of Appeals of Athens. The Department consists of four regular and four alternative members with the rank of Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal, who are assisted by at least eight Prosecutors or Deputy Prosecutors of First Instance.

The prosecutors of financial crime have jurisdiction over felonies committed by:

• ministers;
• deputy ministers;
• members of parliament;
• general and special secretaries of ministries;
• governors and deputy governors;
• presidents of the boards of directors, directors, executives and executive advisers of legal entities governed by public law; and
• employees serving in private entities established by the State,

and related to the pursuit of economic benefit to themselves or third parties or to the cause of material damage to the State.

Prosecutors of financial crime are also responsible for conducting investigations or preliminary examinations to determine the commission of any kind of tax or financial crimes or any other related crimes, if they are committed against the Greek State, local authorities or legal entities of public law, or if they seriously harm the national economy. The work of the prosecutors of financial crime is supervised by the head prosecutor of the Department of Financial Crime and supported by special scientists serving in the wider public sector and in exceptional cases also in the private sector.

When the public prosecutor receives a criminal complaint or report, he/she initiates the criminal proceedings by ordering an interrogation or by introducing the case directly to the competent criminal court.

In the case of felonies or misdemeanours within the jurisdiction of a three-judge Court of Misdemeanours, as well as misdemeanours within the jurisdiction of a three-member Court of Appeal, the public prosecutor initiates a criminal prosecution only if a preliminary investigation has been completed and sufficient evidence has been shown for its initiation.

The head prosecutor of the Department of Financial Crime is informed of all complaints or information that come to the attention of the Financial Crime Investigation Body (SDOE), the Financial Crime Investigation Directorate (DEOE) and the Directorate of Financial Police, with whose employees it co-operates, as well as any other relevant news that comes to their attention in any way, prioritising those cases that seriously harm the interests of the Greek State and the EU.

In order to investigate the cases that fall within their competence, the prosecutors of the Department of Financial Crime may order a preliminary examination by the employees of the above-mentioned co-operating services (SDOE, etc), but also by the Prosecutor of First Instance, who has procedural authority.

Provided that the principle of proportionality is respected, the prosecutors of financial crime have access to any item or information useful for the exercise of their work, without being subject to the restrictions of the legislation on tax, banking, stock exchange or any other secrecy (with the exception of attorney confidentiality and – under specified conditions – telecommunications secrecy), as well as to any form of file of a public authority or organisation that keeps and processes personal data.

Moreover, when the prosecutors of financial crime conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether crimes have been perpetrated within their authority, they have the possibility of proceeding, by a reasoned order, to freeze bank accounts, the contents of bank deposit boxes, and assets in general (movable and immovable), in order to safeguard the interests of the State.

Internal investigations are not mandatory by their very nature, but can be carried out in order to review the operational activities of the legal entity and to facilitate criminal proceedings. In this type of investigation, the subject matter of the investigation is determined by the directors of the undertaking.

As far as banking institutions are concerned, the operation of an Internal Audit Department is mandatory and is supervised by the Credit System Supervision Division of the Bank of Greece.

As is the case for any criminal offence, in the case of financial crimes, prosecution is carried out if the preliminary investigation is completed by the public prosecutor in charge and it is found that there is sufficient evidence of guilt for its initiation.

After the prosecution has been brought, the person under investigation is granted the status of defendant and all the rights provided for by the GCCP are granted to him/her.

The public prosecutor’s office, as well as the investigating and judicial authorities, must, when treating any person accused of any crime, comply with the requirements of Article 71 of the GCCP (presumption of innocence), which applies to every suspect and accused person until proven guilty, as well as complying with the rules on the protection of personal data, which allow, by way of exception, the collection, processing and transfer of personal data if necessary for the prosecution of criminal offences.

European Public Prosecutors

Law 4786/2021 implemented the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 implementing enhanced co-operation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is competent for the investigation, prosecution and referral before judicial authorities of the alleged perpetrators of criminal acts that affect the financial interests of the EU. Delegated European Public Prosecutors constitute an inextricable part of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, while remaining incorporated in the domestic prosecution structures. Criminal prosecution is carried out by a Delegated European Public Prosecutor, with an order to the investigating judge to hear the accused. The jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutors extends throughout the Greek territory and includes all investigative powers of the investigating judge, except hearing the accused and imposing measures of procedural coercion. For felonies and related misdemeanours for which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has exercised its competence, an order is directed to the investigating judge only to hear the accused and all investigation acts are carried out by the European Public Prosecutor. If, after the accused has been heard, the European Public Prosecutor is of the opinion that the accused should be referred for a less serious act than that of the indictment, he/she draws up a similar draft decision, whereas if he/she judges that a referral should be made for a more serious or an essentially different act, he/she has to request the summons of the accused for a supplementary interrogation. If, after the accused has been heard, the European Public Prosecutor deems it necessary to arrest the accused or to take measures of procedural coercion against him/her, the European Public Prosecutor addresses a relevant request to the investigating judge. Upon partial or total rejection of his/her request by the investigating judge, the European Public Prosecutor may accept the judgment of the latter, requesting the progress of the procedure, or introduce his/her disagreement to the Judicial Council. The completion of the pre-trial stage and referring the case to trial before the court are decided by the Permanent Chamber of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. For crimes for which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has exercised its competence and its Permanent Department has decided upon referring the case to trial, the accused is introduced before the court by the service of a writ of summons, drafted by the European Public Prosecutor. If a disagreement arises between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the domestic prosecution authorities regarding whether the punishable act falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 or not, the Court of Cassation/the Supreme Court has to reach a decision on the matter.

Pursuant to the GCCP, it is possible for the public prosecutor to refrain from bringing criminal charges against the perpetrator of certain crimes under certain conditions.

More specifically, pursuant to Article 45 of the GCCP, in the case of extortion carried out by means of the threat of revealing a crime committed by the victim, or in the case of fraud in which, if the victim were to disclose it, there might be revealed a crime committed by him/her, provided that the crime in question is less serious compared to the extortion or fraud, as the case may be, the public prosecutor may refrain from prosecuting the said crime.

Moreover, in accordance with Article 47 of the GCCP, in the case of bribery, the public prosecutor may abstain from bringing criminal charges of perjury and slanderous defamation against public interest witnesses.

Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 48 and 49 of the GCCP, the public prosecutor may refrain from prosecuting certain offences, including property crimes, under the following conditions:

• the existence of sufficient evidence of guilt for the commission of a misdemeanour or a felony and the clear consent, after being informed, of the person to whom the criminal offence is attributed that he/she wishes to apply the procedure of abstention; and
• the perpetrator’s consent to fulfil the conditions deemed appropriate to satisfy the public interest in his/her prosecution and to reduce the consequences of the offence.

In the case of misdemeanours, such conditions may be, inter alia, the attempt to reconcile with the victim, and the payment of a certain amount of money to a charitable foundation, whereas in the case of felonies, such conditions consist in the complete restoration of the victim’s damage caused by the crime.

Additionally, pursuant to Article 405 of the GCC, regarding most property crimes (ie, fraud, computer fraud, breach of trust), if, prior to the perpetrator’s first examination as a suspect or an accused person and in the absence of any unlawful harm to any third party, the person to whom the offence is attributed proceeds, of his/her own free will, to the complete satisfaction of the injured party, the offence shall no longer be punishable. Likewise, if the defendant completely satisfies the injured party before the irrevocable indictment to the audience of the Criminal Court of First Instance or, in the case of misdemeanours, before the end of the evidentiary procedure before the Criminal Court of First Instance, no sentence shall be imposed.

A similar provision is also found in paragraph 2A of Article 396 of the GCC, in accordance with which a person who commits bribery in the private sector is exempt from any penalty if, of his/her own free will and prior to being examined by the authorities, reports his/her act of bribery to the competent authorities.

Finally, Article 263A of the GCC provides for leniency measures, including the suspension of criminal prosecution, the imposition of a reduced sentence and the suspension of the execution of the sentence imposed, for persons who contribute to the disclosure of acts of corruption, such as bribery and breach of trust.

Fraud

Under Article 386 of the GCC, fraud consists of the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of facts in order to convince somebody to dispose of his/her property and thereby suffer financial loss for the purposes of the personal gain of the perpetrator. If the fraud consists of a misdemeanour (ie, it pertains to losses below the threshold of EUR120,000), it shall be punished by imprisonment of up to five years and a monetary penalty. If the damage caused is particularly serious, the act is punishable by at least three months’ imprisonment and a monetary penalty. If it consists of a felony (fraud leading to losses exceeding EUR120,000), it shall be punished by imprisonment of up to ten years (or of at least ten and up to 20 years if it is committed against the State) and a monetary penalty.

Computer Fraud

See 3.9 Cybercrimes, Computer Fraud and Protection of Company Secrets.

Grant Fraud

Article 386B of the GCC punishes anyone who, when submitting a request to an authority responsible for the approval of a grant, knowingly declares incorrect or incomplete information or fails to disclose facts provided for by law or by the grantor, as long as this information is used to approve or provide or avoid the refund claim, the extension of the provision or the maintenance of the grant to himself/herself or a third party, shall be punished, if the request has been granted, by both imprisonment of at least one year and up to five years and a monetary penalty, and, if the grant exceeds EUR120,000, imprisonment of at least five and up to ten years and a monetary penalty shall be imposed. In addition, whoever uses, in a specific grant, an object or a financial provision whose use is restricted by legal provisions or by the grantor, in violation of those restrictions, shall be punished by imprisonment of at least one year and up to five years and a monetary penalty.

Breach of Trust

Article 390 of the GCC punishes every intentional act which is in violation of the duties of a person (“breach of diligent management rules”) in charge of the property of a legal entity that results in certain financial damage. Prosecution for this offence applies to the President of the Board of Directors (BoD) and/or the managing director or other officers entrusted with the financial management of a company.

Article 390 of the GCC provides that if a breach of trust is a misdemeanour (ie, it pertains to losses below EUR120,000), it shall be punished by imprisonment of at least three months and up to five years and a monetary penalty, and prosecuted only following a criminal complaint by the alleged victim. By contrast, prosecution for felonies (breaches of trust leading to losses exceeding EUR120,000) starts ex officio (ie, even if the company decides not to start criminal proceedings, the public prosecutor may initiate such proceedings on his/her own motion), and may lead to a sentence of imprisonment of at least five and up to ten years, or of at least ten and up to 20 years if it is committed against the State, as well as to a monetary penalty.

Embezzlement

According to Article 375 of the GCC, anyone is punishable who, knowing that they are in charge of the property of another person or legal entity, acts as the owner of the property by appropriating it as their own. If the embezzlement consists of a misdemeanour (ie, it pertains to losses below EUR120,000), it shall be punished by imprisonment of up to two years. If the value of the embezzled property is particularly high, the act is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years and a monetary penalty. If the embezzlement consists of a felony (it pertains to losses exceeding EUR120,000), it shall be punished by imprisonment of up to ten years, or of at least ten years and up to 20 years if it is committed against the State, as well as by a monetary penalty.

Insolvency Crimes

The recently introduced Insolvency Code (Law 4738/2020) stipulates punishment by both imprisonment and monetary penalties for a variety of acts that take place after the official declaration of bankruptcy, or before it and during the so-called “suspect period”. The criminal acts include:

• the intentional concealment, damage or disposal of the bankrupted business’s property;
• the closing of deals that result in financial loss in breach of the rules of diligent management;
• the reduction of the business’s property; and
• the concealment or the damage of commercial books in order to discourage the creditors from finding the business’s property.

Environmental Crimes

Environmental crimes are provided for in Law 1650/1986, Law 4042/2012, and a series of regulations and specific ministerial decisions. The criminal acts range from failure to obtain certain kinds of licence to causing large-scale contamination as a result of violations of specific rules and regulations. Environmental crimes are punishable by both imprisonment and monetary penalties even if they are committed with negligence.

The main bribery/influence peddling offences in Greece are:

• passive bribery of public officials (Article 235 of the GCC);
• active bribery of public officials (Article 236 of the GCC);
• passive and active bribery involving members of the judiciary (Article 237 of the GCC);
• trading in influence (Article 237A of the GCC);
• passive and active bribery in the private sector (Article 396 of the GCC);
• passive bribery of political officers (Article 159 of the GCC);
• active bribery of political officers (Article 159A of the GCC); and
• campaign finance.

In terms of campaign finance, a private business or a natural person (not connected with the media or any type of public entity) may offer money during or before an election campaign to a political party or a candidate. Thus, the donation may be given one time per party or candidate per election and is limited to certain relatively low amounts of money. Law 3023/2002 provides for punishment by both imprisonment of up to two years and a monetary penalty when these rules are violated.

Articles 235 and 236 of the GCC stipulate punishment by both imprisonment of up to five years and a monetary penalty for any public servant who requests or receives directly or indirectly through third persons in favour of himself/herself or others benefits of any nature, or accepts a promise of such benefits, to act or omit to act in the future or for acts that have already been performed or omitted to be performed, with regard to public duties or contrary to those duties. If the public servant’s action or omission is contrary to his/her duties, active bribery shall be punished by imprisonment of up to ten years, while passive bribery shall be punished by imprisonment of up to eight years.

Article 237 of the GCC stipulates punishment by both imprisonment of up to 20 years and a monetary penalty for judges and/or arbitrators who request or receive gifts or benefits to conduct or decide a case in favour of or against someone. Moreover, it punishes by imprisonment of up to ten years and a monetary penalty whoever, for the above-mentioned purpose, provides or promises such benefits, directly or through a third party, to judges and/or arbitrators.

Articles 159 and 159A of the GCC punish active and passive bribery offences when they are committed by higher government officials, members of parliament, etc, by imprisonment of up to 20 years and of up to ten years, respectively, and a monetary penalty.

Article 396 of the GCC stipulates punishment by both imprisonment of at least one year and up to five years and a monetary penalty for acceptance or receipt directly or indirectly of any benefit during the exercise of a commercial activity in breach of one’s duties or the giving or offering of benefits directly or indirectly to a person in the private sector for the purposes of acting or omitting to act in breach of his/her duties.

As said in 2.6 Deferred Prosecution, Article 263A of the GCC provides for leniency measures for persons who contribute to the disclosure of acts of bribery.

Beyond that, there is no explicit provision for preventing and disclosing of violations of anti-bribery legislation, except for the specific provisions included in money laundering regulations, which concern certain categories of individuals and legal entities that have to report irregularities related to suspicious transactions.

In any case, guidelines from supervising and regulating authorities – for example, the Bank of Greece and the Hellenic Capital Market Commission – make special reference to acts of bribery and suggest ways of adjusting compliance programmes to the requirements of anti-corruption legislation. The Ministry of Finance also circulates guidelines on compliance programmes on a regular basis.

Capital Markets-Related Crimes

Misrepresentation in connection with sales of securities

Intentional misrepresentation of information and/or making transactions using fraudulent means in order to manipulate market share prices for purposes of personal gain are punishable by imprisonment under special provisions of Law 4443/2016.

Insider trading

Intentionally using inside information to gain profit from transactions on specific market shares is punishable by imprisonment under special provisions of Law 4443/2016.

Market manipulation in connection with the sale of derivatives

The use of confidential information in transactions connected with the sale of derivatives for the purposes of financial gain, the promotion of transactions under fraudulent or misleading circumstances, and the manipulation of prices, etc, are punishable by imprisonment under special provisions of Law 4443/2016.

Criminal Banking-Related Crimes

The principal legislation for banking regulation in Greece is Law 4261/2014. However, the criminal aspect of banking law refers to the criminal offence of breach of trust which is described in Article 390 of the GCC (see 3.1 Criminal Company Law and Corporate Fraud).

Tax evasion is the main criminal tax offence in Greece and it is regulated by Articles 66-67 of Law 4174/2013 as amended by Law 4337/2015.

Under Article 66 of Law 4174/2013, tax evasion is deemed to have been committed when any person, with the intent of avoiding the payment of income tax, conceals any form of income either by failing to file income tax declarations or by filing inaccurate tax declarations. If convicted, the taxpayer can be sentenced (i) to imprisonment of two to five years if the income tax evaded each year exceeds the amount of EUR100,000, or (ii) to imprisonment of five to 15 years if the income tax evaded each year exceeds the amount of EUR150,000.

Also, under Article 66 of Law 4174/2013, tax evasion is deemed to have been committed when any person, with the intent of avoiding paying VAT, turnover tax, withholding tax or any other tax, duty or contribution which burdens the other contracting party, either does not pay the tax or pays the incorrect amount to the Greek State. In the event of a conviction, the taxpayer can be sentenced (i) to imprisonment of two to five years if the tax evaded each year exceeds the amount of EUR50,000, or (ii) to imprisonment of five to 15 years if the tax evaded each year exceeds the amount of EUR100,000.

Likewise under Article 66 of Law 4174/2013, tax evasion is deemed to have been committed when any person issues counterfeit or fictitious tax records, or accepts fictitious tax records or falsifies such records, irrespective of whether the taxpayer avoids the payment of any tax. In such cases, the taxpayer can be sentenced (i) to imprisonment of one year to five years if the amount of the fictitious tax records or falsified records exceeds the amount of EUR75,000, or (ii) to imprisonment of five to ten years if the amount of the fictitious tax records or falsified records exceeds the amount of EUR200,000.

There is no explicit provision to prevent tax evasion.

Failure to keep accounting records constitutes an administrative offence and is punishable by fine.

Pursuant to the provision of Article 54E of Law 4174/2013 introduced by Law 4714/2020, if the tax control reveals that the company does not keep the appropriate accounting records, a fine equal to 15% of its income from business activity, as calculated from the average of the declared revenues of the last three tax years, shall be imposed for each year for which the infringement is found. The minimum amount of the fine is EUR10,000 for a person liable to keep simple records and EUR30,000 for a person liable to keep double-entry records.

Under the recent provisions, failure to update the records or to show them on invitation is equated with non-keeping of records.

Free Competition

Greek competition law provides for sanctions against potential infringers of Law 3959/2011 at two different levels:

• fines and administrative penalty payments against the undertakings involved; and
• criminal penalties against the responsible members of the BoD.

As a rule, the stage of the administrative procedure and the investigation of the case – through the extensive investigative powers the competition authority is vested with – precede the possible criminal prosecution for violation of Article 44 of Law 3959/2011.

Under paragraph 1 of Article 44 of Law 3959/2011, any person who executes an agreement, takes a decision or applies a concerted practice in breach of Article 1 or Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU shall be punished by a fine of between EUR15,000 and EUR150,000. If the act referred to in the preceding sentence pertains to undertakings which are in actual or potential competition with each other, a term of imprisonment of at least two years and a fine of between EUR100,000 and EUR1 million shall be handed down.

Under paragraph 2 of Article 44 of Law 3959/2011, any person who abuses a dominant market position in breach of Article 2 of Law 3959/2011 or Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU shall be punished by a fine of between EUR30,000 and EUR300,000. In order for a criminal prosecution pertaining to an abuse of a dominant position to be lawful, it should be proved both that the company under investigation holds a dominant position in the relevant market and that the company in question is abusing that dominant position.

Unfair Competition

All practices in commercial, industrial and agricultural transactions, undertaken for competition purposes, which are contrary to business morals and ethics, such as misleading advertising, defamation, exploitation of other parties’ goodwill, infringement of third parties’ distinctive marks, and leaking of trade secrets/know-how are punishable under Law 146/1914.

The main product liability rules are set out in Article 6 of Law 2251/1994 on Consumers’ Protection (Consumers’ Protection Law, CPL). The CPL has been amended several times and most recently it was extensively revised in 2018.

Regarding criminal or administrative liability, the GCC, the rules regulating the market of products and the provision of services (Law 4177/2013) and the special provisions of Article 13a of the CPL apply.

More specifically, any person involved in the chain of supply of a defective product is potentially liable. A product is considered defective if it does not provide reasonably expected safety in view of all special circumstances set out in the Product Liability Directive. A product can also be considered defective if its expected performance does not correspond to its specifications. A product is not deemed defective solely because another, better product was later circulated in the market. The concept of defectiveness especially relating to lack of safety is supplemented by the Ministerial Decision on General Product Safety (see Articles 6(5) and 7 of the CPL).

Cybercrimes

Under Article 370B of the GCC, anyone who, in violation of a protection measure and without any right, gains access to part or all of an information system or to electronic data, shall be punished by imprisonment of up to two years or a monetary penalty. In particularly light cases, the act remains unpunished. If the perpetrator is in the service of the legal owner of the information system or the data, the above-mentioned act shall be punished only if it is expressly prohibited by an internal regulation or by a written decision of the owner or his/her competent employee. If the act pertains to scientific or professional secrets of a company in the public or private sector, it is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or a monetary penalty. If the perpetrator is in the service of the legal owner of the data and if the secret is of particularly high economic value, imprisonment of up to five years and a monetary penalty are imposed. For the criminal prosecution of the above-mentioned acts, a summons is required.

Article 370C of the GCC punishes by imprisonment of at least three months and up to five years whoever copies, imprints, uses, discloses to a third party or infringes computer data or programs which constitute government, scientific or professional secrets, or secrets of a public or private sector enterprise. If the perpetrator is in the service of the legal owner of the data and if the privacy is of particularly high economic value, imprisonment of at least one year and up to five years shall be imposed. The above-mentioned acts are only prosecuted upon a summons.

Under Article 370D of the GCC, anyone who without any right copies or uses computer programs shall be punished by a monetary penalty or community service, and anyone who without any right gains access to the whole or part of an information system or to data transmitted by telecommunications systems, in violation of prohibitions or security measures taken by its legal owner, shall be punished by imprisonment of up to five years. If the perpetrator is in the service of the legal owner of the information system or the data, the act shall be punished only if expressly prohibited by an internal regulation, or a written decision of the owner or a competent employee.

Article 370E of the GCC punishes by imprisonment of at least five and up to ten years anyone who unlawfully, using technical means, monitors or captures on a material carrier non-public data transmissions or electromagnetic emissions from, to or within an information system or interferes with them with the aim of informing themselves or others of their content and anyone who makes use of the information or the material carrier on which it has been imprinted as noted. If the acts set out in Article 370E of the GCC constitute a violation of military or diplomatic secrecy or concern secrecy related to the security of the State in wartime, a sentence of imprisonment of up to 20 years shall be imposed.

Computer Fraud

Article 386A of the GCC punishes computer fraud – that is, every intentional influence, interference, false use of information, etc, in a computer system that results in financial loss for the purposes of personal gain. Specifically, Article 386A of the GCC punishes fraud committed by influencing the outcome of a computer data processing process through:

• the incorrect configuration of a computer program;
• the unauthorised intervention in an information system;
• the use of incorrect or incomplete digital computer data, in particular identification data;
• the unauthorised entry, alteration, deletion, transmission or elimination of correct digital computer data, in particular identification data; or
• the unauthorised exploitation of software intended for the movement of money.

If this offence consists of a misdemeanour (ie, it pertains to losses below EUR120,000), it shall be punished by imprisonment of up to five years. If the damage caused is particularly serious, the act is punishable by at least three months’ imprisonment and a monetary penalty. If it consists of a felony (leading to losses exceeding EUR120,000), it shall be punished by imprisonment of at least five and up to ten years, or of at least ten and up to 20 years if it is committed against the State, as well as by a monetary penalty. Moreover, under Article 386A of the GCC, anyone who manufactures, makes available or owns a program or information system intended to commit computer fraud shall be punished by imprisonment of up to two years and a monetary penalty, but they shall be exempt from any penalty if they voluntarily destroy the above-mentioned program or information system before it is used to commit the crime.

It should be noted that, nowadays, cyberfraud occurs, to a great extent, in the field of cryptocurrencies, where investors are often defrauded by providers operating cryptocurrency platforms. The legal regime of these platforms is not adequately regulated at the time of writing, but by 30 December 2024, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) on cryptocurrency markets is expected to be fully in force, establishing binding rules for issuers of crypto-assets and for providers of relevant services.

Protection of Company Secrets

Pursuant to Articles 22A-22K added to Law 1733/1987 by Article 1 of Law 4605/2019, the use or disclosure of a trade secret is considered unlawful whenever it is carried out without the consent of the trade secret holder by a person who has demonstrably acquired the trade secret illegally or has violated a confidentiality agreement or other obligation not to disclose the trade secret or has violated a contractual or other obligation to limit the use of the trade secret.

The acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret is also considered unlawful when a person, at the time of acquisition, use or disclosure, knew (or ought to have known in the circumstances) that the trade secret had been acquired directly or indirectly by another person who was using or disclosing the trade secret unlawfully.

The production, offer or placing on the market of illegal goods, or the import, export or storage of infringing goods for those purposes, shall also be considered to be an unlawful use of a trade secret where the person carrying out those activities knew (or ought to have known in the circumstances) that the trade secret had been used unlawfully.

When an infringement of a trade secret is suspected, the single-member Court of First Instance may, at the request of the trade secret holder, order any of the following injunctions against the alleged infringer:

• the cessation or, as the case may be, the prohibition of the use or disclosure of the trade secret on a temporary basis;
• the prohibition of the production, supply, placement on the market or use of the infringing goods, or of the import, export or storage of infringing goods for those purposes; and
• the seizure or delivery of goods suspected of being infringing, including imported goods, in order to prevent them from entering or being placed on the market.

Under Greek law, there are no specific criminal offences related to financial, trade or customs sanctions. However, Greece may adopt the resolutions of international bodies, such as the UN Security Council, as internal regulations – eg, arms embargoes, investment bans, and restrictions on the importation or exportation of goods to and from certain countries.

Concealment is standardised as an individual form of the criminal offence of receiving and disposing of the proceeds of crime (Articles 394-394A of the GCC) on the one hand, and money laundering on the other hand (Article 2 paragraph 1b of Law 4557/2018).

Pursuant to Article 394 of the GCC, anyone who, among other things, conceals an object that came from a crime, regardless of whether or not the person responsible for the crime from which the object came is punishable, shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three years, and by imprisonment of between three months and five years and a monetary penalty if it is an object of particular value.

Pursuant to paragraph 1b of Article 2 of Law 4557/2018, anyone who conceals the truth as to the nature, origin, disposal, trafficking or use of property or the place where it is located or the ownership thereof, or the rights relating to it, knowing that such property comes from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such activity, is punishable by imprisonment of up to eight years and a monetary penalty and a prison sentence of up to ten years as well as a monetary penalty if the illegally earned money exceeds the amount of EUR120,000. Criminal liability for the predicate offence does not exclude the punishment for money laundering if the elements of the objective nature of the acts of money laundering are different from those of the predicate offence.

According to the GCC, there are three types of aiding and abetting, as follows.

Co-perpetrator

If two or more individuals have jointly committed, in whole or in part, the elements of a criminal offence as described in the text of the law, each of them is punished as a perpetrator (thus, with the penalty provided for by law).

Instigator

Anyone who has instigated another person to perpetrate a criminal offence is punished as a perpetrator.

Accomplice

Anyone who intentionally offered to another person any assistance before or during the perpetration of a criminal offence shall be punished by a reduced penalty. However, the court may impose the sentence of a direct perpetrator upon an assisting perpetrator who offered immediate assistance while committing the offence, placing the object of the crime at the disposal of the direct perpetrator.

Law 4557/2018 is the main law against money laundering. According to Article 2, the act of money laundering is described as follows:

• knowingly converting and transferring property assets that are the proceeds of a crime, or participation in such an act for the purposes of concealing the illegal sources of the assets, or aiding anyone involved in said acts in order to assist in avoiding legal sanctions;
• concealing and covering up the truth, by any means, in relation to the source, movement, disposal, place of acquiring assets or asset-related rights, knowledge that a property is associated with the proceeds of criminal acts, or participation in criminal activities;
• acquiring, possessing, managing or using any asset with the knowledge that at the time of possession, management, etc, such property asset was the result of a criminal activity; or
• using the financial sector by depositing or transferring proceeds of criminal activities for the purposes of making it appear as though they have legitimate sources.

It is required that the individual acts in the knowledge of the source of the assets and for the purposes of concealing or covering up their true origin. Therefore, there is no room for negligently committing an act of money laundering.

Article 4 of Law 4557/2018 contains a list of predicate offences of money laundering such as:

• bribing of domestic public officials;
• bribing of foreign officials or EU officials;
• fraud;
• tax evasion and tax fraud;
• capital market offences, including offences related to insider trading, antiquities trafficking;
• environmental offences;
• drug trafficking;
• people trafficking;
• organised crime; and
• terrorism financing.

Moreover, the list contains a general provision according to which any offence that results in asset or property profits and is punishable by law with a minimum of six months’ imprisonment may be considered a predicate offence.

The sanctions are as follows:

• imprisonment of up to eight years and a monetary penalty;
• imprisonment of up to three years if the predicate offence is a misdemeanour and not a felony;
• imprisonment of up to ten years and a monetary penalty if the losses exceed the amount of EUR120,000; or
• imprisonment of up to 15 years and a monetary penalty if the offence is committed systematically for financial gain.

All risk-bearing companies (ie, banks, insurance companies, leasing companies, factoring companies, credit management companies, credit companies, electronic money institutions, payment institutions, postal companies, fund management companies, investment companies, stock brokerage firms, venture capital firms and real estate investment companies), as well as auctioneers, pawnbrokers, notaries and lawyers, have to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations and take necessary precautions.

The minimum elements of an AML compliance programme relate to validating transactions as much as possible and identifying transacting parties in order to eliminate suspicions of questionable conduct or unknown, untraceable origins of assets.

All covered institutions and their employees have three basic obligations (Articles 22 and 27 of Law 4557/2018):

• to report immediately to the Hellenic Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) on suspecting that an act of money laundering has been committed or is about to be committed;
• to offer immediately all information requested by the FIU or other supervising authorities; and
• not to inform the client or any third party either that they have filed a report of suspicious transactions or that they have received a request to give information to any authority.

Breach of the above-mentioned basic obligations is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and a monetary penalty. Breach of confidentiality with regard to the reporting of suspicious transactions is punishable by imprisonment of three months to five years and a monetary penalty.

Regarding legal entities, failure to comply with AML regulations may lead to imposition of the following penalties:

• an administrative fine of EUR50,000 to EUR10 million;
• removal of the directors, the managing director, management officers of the legal entity, or other employees for a specific time period, and prohibition of assuming other important duties;
• prohibition of the legal entity from carrying out certain activities, such as establishing new branches in Greece or abroad or increasing its share capital; and
• in the case of serious and/or repeated violations, final or provisional withdrawal, or suspension of authorisation of the legal entity for a specific time period or prohibition.

Law 4557/2018, as well as Articles 261-269 of the GCCP, provide for the freezing and confiscation of assets derived directly or indirectly from the act under investigation, while there is also Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders between EU Member States.

There are no specific defences regarding white-collar offences. In practice, the basic defence arguments of a legal entity’s manager would mainly pertain either to the legal entity’s full compliance with all applicable laws or to facts supporting the exclusion of individual criminal liability (eg, the undertaking of specific management duties within the company).

There are no exceptions or de minimis exceptions for white-collar crimes, excluding tax offences where, according to Article 66 of Law 4174/2013, if the amount of taxes owed together with related fines does not exceed the amount of (i) EUR50,000 regarding VAT, and (ii) EUR100,000 regarding income tax, such tax evasion does not amount to a criminal offence.

There are no exempt industries or sectors for white-collar criminal offences.

According to the GCCP (Articles 301 and 302), criminal conciliation is possible either until the formal termination of the investigation or after the formal termination of the investigation and until the end of the evidentiary procedure before the Criminal Court of First Instance, provided that the following preconditions are met:

• criminal charges have been brought for certain felonies and misdemeanours (ie, forgery, false declaration, money laundering, tax offences, and crimes against property); and
• a record of conciliation has been drawn up within the prescribed period of 15 days, which contains the confession of the defendant regarding the offence for which he/she is accused and the attribution of the item or the final compensation of the victim.

Within five days of the drafting of the minutes of the negotiation, the case is entered by direct summons to the single-member Court of Appeal for felonies or to the single-member Court of Misdemeanours, which declares the accused guilty and imposes on him/her a reduced sentence, which cannot exceed the one agreed between the public prosecutor and the defendant.

In cases of ex officio prosecuted crimes (felonies and misdemeanours), with the exception of (i) felonies punished by a life sentence, (ii) terrorist acts and terrorist organisation under the meaning of Article 187A of the GCC, and (iii) crimes against sexual freedom, the accused is entitled – until the formal termination of the main interrogation or preliminary investigation – to request the commencement of the criminal negotiation procedure (Article 303 of the GCCP), the object of which may only be the penalty to be imposed. For this purpose, minutes of negotiation are drafted containing the confession of the accused for the criminal act of which they are accused, the sentence agreed with the public prosecutor, and the manner in which it will be served. Within five days of the drafting of the minutes of the negotiation, the case is entered by direct summons to the single-member Court of Appeal for felonies or to the single-member Court of Misdemeanours, which declares the accused guilty and imposes on him/her a reduced sentence that cannot exceed the one agreed between the public prosecutor and the defendant.

Regarding co-operation with investigators or prosecuting authorities, see 2.6 Deferred Prosecution and 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

Self-disclosure and co-operation with the authorities leading to the identification of others involved in offences and to documents that prove such illicit conduct are mitigating factors in specific criminal offences.

Regarding antitrust law, leniency agreements are negotiated with the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC). In that case, if the legal entity self-discloses and co-operates with HCC, and the result of such co-operation leads to the identification of others involved in the offences and to documents that prove such illicit conduct, the legal entity may enter into a leniency agreement that may result in the termination of the administrative and criminal proceedings.

Moreover, the person responsible remains unpunished if, by his/her own will and before being examined for his/her action, he/she announces it to the public prosecutor or the HCC or to any other competent authority, while at the same time providing evidence. In any other case, the essential contribution of the person responsible for the disclosure of the participation in those acts, by providing evidence to the authorities, is considered to be a mitigating circumstance and a reduced penalty is imposed.

Finally, charges for the offences of embezzlement, fraud and breach of trust are eliminated if the perpetrator, of his/her own will and before his/her first examination as a suspect or defendant, completely satisfies the injured party without unlawfully harming a third party. Partial satisfaction eliminates the criminality in the corresponding part.

The GCCP offers a comprehensive framework of protective measures for the main witnesses who assist in uncovering corruption offences (ie, active and passive bribery of public officials, active and passive bribery of civil servants, bribery of a judge, and trading in influence).

In particular, Article 218 of the GCCP states that during the prosecution of these crimes, all measures may be taken in order to effectively protect the main witnesses or their relatives from possible revenge actions or intimidation. The list of measures ranges from extrajudicial protection, starting with police protection and audio and video surveillance in order to ensure that witnesses and their relatives remain physically unharmed, to relocation within or outside the country, including the possibility of transferring a civil servant to another unit and anonymity of the witness in the testimony report.

The protective regime is granted by ministerial decision upon a proposal by the public prosecutor, who must specify the measures requested. Protective measures may be removed when the protected person requests in writing or when he/she does not co-operate effectively with the authorities.

Moreover, as already mentioned in 2.6 Deferred Prosecution, in accordance with Article 47 of the GCCP, in case of bribery, the public prosecutor may abstain from bringing criminal charges of perjury and slanderous defamation against public interest witnesses.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 45 of the GCCP, in the case of extortion carried out by means of the threat of revealing a crime committed by the victim, or in the case of fraud in which, if the victim were to disclose it, there might be revealed a crime committed by him/her, provided that the crime in question is less serious compared to the extortion or fraud, as the case may be, the public prosecutor may refrain from prosecuting the said crime.

In addition, Article 263A of the GCC provides for leniency measures, including the suspension of criminal prosecution, the imposition of a reduced sentence and the suspension of the execution of the sentence imposed, for persons who contribute to the disclosure of acts of corruption, such as bribery and breach of trust.

Last but not least, Law 4990/2022, aiming to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, applies to cases of report or disclosure of violations of EU law in the areas of public contracts, financial services, products and markets, the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, the safety and conformity of the products, transport safety, environmental protection, radiation protection and nuclear safety, food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, public health, consumer protection, privacy and personal data protection, and network and information systems security.

Law 4990/2022 also applies to violations affecting the financial interests of the EU as set out in Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the ones specifically defined in the relevant EU measures, violations related to the internal market, including infringements of EU competition and state aid rules, as well as infringements relating to the internal market in relation to acts that infringe the rules on corporate taxation or arrangements, the purpose of which is to ensure a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the applicable legislation on corporate tax law. The above-mentioned Law, which does not affect the application of provisions regarding the criminal procedure, applies to those who are employed in the public or private sector and have obtained, in the context of their work, information about violations, which they report, as well as to those who report or publicly disclose information about violations obtained in the context of an employment relationship that has ended for any reason, including retirement, and to whistle-blowers whose employment relationship has not yet begun, in cases where information about violations has been acquired during the recruitment process or at another stage of negotiation before the conclusion of a contract. The measures for the protection of petitioners provided for by the said Law shall also be applied, as the case may be, to mediators, third parties associated with the petitioners who may be retaliated against in an employment context, such as colleagues or relatives of the petitioners, and enterprises or legal entities of interest of the petitioners, or for which they work, or with which they are otherwise connected by an employment relationship.

The above-mentioned measures include the prohibition of any form of retaliation against the petitioner, including:

• threats and acts of retaliation, such as suspension, dismissal or other equivalent measures, demotion, omission, or deprivation of promotion;
• legal protection, specifically immunity from liability or suspension of relevant proceedings as the case may be, in relation to the acquisition of information or access to publicly reported or disclosed information, provided that such acquisition or access does not constitute a criminal offence in its own right;
• provision of free legal advice and free psychological assistance; and
• full compensation for the damages suffered in case of retaliation.

The identity of whistle-blowers is also protected throughout investigations initiated by the report or public disclosure of the information described.