White-Collar Crime 2025 Comparisons

In Croatian law, there is a basic distinction between criminal offences regulated by the Criminal Code and misdemeanours regulated by special legislation. The Criminal Code does not formally classify offences as felonies or misdemeanours, but differentiates between them according to the severity of the prescribed penalty, which is relevant for limitation periods, attempt to commit an offence, and sentencing.

The constitutive elements of a criminal offence are human conduct (act or omission), unlawfulness and culpability. Criminal liability requires intent or negligence, depending on the statutory definition of the offence. In the context of white-collar crime, most offences require direct or eventual intent.

An attempt is punishable where the offence carries a sentence of at least five years’ imprisonment or where the law expressly provides for the punishability of the attempt. An attempted offence exists where the perpetrator intentionally undertakes actsthat immediately precede completion, even if the prohibited consequence does not occur.

The presumption of innocence is guaranteed by the constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), and applies until guilt is established by a final judgment. The presumption of innocence is further reinforced by EU law, including Directive (EU) 2016/343.

Under the CPA, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, while the defendant is not required to prove innocence and has the right to remain silent. In case of doubt as to the existence of decisive facts, the principle in dubio pro reo applies. Croatian criminal procedure does not recognise a general reversal of the burden of proof, and the prosecution must ultimately prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Limitation periods for criminal prosecution are regulated by the Criminal Code and depend on the severity of the prescribed penalty, ranging from six years for less serious offences to 40 years for the most serious crimes. Certain offences, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, are not subject to limitation.

As a rule, the limitation period begins on the date the offence is committed, or on the date the consequence occurs, if it arises later. Limitation periods are suspended where prosecution cannot legally be initiated or continued, and for offences committed against a child, the limitation period begins when the victim reaches majority.

Croatian criminal law has extraterritorial reach based on territorial, personal, protective and universal jurisdiction principles. Croatian courts have jurisdiction over criminal offences committed on Croatian territory, on Croatian vessels and aircraft, as well as over certain offences committed abroad by Croatian nationals or against Croatian legal interests. Criminal jurisdiction may also extend to offences committed abroad, including corruption, money laundering and serious organised crime, where Croatia is obliged to prosecute under international treaties.

Croatian nationals and legal entities headquartered in Croatia may be prosecuted for criminal offences committed abroad, provided that the conduct constitutes a criminal offence under both Croatian law and the law of the place where it was committed. Jurisdiction may also apply where Croatian nationality is acquired after the commission of the offence.

International legal assistance and cross-border co-operation are governed by the Act on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and the Act on Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters with EU member states. Available instruments include the European Arrest Warrant, the European Investigation Order, asset freezing and confiscation measures, extradition and transfer of criminal proceedings.

Croatia actively co-operates with EU and international bodies such as Eurojust, Europol, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and INTERPOL in cross-border economic and corruption cases. Proceedings may not be initiated or continued where the same matter has been finally adjudicated in another EU member state, in accordance with ne bis in idem principles.

The criminal liability of legal persons in Croatia is regulated by the Act on the Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences. A legal person may be held liable where a criminal offence is committed by a responsible natural person acting within its structure, where the offence results in a benefit for the legal person or a breach of its obligations.

Liability may also arise from failures of supervision or control due to inadequate organisational or management structures, reflecting a de facto “failure to prevent” model, although this concept is not expressly regulated under that name.

Proceedings against legal and natural persons are generally conducted jointly, but a legal person may be prosecuted independently where prosecution of the responsible individual is not possible. Criminal liability may be transferred to a legal successor in the event of mergers or other status changes.

Croatian law allows cumulative liability of legal and natural persons, with sanctions assessed separately.

Sentencing for white-collar offences is governed by the general rules of the Criminal Code and, in the case of legal persons, by the Act on the Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences. After establishing guilt, the court determines the type and severity of the sanction within the statutory range, taking into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Relevant factors include the gravity and duration of the offence, the amount of damage or unlawful gain, the degree of culpability, prior convictions, and the conduct of the defendant after the offence, including co-operation with the authorities and compensation of damage. For legal persons, organisational failures, lack of supervision and the benefit obtained are particularly relevant.

Croatian law does not recognise formal deferred or non-prosecution agreements. However, plea agreements are available and allow the prosecutor and the defendant to agree on the type and level of sanction, subject to court approval. Remediation efforts, compliance improvements and voluntary reporting may be considered as mitigating factors, and legal persons may be exempted from punishment if they report the offence before its discovery.

Victims of economic criminal offences may seek compensation through criminal proceedings, civil or commercial litigation, or, exceptionally, under special statutory regimes. Within criminal proceedings, the injured party may claim compensation, restitution or annulment of legal transactions. If the injured party is referred to litigation, the competent court is a civil or commercial court depending on the nature of the dispute.

The injured party may submit a property-law claim within criminal proceedings until their conclusion. Therefore, the property-law claim is decided by the court before which the criminal proceedings are conducted, and such proceeding has an additional name – the “adhesion procedure”.

Property-law claims may concern compensation for damage, restitution of property or annulment of legal transactions.

The substantive law that regulates the relationships that may be the subject of a property-law claim is substantive civil law. Accordingly, the injured party may seek compensation for damage (material or non-material damage caused by the criminal offence), restitution of items (if they were unlawfully taken from the injured party), and/or annulment of certain legal transactions (if these were concluded under coercion or fraud).

Criminal proceedings may end in one of the following ways:

• by adoption of a decision on discontinuation; or
• by adoption of a judgment –
1. rejecting the charge;
2. acquitting the defendant; or
3. finding the defendant guilty.

If sufficient evidence exists, the court may decide on the claim; otherwise, the injured party is referred to civil proceedings. Where criminal proceedings end without a conviction, the injured party is referred to pursue the claim in civil litigation. There is then a “conditional interruption” of the limitation of the claim if the injured party files a regular civil lawsuit within three months from the final judgment or decision, under the Obligations Act.

With regard to collective claims arising from criminal proceedings, Croatian law does not recognise classic class actions. Limited collective redress exists under representative actions legislation, primarily in consumer protection matters.

The investigation and prosecution of white-collar crime in Croatia is primarily conducted by the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia (Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske or DORH). Within the DORH, jurisdiction is divided between municipal and county state attorney’s offices, while the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta or USKOK) acts as a specialised department dealing with corruption, organised crime and complex economic offences.

At the EU level, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has operated in Croatia since 1 June 2021 and deals with criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union, including fraud, corruption and cross-border VAT fraud.

Investigative powers are exercised in close co-operation with the Ministry of the Interior, in particular through specialised criminal police units and the National Police Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Policijski nacionalni ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta or PNUSKOK), which conducts complex financial and corruption investigations in co-ordination with USKOK. Financial crime investigations also involve the Tax Administration, the Anti-Money Laundering Office (Financial Intelligence Unit or FIU), and sectoral regulators such as the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency (Hrvatska agencija za nadzor financijskih usluga or Hanfa) and the Croatian National Bank (Hrvatska narodna banka or HNB).

In addition to criminal enforcement, administrative and misdemeanour proceedings may be conducted by regulatory and inspection bodies, including Hanfa, HNB, the Tax and Customs Administration, the Competition Protection Agency (Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja or AZTN), and other supervisory authorities. Criminal, administrative and civil proceedings may run in parallel, each within its own legal framework, without formal conflicts of jurisdiction, although co-ordination is required in practice.

Croatia does not have standalone courts exclusively dedicated to white-collar crime. However, specialised USKOK judicial departments operate within several county courts (Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek), where vetted judges handle corruption and organised crime cases. Legislative proposals announced in 2025 envisage further formal court specialisation in this area.

Public policy priorities and international obligations (EU, OECD and anti-corruption frameworks) significantly influence enforcement activity, particularly in high-profile corruption and complex economic crime cases.

White-collar investigations are initiated on the basis of criminal reports submitted by the police, supervisory authorities, injured parties or private individuals, as well as ex officio on the basis of information available to the state attorney. Following receipt of a report, the state attorney conducts preliminary inquiries and, where reasonable suspicion exists, orders the initiation of an investigation or files an indictment.

Investigations are conducted under the Criminal Procedure Act and, in cases within its jurisdiction, the USKOK Act. The purpose of the investigation is to collect the evidence necessary to decide whether criminal proceedings should be continued or discontinued and to secure evidence that may not be repeatable at trial.

The investigative authorities derive their powers primarily from the CPA. During inquiries and investigations, the state attorney and the police may request the production of documents and data from legal and natural persons where there are grounds to suspect a criminal offence prosecuted ex officio. All state bodies and regulated entities are required to co-operate and provide requested information within the scope prescribed by law.

Searches of business premises, seizure of documents and electronic devices, and temporary seizure of assets may be carried out on the basis of a court order, subject to the principles of proportionality and protection of defence rights. Employees, officers, directors and third parties may be questioned as witnesses or suspects in accordance with CPA safeguards, including the right to legal counsel and the privilege against self-incrimination.

Croatian law allows the tracing, freezing and seizure of assets suspected of originating from criminal offences, including digital assets and cryptocurrencies. Electronic data and virtual currencies may be treated as objects or proceeds of crime and are subject to temporary seizure and confiscation under the general confiscation regime of the Criminal Code and the CPA.

The Criminal Code was amended in 2021 to expressly cover non-cash payment instruments, including virtual currencies, in line with EU law. Both ordinary and extended confiscation regimes apply, allowing confiscation from perpetrators and, under statutory conditions, from third parties and family members. The legal principle that no one may retain unlawfully obtained pecuniary gain applies irrespective of the form of the asset.

Croatian criminal procedure allows extensive use of technology, particularly in the application of special evidentiary measures such as interception of communications, surveillance and digital forensics. Searches of electronic devices, audio-video recording of questioning, and remote hearings are standard procedural tools.

Enforcement authorities do not currently use advanced AI tools such as predictive analytics or blockchain analysis in criminal investigations, and there is no established court practice based on AI-generated evidence. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act, in force since August 2024, is expected to require further regulatory alignment regarding the use of AI by law enforcement authorities.

Internal investigations are not generally mandatory under Croatian law, but they are common in regulated sectors, particularly among obliged entities under anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) legislation, listed companies and entities with developed compliance systems. AML/CTF regulations require internal controls, risk assessments, transaction monitoring and reporting mechanisms, which in practice include internal investigative processes.

Companies may conduct internal investigations where there is suspicion of unlawful or unethical conduct by employees or management. Such investigations must comply with labour law and data protection requirements, primarily the GDPR and the Act on the Implementation of the GDPR. Processing of personal data is permitted where necessary to comply with a legal obligation or to pursue legitimate interests, provided that proportionality and data minimisation principles are respected.

In practice, companies adopt internal policies defining the scope of investigations, authorised personnel, access to data and retention periods. Whistle-blowing procedures are regulated by the Act on the Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities, which implements EU Directive 2019/1937 and establishes specific safeguards for reporting channels and data processing.

Companies are generally obliged to co-operate with criminal authorities and to provide documents and data upon request during criminal proceedings. However, attorney–client communications are protected by legal professional privilege. Attorney secrecy is safeguarded under the Attorneys Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, and written communications between a defendant and defence counsel are not subject to seizure, except in narrowly defined circumstances.

Ex officio criminal prosecution of white-collar offences lies with the State Attorney's Office of the Republic of Croatia. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is also competent for the prosecution of certain white-collar crimes, being authorised to investigate, prosecute and bring indictments for criminal offences affecting the EU budget.

Based on the results of inquiries and investigations, the prosecutor may dismiss the report, withdraw from prosecution, file an indictment, issue a penal order or conclude a plea agreement.

Croatian criminal procedure is based on the principle of legality, under which prosecution must be initiated where statutory conditions are met. Prosecutorial discretion exists only within the limits prescribed by law, primarily in the assessment of sufficient evidence and in limited cases of expediency provided for in the CPA.

The court does not initiate prosecutions, but assesses whether the statutory conditions for confirming an indictment are met. Proceedings against legal persons are initiated in accordance with the Act on the Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences where the prescribed conditions are met.

Croatian law does not provide for classic deferred or non-prosecution agreements comparable to those in common law jurisdictions. However, limited alternative mechanisms exist for less serious criminal offences.

The CPA allows the prosecutor to dismiss or conditionally defer prosecution for offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to five years, subject to statutory conditions. Conditional deferral may be granted where the suspect undertakes obligations such as compensation of damage, payment of a monetary amount for public purposes, or other restorative measures.

Plea agreements represent the primary alternative mechanism in practice. They allow for agreement on the sanction while still resulting in a formal conviction. There is no mechanism that conditions non-prosecution on the implementation of corporate compliance programmes in serious white-collar cases.

Croatian criminal law recognises a broad range of criminal offences applicable to companies, directors and managers, primarily regulated in the Criminal Code within the chapters on offences against property, the economy, legal transactions and official duty.

Key offences include fraud, abuse of trust, abuse of trust in economic dealings, business fraud, breach of bookkeeping obligations, causing bankruptcy, favouring some creditors over others, tax and customs evasion, subsidy fraud, capital market abuse, money laundering and corruption-related offences.

These offences generally involve intentional conduct aimed at obtaining unlawful pecuniary gain, causing damage or undermining the integrity of economic relations. Sanctions range from fines to long-term imprisonment for aggravated forms, and criminal liability may extend to legal persons under the applicable corporate liability regime.

Croatian criminal law criminalises bribery and influence peddling in both the public and private sectors, including bribery of foreign public officials. These offences are primarily regulated in the Criminal Code within the chapters on criminal offences against official duty and criminal offences against the economy

The core bribery offences are accepting a bribe and giving a bribe. Accepting a bribe covers requesting, receiving or accepting an offer or promise of an undue advantage by an official or responsible person in order to perform or omit an official or business act, or to act beyond official authority. Giving a bribe includes offering, promising or giving an undue advantage for the same purposes. Criminal liability extends to intermediaries and to bribery involving foreign public officials.

Influence peddling criminalises the exploitation of official or social influence to unlawfully affect the performance or non-performance of official or other acts, including situations where a bribe is requested, received, offered or given in connection with such influence.

Croatian law also criminalises bribery in economic dealings, including situations where a responsible person accepts or gives a bribe in order to favour another party in business transactions to the detriment of the represented entity. Specific offences apply in bankruptcy proceedings and other regulated contexts.

Sanctions for bribery and influence peddling range from fines to imprisonment, with maximum penalties reaching up to ten years of imprisonment in aggravated cases. The Criminal Code provides for mitigation or exemption from punishment where a bribe is given at the request of an official and reported before the offence is discovered.

Croatian law does not impose a general statutory obligation on private entities to implement anti-bribery compliance programmes, nor does it recognise a standalone criminal offence of failure to prevent bribery. Prevention is primarily achieved through criminalisation of bribery and corporate criminal liability under the Act on the Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences.

Sector-specific obligations exist, particularly under anti-money laundering legislation, which requires obliged entities to implement internal controls, risk assessments, reporting mechanisms and compliance functions. In the public sector and state-owned companies, anti-corruption measures are further promoted through strategic documents and corporate governance rules.

There is a general obligation to report criminal offences prosecuted ex officio, and failure to comply with sectoral compliance obligations may result in administrative or misdemeanour sanctions. While compliance programmes are not mandatory for all entities, their existence and effectiveness may be relevant in assessing corporate liability and in sentencing.

Croatian criminal law criminalises misuse of privileged information and abuse of the capital market, in line with the EU Market Abuse Regulation. Misuse of privileged information involves the intentional use or unlawful disclosure of non-public, price-sensitive information when trading, or inducing others to trade in financial instruments.

Abuse of the capital market consists of intentionally creating false or misleading signals regarding the supply, demand or price of financial instruments, including manipulative trading practices. Sanctions range from six months to five years’ imprisonment, or up to eight years in aggravated cases.

Tax fraud and tax evasion are financial criminal offences and typically involve concealment of the tax base, false accounting, fictitious invoices or abuse of tax reliefs. For the existence of a criminal offence it is necessary to prove the intent to evade paying tax, a significant amount of evaded tax, and causation between the unlawful act and the damage to the budget.

The concept of tax evasion is much broader than the concept of the criminal offence of tax evasion. This is because tax evasion can be a misdemeanour or a criminal offence, depending on the circumstances of the individual case. Criminal liability arises only where all the elements under Article 256 of the Criminal Code are met and the evaded amount exceeds EUR2,654.46. Alongside criminal liability, a developed administrative and misdemeanour regime allows voluntary correction and may exclude criminal prosecution, particularly where tax debts are settled. Criminal tax offences are typical predicate offences for money laundering.

To prove tax evasion, the authorities must establish intent to fully or partially avoid paying tax or customs duty. The guilt of the defendant must, in accordance with the standards of Croatian criminal legislation, be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Sanctions range from six months to five years’ imprisonment, or up to ten years in cases of large-scale tax evasion. In Croatian legislation there is no explicit obligation to “prevent tax evasion”, nor is such prescribed as a separate criminal offence. In practice, prevention operates through corporate criminal liability for failures of supervision and through misdemeanour obligations under tax regulations. Such a breach can lead to fines, regardless of whether it crosses the threshold of a criminal offence.

Croatia has implemented reporting obligations in its procedural mechanisms through EU Directive 2018/822 (DAC6) – reporting on cross-border arrangements. The tax administration therefore has a reporting regime on “potentially aggressive cross-border tax arrangements” (DAC6).

Under AML/CTF regulations, reporting of suspicious transactions (prevention of money laundering) is required, so the CPA prescribes preventative measures and procedures to be carried out by obliged entities (banks, lawyers, accountants, tax advisers, etc), and the system also includes the Office for the Prevention of Money Laundering.

Criminal law protection in financial reporting is achieved through criminal offences of false presentation of data in business books and reports, concealment of true financial condition for the purpose of obtaining benefit or deceiving creditors and investors, and destruction or concealment of business documentation. For the existence of a criminal offence, it is necessary that the perpetrator has an obligation to report truthfully and that pecuniary damage or danger to creditors, shareholders or the market occurs.

However, Croatian criminal law does not recognise a standalone offence of failure to keep financial records.

Punishable conduct relating to financial records is primarily covered by the offence of forgery of an official or business document under Article 279 of the Criminal Code. This includes creating or certifying false business documents, entering untrue data and using such documents as genuine. The offence is punishable by imprisonment from six months to five years. Incorrect or non-transparent record-keeping may also constitute abuse of trust in economic dealings under Article 246. This applies where record-keeping is used to obtain unlawful benefit or cause damage to the company.

Typical conduct includes intentional concealment of books, double bookkeeping and distortion of financial data. The offence requires a breach of entrusted duties resulting in unlawful gain or damage. Intent must be proved, with sanctions ranging from six months to five years’ imprisonment, or up to ten years in cases of substantial damage or benefit. Depending on the circumstances, such conduct may also amount to fraud or tax and customs evasion. To establish criminal liability, authorities must prove a legal duty to keep records, a breach of that duty, intent, a relevant consequence and a causal link. If intent or a criminal law-relevant consequence is missing, the liability is a misdemeanour, not criminal liability.

In Croatian competition law, prohibited agreements most commonly refer to cartels.

A cartel is, by definition, an agreement between undertakings which are competitors on the market. Such agreements may be formal or informal and aim to eliminate competition, typically through price increases. Cartels constitute the most serious infringement of competition law.

In Croatia, cartel conduct is primarily sanctioned as an administrative offence, not as a standalone criminal offence. However, criminal liability may arise should additional elements of other criminal offences be present.

Cartels are regulated by the Competition Act, the Criminal Code, the Act on the Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences (Zakon o odgovornosti pravnih osoba za kaznena djela orZOPOKD) and EU law (Article 101 TFEU). Cartel conduct is sanctioned through administrative enforcement under the Competition Act. Prohibited conduct includes agreements or concerted practices aimed at preventing, restricting or distorting competition, such as price-fixing, market allocation, bid-rigging or limiting production.

Sanctions are administrative fines of up to 10% of the undertaking’s annual turnover. Finally, cartel enforcement in Croatia has historically been limited but has intensified in recent years. Historically, only a limited number of cartels were detected, with the first fine imposed in 2012. Since then, the Croatian Competition Agency has intensified its enforcement activity.

First of all, it is important to emphasise that an infringement of consumer rights in the Republic of Croatia does not constitute a separate criminal offence.

As regards the legislative framework of consumer protection in the Republic of Croatia, it can be said that Croatia only recognised the importance of this issue and the protection of its citizens as consumers in the form of formal legal protection fairly recently. The first comprehensive Consumer Protection Act was adopted in 2003 and in fact represented the beginning of carrying European guidelines over into the Croatian legal system, more as an obligation on the path to EU membership than as a mature socio-political awareness of the need to introduce norms of conduct in an otherwise insufficiently developed market. Integration into the EU requires extensive legislative harmonisation of domestic law with European law, as well as effective implementation of the EU acquis communautaire through appropriate instruments.

Following EU harmonisation, consumer protection is regulated through the Consumer Protection Act and numerous sector-specific laws governing trade, product safety, energy, food, data protection and market supervision. The Consumer Protection Act primarily provides for misdemeanours, including unfair commercial practices, misleading advertising and unfair contract terms.

A key recent development is the Act implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on General Product Safety (GPSR). The Act focuses on general product safety and imposes obligations on manufacturers, importers, distributors and online platforms.

Prohibited conduct includes placing unsafe products on the market, failure to notify authorities of risks, failure to implement recalls and non-compliance by online platforms. Sanctions include fines of EUR7,000–35,000 for legal persons, EUR2,000–6,630 for responsible persons, and EUR1,000–8,000 for self-employed persons.

Cybercrime offences are regulated in Chapter XXV of the Criminal Code as offences against computer systems, programs and data.

Criminal offences of computer fraud and violations of business secrets in a digital environment fall under the above, and are regulated by Articles 266 to 273 of the Criminal Code.

Unauthorised access consists of intentional access to a computer system or data without authorisation. The offence is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, or up to three years where public-interest systems or data are affected. Interference with computer systems involves intentionally disabling or hindering their operation or use. The prescribed penalty is imprisonment of up to three years, for both the actual and an attempted offence.

Damage to computer data includes unauthorised alteration, deletion, destruction or concealment of computer data or programs. Unauthorised interception involves the unlawful interception or recording of non-public computer data transmissions. The offence is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, with mandatory destruction of unlawfully obtained data.

Computer forgery consists of unauthorised creation or manipulation of computer data with legal relevance, intended for use as authentic. The offence, whether actually carried out or merely attempted, is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years as well as the mandatory destruction of any forged data. Computer fraud involves intentional manipulation of computer data or systems to obtain unlawful pecuniary gain and cause damage. Sanctions range from six months to five years’ imprisonment, or from one to eight years in aggravated cases. Misuse of devices covers producing, possessing or distributing tools or programs, or accessing data with the intention of committing cyber-offences. The offence is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, subject to statutory limitations. Aggravated forms apply where offences target public-interest systems, involve identity concealment, mass attacks or cause substantial damage. Aggravated forms are punishable by imprisonment from six months to five years, or up to eight years in the most serious cases.

In the Republic of Croatia, breaches of financial, trade and customs sanctions are not a single criminal offence but are sanctioned through criminal and administrative/misdemeanour regimes, depending on their gravity and consequences. Sanctions regimes in Croatia are dual: national (based on Croatian laws) and European, whereby EU sanctions are directly binding and take precedence in application, while their infringement is sanctioned through national law.

Financial and trade sanctions as a rule derive from EU Council regulations (eg, asset freezes, prohibitions on making funds available, prohibitions on financial transactions, prohibitions on exporting/importing certain goods, prohibitions on providing services), which are not transposed in Croatia, but are applied directly, while the Republic of Croatia, by special laws, prescribes the type and level of sanctions for their breach. The Croatian regime is aligned with EU sanctions standards, which have de facto extraterritorial reach. Croatia does not independently apply third-country extraterritorial sanctions, unless reflected through EU law or contractual effects. However, in the Republic of Croatia, criminal liability for sanctions breaches is regulated by the Act on Restrictive Measures.

Article 21 criminalises intentional non-compliance with restrictive measures, including trade, financial, asset-freeze and travel restrictions. Sanctions include a fine or imprisonment from six months to five years. The same punishment applies to whoever, in the same manner, acts contrary to restrictive measures on the disposal of assets, entry bans or transit bans which are in force in Croatia. If the act is committed through negligence, a fine or imprisonment of up to six months is prescribed.

In addition, the Act also prescribes misdemeanours (administrative/misdemeanour prosecution) in Article 22, in particular for obliged entities which do not report to the competent authorities, do not submit data, do not establish policies/controls/procedures, etc, with fines ranging from:

• EUR4,500–90,000 for legal persons and other entities;
• EUR600–4,500 for responsible persons;
• EUR1,500–45,000 for certain self-employed professions;
• EUR300–1,500 for natural persons; and
• up to EUR130,000 specifically for credit and financial institutions.

The Croatian regime covers sanctions adopted by the EU, UN and other international organisations, as well as national measures.

Most of the said infringements are treated as an administrative or misdemeanour violation, especially where the threshold of criminal law relevance has not been reached. Foreign exchange, customs and financial regulations play a key role in this. Infringements of financial sanctions, such as dealing with frozen funds, failure to execute the obligation to block accounts, or failure to report assets of persons covered by sanctions, are sanctioned under the Foreign Exchange Act and special regulations on the implementation of international restrictive measures. The constitutive elements of such misdemeanours are the status of the obliged entity (eg, a bank, financial institution, trader), the existence of a specific sanctions obligation, its breach by act or omission, and a causal link with the violation of the sanctions regime, while culpability is often based on objective liability, without the need to prove direct intent. The sanctions are high monetary fines imposed on legal persons, responsible persons and natural persons, with the possibility of confiscation of unlawful pecuniary gain.

In conclusion, in the Republic of Croatia, sanctions regimes have a mixed national and EU character, with breaches prosecuted administratively or criminally depending on their seriousness.

The criminal offence of handling (concealment/receiving) exists in Croatian criminal legislation as an autonomous criminal offence and is described in Article 244 of the Criminal Code.

The offence covers acquiring, concealing, reselling or assisting in the disposal of items known to originate from a criminal offence against property. For the commission of the said criminal offence, a prison sentence of up to three years is prescribed for the basic form and from six months to five years for the aggravated form of the criminal offence.

Handling consists of post-offence dealings with criminal proceeds that hinder their detection or confiscation. Typical acts of handling are concealment, acquisition, taking over, sale, exchange, taking in pledge, or otherwise acquiring or disposing of an item which the perpetrator knows was obtained by a criminal offence.

To establish the offence, the authorities must prove a predicate offence, the criminal origin of the item, an act of handling and the perpetrator’s knowledge of that origin. For the basic form, proof of intent to obtain gain is not required; knowledge of the criminal origin suffices.

Any offence generating unlawful pecuniary gain may serve as a predicate offence. The predicate offence must objectively exist, but the conviction of its perpetrator is not required. A person cannot be held liable for both the predicate offence and handling of the same item. The perpetrator who obtained the item by a criminal offence is not liable for handling that item, because handling is intended to sanction subsequent assistance or disposal by third persons. This rule follows from the nature of the offence and established case law, and prevents double punishment for the same criminal conduct.

Aiding is prescribed in the Criminal Code as a separate criminal offence in Article 38. Thus, whoever, with intent, aids another in the commission of a criminal offence will be punished as if they themselves had committed the offence, but may be punished more leniently.

The general part of the Criminal Code provides for the liability of co-perpetrators, instigators and aiders. A person who advises, gives instructions, prepares false documentation, helps conceal traces, or enables the retention of unlawful pecuniary gain may be liable as a participant in a criminal offence. Penalties for aiders are as a rule more lenient, but within organised crime and serious economic crime they may approach the penalties for perpetrators.

For legal persons, participation is as a rule manifested through decisions and omissions of management and other responsible persons, whereby individual and corporate liability exist in parallel.

Instigation is also prescribed as a separate criminal offence in Article 37 of the Criminal Code, thus, whoever intentionally instigates the commission of a criminal offence by another person will be punished as if they themselves had committed the offence. The failed instigation of an offence by attempt is sanctioned as an attempt. In cases of unsuitable instigation, the court may release the instigator from punishment. As regards the form of culpability in relation to the criminal offence of aiding, intent is always required for aiding. The aider and the perpetrator of the offence must be mutually connected, but it is not a condition for the existence of aiding that the perpetrator knows about the aider; it is sufficient that the aider knows that by their actions they will be assisting the commission of a criminal offence by a person who is the perpetrator. Aiding is as a rule realised by an act, but it is also possible for it to be realised by an omission, which will be the case where a person neglects to act, thereby allowing the commission of a criminal offence. In other words, the aider’s conduct facilitated or made the commission of the offence easier.

Money laundering exists in the Croatian Criminal Code as an autonomous criminal offence and is defined in Article 265 of the Criminal Code.

The offence consists of dealing with the proceeds of crime in order to conceal or misrepresent their illegal origin or to assist the offender in avoiding prosecution or confiscation. The same penalty applies to whoever conceals or falsely presents the true nature, origin, location, disposal or transfer of property, as well as the existence of rights or ownership over unlawful pecuniary gain obtained by a criminal offence, and to whoever acquires, possesses or uses unlawful pecuniary gain which another person obtained by a criminal offence.

Intentional facilitation or assistance in money laundering is equally punishable. Aggravated forms apply where laundering is committed in business activities, as a profession, or involves high-value proceeds, for which punishment ranges from one to eight years’ imprisonment. Liability also exists for negligent money laundering. Negligent forms are punishable by imprisonment of up to three years. Money laundering is punishable even where the predicate offence was committed abroad. The court may mitigate or waive punishment where the offender substantially assists in uncovering the predicate offence. Unlawful proceeds and instrumentalities are mandatorily confiscated.

In the Republic of Croatia, there is a special, statutory obligation to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, regulated primarily by the Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, by which relevant EU directives are transposed into Croatian law. Failure to comply with AML obligations generally results in administrative or misdemeanour liability, not criminal liability. Civil liability may arise where AML breaches cause damage to third parties. AML compliance is supervised by the Financial Intelligence Unit and sectoral supervisory authorities. Criminal prosecution is conducted by the State Attorney’s Office, with the police and, in serious cases, USKOK. Administrative liability arises from failure to perform statutory AML duties. Administrative liability does not require proof of intent. Criminal liability arises only if a person actively participates in money laundering acts or if the conditions for the negligent form of the criminal offence are met, whereby a mere breach of AML obligations, without elements of a criminal offence, does not lead to criminal liability.

Sanctions include fines, remedial orders, enhanced supervision, activity bans and publication of measures. Where criminal elements are met, sanctions include imprisonment and mandatory confiscation. Civil law consequences are reduced to an obligation to compensate damage under general rules of the law of obligations, if a causal link between the breach of AML obligations and the damage caused is proved.

The Republic of Croatia recognises criminal offences connected with environmental, social and governance (ESG) irregularities primarily through the provisions of the Criminal Code, but also through special regulations in the fields of environmental protection, labour, human rights and corporate governance. However, Croatian law does not recognise a single category of “ESG criminal offences”; rather, relevant conduct is sanctioned through individual criminal offences and misdemeanours.

Environment

Environmental offences are regulated in Chapter XX of the Criminal Code. Environmental crimes include unlawful pollution, illegal waste or hazardous substance handling, and damage to protected natural assets. Constitutive elements include unlawful conduct, damage or concrete danger, and a causal link; negligence may suffice. Sanctions include imprisonment, fines, confiscation, activity bans and remedial measures, with misdemeanour penalties for minor breaches.

Social

In the field of social issues, Croatian criminal law recognises criminal offences which in substance coincide with ESG standards, especially in relation to human rights and employment relationships. This includes criminal offences of human trafficking, violation of rights arising from work and social insurance, workplace abuse, violation of rights arising from social insurance, as well as criminal offences against personal liberty and dignity. The essential characteristics of these offences usually include exploitation of a vulnerable position, coercion, fraud or abuse of authority (ie, deprivation of the legally guaranteed rights of workers). Sanctions are predominantly imprisonment, with the possibility of imposing protective measures, confiscation of unlawful pecuniary gain and criminal liability of legal persons.

Modern slavery is not a separate offence but is covered by trafficking, forced labour and serious labour-rights violations.

Governance

In the field of corporate governance, the following criminal offences are relevant – abuse of trust in economic operations, abuse of position and authority, giving and receiving a bribe, trading in influence, violation of the obligation to keep business books, and other economic criminal offences previously described.

As regards supervision of supply chains, Croatian law currently does not prescribe a general criminal law obligation of active monitoring of the entire supply chain for ESG compliance.

Croatian legislation currently does not recognise special, autonomous criminal offences that would be explicitly linked to misuse of artificial intelligence, algorithmic trading or automated decision-making in a financial or commercial context. There is no criminal law provision that would incriminate such conduct per se. However, certain forms of misuse of these technologies may indirectly fall under existing criminal offences of general application, as well as under administrative and regulatory sanctions, depending on the specific circumstances.

Criminal liability may arise if AI or algorithmic systems are used as a means of committing already existing criminal offences under the Criminal Code. This includes offences such as fraud, computer fraud, abuse of trust, market manipulation, insider dealing and accounting offences. The essential characteristics of these criminal offences include unlawful conduct, intent to obtain unlawful pecuniary gain or to cause damage, the existence of deception, manipulation or abuse of trust, as well as a causal link between the use of the technological system and the resulting damage or endangerment of the market. In these cases, AI or an algorithmic system is not an autonomous element of the criminal offence, but a means of commission.

Upcoming amendments to the Criminal Code in Croatia have been announced.

Crypto-assets in Croatian law are treated through a combination of the Capital Market Act, the Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, and by-laws on virtual asset service providers. Tokens that have the characteristics of financial instruments are subject to the capital market regime and to Hanfa supervision.

Croatian law does not recognise autonomous criminal offences specifically linked to crypto-assets. Criminal law protection is ensured through general criminal offences. In 2021, the term virtual currencies was expressly introduced into the Criminal Code for the first time, thereby removing any doubt as to their criminal law relevance, especially in the context of unlawful pecuniary gain and cashless payment instruments.

Crypto-assets most frequently appear in fraud, computer fraud, money laundering and economic offences. The essential characteristics of these criminal offences do not differ from their classic forms and the following are required: the existence of an unlawful act (eg, unauthorised access to a system, deception, concealing the origin of property), intent or at least negligence (depending on the criminal offence), the occurrence of pecuniary damage or unlawful pecuniary gain, and a causal link between the act and the consequence. Crypto-assets affect the technical mode of commission and detection, not the legal elements of offences. With regard to legal qualification, virtual currencies in Croatian law do not have the status of legal tender but are considered a digital representation of value which is accepted as a means of exchange and which can be the subject of property rights. Authors emphasise that virtual currencies indisputably fall within the concept of property and unlawful pecuniary gain within the meaning of Article 87 of the Criminal Code, which enables their temporary freezing and permanent confiscation as gain obtained by a criminal offence, regardless of whether they are located in the Republic of Croatia or abroad. This classification directly affects the enforcement of criminal law because it enables the application of measures of securing, confiscation and international legal assistance.

As regards money laundering, cryptocurrencies fully fall within the money laundering framework. Using crypto-assets to conceal or convert criminal proceeds constitutes money laundering. Sanctions mirror those for traditional money laundering, including imprisonment and confiscation. Crypto-asset service providers have been AML-obliged entities since 2020. They must apply KYC, report suspicious transactions, keep records and co-operate with the authorities. Non-compliance results in administrative and misdemeanour sanctions, while criminal liability requires fulfilment of offence elements. Croatian law does not criminalise crypto-assets per se but regulates them through existing criminal and AML frameworks.

Croatian criminal law does not recognise a single uniform defence model for white-collar offences. Defence strategies are developed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the evidence. General substantive and procedural defences apply equally to white-collar offences. Common defences include absence of offence elements, lack of intent or guilt, exclusion of unlawfulness, and procedural objections such as illegal evidence or limitation.

An effective compliance programme is not an autonomous defence excluding criminal liability. However, compliance may exclude or limit corporate liability, support individual defences and significantly mitigate sanctions. Therefore, the courts assess actual effectiveness, not the formal existence of compliance.

There are no general de minimis exceptions that would automatically exclude criminal liability for economic and financial criminal offences in the Republic of Croatia.

However, functional equivalents of the de minimis principle exist in limited form, for example, Article 33 of the Criminal Code excludes criminal liability for an “insignificant act”. An offence does not exist where harm and guilt are negligible and punishment would serve no purpose.

This provision is exceptionally applied in white-collar criminal offences and only in marginal cases, because those offences encroach, as a rule, upon trust in the market and the financial system.

De minimis considerations operate through prosecutorial discretion and sentencing practice. The courts may refrain from punishment or impose symbolic sanctions in marginal cases. The prosecutor may refrain from prosecution for minor offences with minimal guilt and consequences. No industry or sector is substantively exempt from criminal liability; certain office-holders enjoy procedural immunities, but not substantive exemptions from liability.

The CPA allows plea negotiations on admission of guilt and sanctions (Article 360).

For offences prosecuted ex officio, the state attorney is authorised and obliged to negotiate plea agreements.

Plea negotiations are governed by instructions issued by the Chief State Attorney. These instructions are publicly available to ensure transparency and legal certainty in negotiations. The purpose of publishing the instruction is primarily transparency, so that the other participant in the negotiations knows what to expect during the negotiations and what the state attorney or deputy who negotiates is authorised to do, and when their statements bind the State Attorney’s Office.

A plea agreement may be concluded no later than the preparatory hearing. Agreements may cover admission of guilt, legal qualification and the type and level of sanctions.

It is important to emphasise that the acting court must approve the agreement and may reject it if it is unlawful or contrary to the interests of justice.

Recent case law shows that agreements are common in economic and corruption cases, including USKOK proceedings and EPPO proceedings.

In general, self-reporting is not a formal defence but is treated as a mitigating factor.

However, for certain bribery offences, voluntary reporting before discovery may lead to exemption from punishment. In addition, co-operation with investigative bodies and prosecutors is an established mitigating factor. This includes early admission of guilt, disclosure of information and assistance in complex investigations.

In serious cases, co-operation may justify penalties below the statutory minimum.

When establishing the facts, the court may mitigate the punishment if there are particularly mitigating circumstances, including admission of guilt, sincere remorse, compensation of damage, and contribution to the effectiveness of the criminal prosecution.

Whistle-blower protection is regulated by the Act on the Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities (in force since April 2022), implementing Directive (EU) 2019/1937.

The Act establishes measures to protect whistle-blowers and safeguard integrity and public interest, and prevent corruption. A whistle-blower is any natural person reporting irregularities learned in a work-related context. Protection covers employees, managers, shareholders, contractors, trainees and other work-related persons.

The protection provided by the Act includes protection of the identity of the whistle-blower; protection of confidentiality; judicial protection; compensation of damage; primary and, if necessary, secondary free legal aid; and emotional support.

Protection applies if the report is made through prescribed channels and the whistle-blower reasonably believes the information is true and within the Act’s scope.

Intentional false reporting may result in misdemeanour liability. The Act obliges employers and public institutions to establish internal reporting and whistle-blower protection systems. Whistle-blowers are entitled to anonymity, data protection, legal assistance and compensation for retaliation.

There are no financial incentives; protection against retaliation is the primary safeguard. Regulators and prosecutors provide electronic and anonymous reporting channels.

In multi-jurisdictional white-collar cases, defence strategy shifts due to parallel use of EU co-operation instruments and international legal assistance. EU co-operation is governed by the Act on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters between EU member states. Cross-border co-operation also relies on Council of Europe instruments, INTERPOL, EUROJUST and bilateral agreements.

In practice, parallel investigations by national prosecutors and EPPO may occur. Jurisdictional conflicts are resolved by the Chief State Attorney. Defence strategy focuses on jurisdiction, competence and key procedural risks, including detention and asset confiscation. EPPO is particularly relevant in EU-budget fraud cases, such as cross-border VAT fraud. The defence often challenges European Investigation Orders (EIOs) on competence, proportionality, procedural rights and availability of remedies. Key arguments concern proportionality and the right to an effective remedy. The defence must act both in the issuing and executing states, as remedies and deadlines differ. Following surrender under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the principle of speciality generally limits further prosecution.

There are no formal state mechanisms for co-ordinated defence. In practice, defence co-ordination relies on lead counsel and local counsel in each jurisdiction. A unified defence theory and controlled information flow are essential. Cross-border co-operation is limited by statutory refusal grounds, fundamental rights, proportionality, speciality and ne bis in idem.

In the coming period, Croatian white-collar enforcement is expected to be shaped by increased alignment with EU and OECD standards. Following ratification of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in 2023, amendments to the Criminal Code to strengthen corruption prevention and penalties have been announced.

Further priorities include enhanced enforcement of EU restrictive measures, alignment with the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and increased supervision of crypto-asset service providers, strengthening cybercrime specialisation within prosecutorial and police structures, and continued implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021–2030. Additional reforms aim to modernise criminal procedure and accelerate proceedings.