In Portugal, the crime of fraud is set out in Article 217 of the Penal Code and punishes anyone who, with the intention of obtaining illegitimate enrichment for themselves or for a third party, by means of error or deception about facts that they have cunningly caused, or who causes another to perform acts that cause them, or another person, patrimonial damage, will be punished with imprisonment for up to three years or a fine. Attempt, alone, is punishable. Criminal proceedings are contingent upon the lodging of a complaint. However, where the alleged offender is in a legally recognised family relationship with the victim, criminal proceedings further depend on an indictment brought by the victim pursuant to Article 207.

Restitution or reparation shall result in the termination of the criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 206.

In addition, Article 103 of the General Regime of Tax Offenses punishes tax fraud (which covers conducts such as concealing facts or figures in accounts or tax returns, or simulating business deals) and the penalty will be different depending on the value of the financial advantage. If the advantage is equal to or greater than EUR15,000, the crime is punishable by a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine. If the amount is lower, the behaviour is punishable and only qualified as a misdemeanour, as stated in Article 118 of the General Regime of Tax Infractions. Tax fraud can be qualified under the terms of Article 104 of the General Regime of Tax Infractions.

The crime of false declarations is set out in Article 348-A of the Penal Code and punishes those who intentionally lie about their identity, marital status or other relevant characteristics before a public authority or official in the exercise of their duties. The applicable penalty is imprisonment for up to one year or a fine. This punishment will apply if there is no specific law providing for a more severe penalty for the falsehood committed.

In Portugal, multiple corruption-related offences are typified under Article 372 et seq of the Portuguese Penal Code.

The undue receipt of an advantage consists of a situation in which a public official, in the exercise of their duties, requests or accepts a pecuniary (or non-pecuniary) advantage when it is not due to them. This behaviour is punishable by up to five years in prison or a fine. The same crime is committed by anyone who promises a public official a financial or non-financial advantage, in which case they will be punished with up to three years in prison or a fine.

Active corruption, which consists of offering (or suing) a civil servant, directly or through an intermediary, a financial or non-financial advantage for the performance of any act or omission contrary to the duties of the position held or to be held, is punishable by imprisonment of one to five years (Article 374 of the Penal Code).

Regarding passive corruption, see 1.2 Causes of Action After Receipt of a Bribe.

Corruption in the private sector is also punishable, under the terms of Article 9 of Law No 20/2008, of 21 April, with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine. If the conduct is aimed at distorting competition or damaging the property of third parties, the perpetrator is punished with imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of up to 600 days, and attempts are punishable.

Portugal’s Penal Code does not provide for the crime of conspiracy. Similar concepts include criminal association (Article 299 of the Criminal Code) and agreement to commit certain crimes when defined (eg, terrorism), but there is no general criminalisation of “conspiracy” similar to that found in Anglo-Saxon legal systems. Extradition is permitted, within the limits and under the terms of Article 3 of the Assembly of the Republic Resolution 40/98.

Illegitimate appropriation, provided for in Article 234 of the Penal Code, consists of someone having power over public or co-operative sector assets (either by administering them, managing them or simply using them) and illegally appropriating those assets, or intentionally allowing someone else to do so. The penalty will be the one provided for the crime, with the aggravating factor of one third at its maximum and minimum limits. In this case, the attempt is punishable.

Article 373 (1) of the Penal Code punishes the crime of passive corruption in the following terms: if the official requests or accepts, for themselves or for a third party, a pecuniary or non-pecuniary advantage, or the promise thereof, for the performance of any act or omission contrary to the duties of the office, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of one to eight years. If this act or omission is not contrary to the duties of the office and the advantage is not due to them, the official will be punished with imprisonment of one to five years.

If the act or omission is not contrary to the duties of the office and the advantage is not due, the official shall be punished with imprisonment of one to five years.

In Portugal, both the perpetrator and the accomplice of a crime are punished (Articles 26 and 27 of the Penal Code).

The perpetrator of a crime is anyone who carries out the criminal act themselves or through another person, anyone who takes a direct part in the execution by agreement with one or more other agents, and anyone who intentionally directs another person to carry out the illegal act.

On the other hand, anyone who in any way assists someone in the commission of a crime is punished as an accomplice. In these cases, the penalty is especially mitigated under the terms of Article 73 of the Penal Code.

Anyone who contributes to the dissipation or concealment of benefits derived from a criminal offence is liable for the offence of money laundering under the terms of Article 368-A of the Penal Code. This offence is likewise committed by any person who, even if not the perpetrator of the predicate offence, acquires, possesses or uses such assets, provided they are aware of their illicit origin.

The limitation periods in the Portuguese legal system depend on the penal framework of each crime (Article 118 of the Penal Code).

• If the maximum custodial sentence is more than ten years in prison, the statute of limitation period is fifteen years.
• If the maximum custodial sentence is more than five years in prison but less than ten years, the statute of limitation period is ten years.
• If the maximum custodial sentence is one year or more, the statute of limitation period is five years.
• When the penalty is less than one year in prison or when the crime is punishable only by a fine, the statute of limitation period is two years.
• For corruption-related offences, a special rule in Article 118(1)(a) of the Penal Code provides a 15-year limitation period. This applies to:
1. influence peddling;
2. undue receipt of an advantage by public officials and political office holders;
3. passive corruption by public officials, political office holders, and in the context of sports competitions;
4. active corruption by public officials and political office holders;
5. embezzlement;
6. economic participation in business;
7. concussion;
8. abuse of office;
9. breach of official secrecy;
10. breach of the secrecy of correspondence and telecommunications;
11. influence peddling in the context of sports competitions;
12. corruption in international trade and in the private sector;
13. offences provided for in the Code of Military Justice concerning corruption, embezzlement and other military officials’ offences;
14. fraud in obtaining a subsidy or subvention; and
15. the offence of criminal association, provided that the purpose or activity of the group, organisation or association is directed to the commission of certain of the above-mentioned crimes of corruption.

Claims for civil damages arising from the commission of a criminal offence are, as a rule, brought within the corresponding criminal proceedings, subject to statutory exceptions. Accordingly, in certain circumstances – particularly where the criminal proceedings are protracted – the injured party may, if they wish, bring the claim before the civil courts.

Under Portuguese law – specifically the Civil Code and the Insolvency and Corporate Restructuring Code (CIRE) – a victim’s claim arising from a crime-based civil liability may take precedence over other unsecured creditors in insolvency, in defined circumstances.

Strictly speaking, Portuguese law has no counterpart to the Anglo‑Saxon “Rules of Pre‑Action Conduct” – that is, no general, cross‑cutting set of specific, structured duties that parties must satisfy before commencing civil proceedings, on pain of stand‑alone procedural sanctions. That said, the relatively recent legislative framework on combating corruption and related offences is noteworthy in this context, as it incorporates a strong preventive dimension that merits particular attention.

Decree-Law No 109-E/2021, of 9 December, establishes a general regime for the prevention of corruption in Portugal, whereby entities with 50 or more employees are obliged to implement a set of documents in their organisation (Code of Ethics and Conduct, Plan for the Prevention of Risks of Corruption and Related Offences, Training Policy and Whistleblowing Channel), designed to ensure knowledge of and compliance with the rules related to this issue.

This legal framework means that companies and public entities that fail to adopt or implement their compliance programmes in an incomplete or flawed manner will face penalties, including administrative offences. It is also mandatory for these entities to create internal control mechanisms to ensure that their compliance programmes work and that their decisions are made in a transparent and fair manner. For entities to adjust, the application of these new rules requires a progressive attitude.

Finally, there is the National Anti-Corruption Mechanism (MENAC), Portugal’s independent administrative authority for corruption prevention. In essence, it:

• sets, promotes and oversees anti‑corruption compliance programmes in public bodies and certain private entities;
• issues guidance and standards on risk‑prevention plans, whistle-blowing channels, conflicts of interest and training;
• supervises preventive duties and can impose administrative sanctions for non‑compliance;
• co–ordinates with other authorities (eg, Public Prosecutor’s Office, Judiciary Police, Inspectorate‑General of Finance, CMVM, ASF) where offences are suspected; and
• collects data and publishes reports on corruption prevention.

Article 228 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the preventive seizure of assets, which is a patrimonial guarantee measure designed to ensure the payment of the amount corresponding to the benefits of the crime. This measure allows the judge, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the injured party, to order the seizure of the defendant’s assets to ensure future execution. Under Portuguese law, freezing injunctions operate in personam, but they have in rem effects once applied to specific assets (eg, bank accounts and property). The injunction is directed at the defendant but can bind identified assets.

Also, Article 227 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure provides for economic bail. This is a measure aimed at securing assets to ensure the payment of the pecuniary penalty, procedural costs or any debt, compensation or civil obligation arising from the crime. To obtain this measure, the applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear that the guarantees of payment will be lacking or substantially diminished.

Court fees (custas judiciais) are due and are generally proportional to the value of the claim or the assets targeted, following the Portuguese Regulation on Procedural Costs (Regulamento das Custas Processuais).

Non-compliance can result in civil fines, seizure of assets, or, in serious cases, criminal liability for disobedience under Article 348 of the Penal Code. Also, third parties (eg, banks or custodians) must comply once notified. If they assist in breaching the order, they may be held liable or sanctioned for obstruction or facilitating dissipation.

In Portugal there are no procedures available to require a defendant to give disclosure of their assets to assist in preserving assets pending a judgment. However, the court may issue official requests to public entities where a person’s assets are registered, or to banks (including the Bank of Portugal), to provide information about the assets held by that individual.

Under Law No 72/2025, published on 23 December 2025, violations of freezing or asset-related restrictions imposed by the court or by EU restrictive measures may now carry specific criminal sanctions, which reinforces the legal framework for asset preservation in fraud or money laundering cases.

In Portugal, seizures are a crucial instrument for preventing the concealment and dissipation of assets. They are regulated under Article 178 et seq of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure.

Physical searches (busca e apreensão) at a defendant’s premises are permitted only with prior judicial authorisation, usually in criminal proceedings or exceptional civil cases involving strong evidence of fraud.

As a means of securing evidence, seizures serve the procedural objective of uncovering the truth and act as a safeguard against the loss of unlawful gains, ultimately contributing to the fair administration of justice. Under Article 178(1) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, instruments, proceeds, or advantages linked to the commission of a criminal offence may be seized, along with any animals, objects, or items left by the perpetrator at the crime scene or any other object that may potentially serve evidentiary purposes.

The lawfulness of a seizure depends on the existence of sufficient evidence connecting the good to the offence. It must be determined whether the measure concerns assets used or intended for criminal activity, rather than the lawful possessions of the accused which, having no connection to the crime under investigation, may only be subject to preventive seizure under Article 228 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure.

Given the impact of seizures on constitutionally protected rights and guarantees, their execution is subject to authorisation or validation by the competent authority (either the judge or the prosecutor), as outlined in numbers 3 to 6 of Articles 178, 267, 268 and Article 1 (b) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure.

Exceptionally, searches can be carried out by criminal police bodies but in these urgent cases such acts must be validated within 72 hours (Article 178(4)(6) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure).

According to Article 177 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, house searches can only be ordered or authorised by a judge and must be carried out between 7am and 9pm (outside these hours, that is, during the night between 9pm and 7am, they can only be carried out in exceptional cases, as provided for in the same article).

If a party seeks to include documents that are deemed relevant to the case but are held by a third party in the proceedings, they must request the competent judicial authority to take the necessary measures to obtain them.

It follows from Article 61(1)(a) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure that the defendant has the right to be present at procedural acts that directly concern them.

However, there are exceptions to this rule, in particular regarding the seizure of assets without hearing the opposing party. The seizure of assets without hearing the opposing party (arresto sem audiência do réu/arguido) is an urgent protective measure provided for in Article 228 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 391 to 396 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure. It is intended to prevent the dissipation or concealment of assets before a court judgment is delivered. The court may order the provisional seizure of assets ex parte (without prior notice or hearing of the defendant) where there is a serious risk of irreparable harm or of asset dissipation. After the seizure, the defendant must be notified promptly and given an opportunity to be heard or to challenge the order.

Under Portuguese law, victims of fraud often seek redress through the criminal justice system by filing a civil compensation claim (pedido de indemnização civil) within the criminal proceedings. This allows the court to rule on both criminal responsibility and civil liability in a single process, which is generally more efficient and cost-effective. Victims may also participate as private prosecutor (assistente) to help influence the proceedings. This mechanism is widely used in fraud cases where financial harm is central to offence.

When civil and criminal proceedings run in parallel, Portuguese courts may suspend the civil action until the criminal case concludes, especially when the criminal outcome is relevant to determining civil liability. Criminal conviction can have binding effects on civil proceedings regarding factual findings, but an acquittal does not necessarily prevent a separate civil claim. However, delays in the criminal process can slow down victims’ access to compensation, prompting some to pursue standalone civil actions for faster results.

Under Portuguese criminal law, a judgment cannot be obtained purely by default or without a trial, even if the defendant does not participate or the defence appears unmeritorious. That said, if the defendant is absent without justification, the trial may proceed in their absence (julgamento à revelia) under Article 333 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, provided the court confirms the defendant was properly notified and their rights are safeguarded. Even in such cases, the court must hear the prosecution’s evidence, examine witnesses, and deliberate as in any other trial. Thus, while proceedings may continue without the defendant, a full trial is still required before a criminal judgment can be rendered.

With the enactment of Law No 83/2017, 18 August, which partially transposed Directive 2015/849/EU, “legal advice should remain subject to the obligation of professional secrecy, except where the legal professional is taking part in money laundering or terrorist financing, the legal advice is provided for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, or the legal professional knows that the client is seeking legal advice for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing.”

This legislation has been incorporated into the Portuguese Bar Association’s Regulation on the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing (Regulamento da Ordem dos Advogados sobre a prevenção e combate ao branqueamento de capitais e financiamento do terrorismo).

Consequently, lawyers, whether as a law firm or in individual practice, are subject to the provisions of the law and this Regulation whenever they intervene or assist, on behalf of a client or in other circumstances, in the following activities:

• barter transactions and the purchase or sale of immovable property, commercial establishments, or shareholdings;
• management of funds, securities, or other assets belonging to clients;
• opening and management of bank, savings, or securities;
• creation, incorporation, operation, or management of companies, societies, other legal entities, or collective interest centres without legal personality;
• the sale or acquisition of rights over professional athletes; and
• other financial or real estate operations, on behalf of or in support of the client.

Lawyers who have suspicions that a certain operation is likely to involve money laundering or terrorist financing must strengthen their means of analysing the situation to the best of their ability, taking into account the possibility of obtaining further clarification, by reporting suspicious operations to the Bar Association, duly documenting that certain funds or other assets, regardless of the amount or value involved, come from criminal activities or are related to terrorist financing.

In addition, lawyers have a duty to co-operate with the authorities and to keep communications and suspicious documentation confidential.

Article 113 et seq of the Portuguese Penal Code foresees the rules of the complaint and does not require the suspect of the crime to be identified. It is therefore possible to file a complaint against unidentified persons, and it will be up to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to find the perpetrator. Article 262 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure thus tells us that the investigation phase consists of carrying out the necessary actions to investigate whether a crime has in fact occurred, to identify who committed it and who is responsible for it, and to gather the necessary evidence to decide whether there are grounds for an indictment. Although the participant has, in this case, some elements to identify themselves, what is certain is that there is nothing to prevent a criminal report from being filed even against unknown or uncertain persons and that the identification will then result from the investigative activity of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

In Portuguese criminal proceedings, witnesses are legally required to appear and testify when duly notified (Article 132 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure). If a witness fails to appear without justification, the court may order their compulsory appearance by police (condução coerciva) and impose a fine (Article 116 number 2 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure)). Once present, witnesses must take an oath and testify truthfully. False declarations may lead to criminal liability under Article 360 of the Criminal Code, which penalises unjustified refusal to testify.

Certain individuals have the right to refuse testimony due to privileged relationships, including spouses, direct relatives, and persons bound by professional secrecy (Articles 134 and 135 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure). Even in such cases, they must appear and formally state their reason for refusal. In cases involving serious crime or threats to the witness, courts may apply protective measures such as anonymity, closed-door hearings, or video testimony, ensuring both witness safety and the integrity of the proceedings (Law No 93/99).

Corporate entities, such as companies and other types of legal person, are liable for the unlawful conduct of their employees, owners, and individuals in leadership positions, as well as anyone acting in the company’s name or on its behalf, whether directly or indirectly in its interest.

Not all illegal actions by these individuals result in criminal liability for the corporate entity. However, the company may be criminally liable for offences including:

• criminal association;
• influence peddling;
• corruption;
• crimes against the administration of justice, such as false statements, bribery, and money laundering;
• crimes against property, assets in general, and property rights (including theft, breach of trust, fraud, extortion, and usury); and
• receiving stolen goods, forgery of documents, money or securities, and forgery of dies, weights, and similar objects.

A corporate entity may also be liable for the actions of those who, in its name and on its behalf or in its interest, commit crimes such as:

• trafficking in human organs;
• medical negligence;
• ill-treatment;
• violation of labour safety rules;
• slavery;
• human trafficking;
• crimes against sexual freedom or self-determination;
• crimes against cultural identity and personal integrity;
• crimes of common danger, such as arson, the spread of disease, and other particularly dangerous conduct;
• disobedience to public authority; and
• violation of prohibitions or bans determined by judgment.

The liability of a legal person is excluded when an employee or representative has acted against the direct orders or instructions of those in leadership positions within the legal person (ie, legal entity).

Those who stand behind companies may be held liable, particularly if they participate – directly or indirectly – in criminal conduct, such as the acts referred to in 3.1 Imposing Liability for Fraud on a Corporate Entity.

Using a company as a vehicle for money laundering, criminal association, influence peddling or corruption, for example, is considered a criminal offence.

The liability of an ultimate beneficiary of a criminal activity involving illicit proceeds may arise whether the beneficiary committed the offence directly or through intermediaries (either individuals or corporate entities).

Anyone who assists the principal offender, thereby acting as an accomplice, may also be held criminally liable.

The liability of board members towards the company is legally established.

Managers or directors are liable for damages caused to the company by acts or omissions carried out in breach of legal or contractual duties, unless they prove that they acted without fault and/or according to rational business criteria.

Managers or directors are also liable, under general terms, to shareholders and third parties for any damage directly caused to them in the performance of their duties.

Compensation for damages resulting from the commission of a crime is governed by civil law. However, under criminal procedural rules, the principle of adhesion applies, whereby civil proceedings are conducted within criminal proceedings.

For example, if there is an ongoing criminal proceeding against a manager or director who intentionally caused significant patrimonial damage to the company through a serious violation of their duties, civil compensation must, in principle, be petitioned within the criminal proceedings (after the Prosecutor produces an indictment).

However, the principle of adhesion may be set aside in certain circumstances, such as when the criminal proceedings have not led to an indictment within eight months from the complaint.

To lodge a complaint on behalf of the commercial company, it is necessary for the company to resolve this at a general meeting, awarding power to a special representative.

Under Portuguese law, foreign parties may be joined to fraud claims if there is a close factual or legal connection between the claims and the Portuguese courts have jurisdiction over all parties. When such claims involve overseas individuals or entities, Portuguese courts may request international judicial co-operation, including for the service of documents and the collection of evidence. These procedures are governed by the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Law No 144/99), as amended.

Within the European Union, co-operation is further supported by the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (2000) and its Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the member states of the European Union (2001), which apply exclusively to EU member states that have ratified them. These instruments streamline co-operation in criminal matters among EU countries.

Portuguese criminal law also allows courts to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in specific cases. This includes situations where the offender or victim is Portuguese, where the crime impacts national interests or security, or where a law explicitly grants such jurisdiction. In fraud cases, if the offence causes harm in Portugal or targets Portuguese interests, courts may assert jurisdiction over foreign defendants. However, such jurisdiction is used cautiously and requires a strong and demonstrable connection to the Portuguese legal system.

Recently, Law No 72/2025 of 23 December was adopted, transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1226, which strengthens the duties of international co-operation for restrictive measures and requires judicial authorisation under the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters when data are to be used in criminal proceedings.

Under Portuguese criminal law, serving parties located abroad generally requires formal international co-operation, governed by international conventions, bilateral agreements, and national legislation. The most common method is through letters rogatory, which are formal requests from a Portuguese court to a foreign court seeking assistance with judicial acts such as serving documents, gathering evidence, or carrying out arrests. These are crucial tools in criminal investigations and proceedings involving cross-border elements.

Letters rogatory are usually transmitted via diplomatic channels, the Ministry of Justice, or directly between courts, depending on the applicable legal framework. Although effective, the process can be slow due to procedural formalities and the need to respect the sovereignty of the requested state. Still, it ensures legal certainty and safeguards fundamental rights, such as due process and the right to a defence.

To expedite service, Portuguese authorities may resort to alternative methods when permitted by the foreign country and authorised by the Portuguese court. These may include electronic service, registered mail, or use of consular channels. In urgent situations, courts may approve substituted service methods. Regardless of the method used, all procedures must comply with the laws of the receiving country and uphold due process guarantees to ensure the validity and fairness of the proceedings.

Portuguese criminal law provides judicial authorities seizure and confiscation measures of any material or instruments used to commit offences (kept for evidence) and proceeds obtained from offences.

These measures are, in general, established in the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, in Article 178(1), and more thoroughly in a complementary law, Law No 5/2002 of 11/01. This law reinforces and facilitates seizure and confiscation measures (such as breach of financial secrecy and record of sound and images) regarding specific crimes such as humans, drugs, cars and arms trafficking, influence peddling, all kinds of terrorist organisations crimes, corruption, money laundering, criminal association, child pornography and prostitution, prostitution, sports coercion and fraudulent sports practices, money and credit card counterfeiting and smuggling.

Portugal is adherent of European and international conventions and co-operates with other states in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.

In Portugal, the enforcement of foreign judgments requires review and confirmation (reconhecimento) by the Portuguese courts under the Civil Procedure Code and Private International Law rules. The process involves filing a request with the Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação), which assesses conditions such as jurisdiction, due process, finality, and non-contradiction with Portuguese public order. Once recognised, the judgment can be enforced as if it were a Portuguese decision.

Also, foreign criminal judgments that have become final may be enforced in Portugal under the conditions predicted in Law No 144/99 (Article 96). The procedure is conducted by the public prosecutor that admits it or not in accordance with the law and then submits it to the Minister of Justice. If the Minister of Justice considers the request admissible, the file is forwarded, through the General Prosecutor, to the Public Prosecutor at the competent Court of Appeal, pursuant to Article 235 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, to initiate the procedure for review and confirmation of the judgment.

The Portuguese legal system strongly protects the guarantee against self-incrimination (nemo tenetur). One of the main corollaries is the right to silence, which is grounded in the constitutional guarantees of defence and fair trial and is implemented in criminal procedure.

With specific regard to criminal proceedings, this right is laid down in Article 61(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This provision lists the procedural rights and duties of the defendant and paragraph (d) foresees the right of the defendant not to answer questions from any person about the offences charged or the content of any statements made concerning them. Thus, this right is one of the most important guarantees of the accused in criminal proceedings and is a manifestation of the principle of the right not to be incriminated.

However, while the right to silence cannot harm the defendant, it does not automatically operate to the defendant’s advantage. By remaining silent – thereby foregoing the opportunity to present their version of the facts or to clarify points about which they have personal knowledge – the defendant cannot later claim that they have been harmed by the exercise of that right.

It should be noted that this right does not extend to matters of identity (and, where the law so requires, criminal record) and does not cover evidence obtained independently of the defendant’s will in accordance with the law. In civil proceedings, the criminal-law right to silence does not transpose wholesale; nevertheless, party testimony is inadmissible on criminal facts for which the witness is a defendant, and targeted refusals to answer potentially incriminating questions are permitted.

In Portugal, the lawyer-client relationship is safeguarded by professional secrecy. However, this protection is not absolute and may be lifted in exceptional circumstances and pursuant to defined procedures.

Legal professional privilege is protected, but it does not apply to communications made for the purpose of committing or furthering a crime or fraud. If documents or advice are created with the intent to facilitate fraudulent conduct, the privilege may be lifted by judicial decision, allowing their disclosure in civil or criminal proceedings.

Authorisation to disclose information covered by professional secrecy is only permitted when it is unequivocally necessary to defend the dignity, rights, and legitimate interests of the lawyer, client, or their representatives. Such disclosure requires prior approval from the president of the respective regional council of the Bar Association, as stipulated in Article 92(4) of the Statute of the Portuguese Bar Association (Law No 145/2015, of 9 September) and Article 4 of the Regulation on the Waiver of Professional Secrecy (Regulation No 94/2006, of 12 June).

However, should the Bar Association refuse to waive legal professional privilege, an appeal may be lodged with the higher courts (the “Court of Appeal” or the “Supreme Court of Justice”, as the case may be).

In practice, two pathways must be distinguished: (i) Bar authorisation for waiver when disclosure is absolutely necessary to protect the dignity, rights and legitimate interests of the lawyer of the client; and (ii) judicial “secrecy-breaking” incidents, in which the higher court, after consulting the Bar, may order disclosure based on the prevalence of a superior interest.

In Portugal, punitive damages are not awarded, unlike in common law jurisdictions such as the United States. Rooted in a civil law tradition, the Portuguese legal system adheres to compensatory damages aimed at restoring the victim to the pre-harm position, whether the damage is pecuniary (eg, financial loss) or non-pecuniary (eg, pain and suffering).

Victims of crime may file a civil compensation claim (pedido de indemnização civil) within criminal proceedings under the adhesion regime set out in Article 71 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure. However, such claims are strictly limited to actual losses. Damages intended to punish or deter the wrongdoer are not recognised, as they would conflict with the principles of proportionality and the reparative function of civil liability.

Contractual penalty clauses may coexist with compensation for additional loss, operating as coercive/pre-liquidated remedies rather than punitive awards, and are reducible if manifestly excessive.

A separate civil action may only be brought in exceptional cases, as set out in Article 72 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, with the compensatory nature of damages unchanged.

In Portugal, banking secrecy is a legal safeguard that protects the confidentiality of citizens’ financial information, as stipulated in banking and tax legislation. This procedure ensures that public or private entities cannot freely access bank data without the account holder’s consent or legal authorisation expressly provided by law.

However, banking secrecy is not absolute and may be lifted in exceptional circumstances, particularly within criminal proceedings where access to bank information is deemed essential to uncover the truth and ensure justice. Portuguese law provides statutory exceptions that allow disclosure to judicial authorities in criminal cases, to supervisory authorities such as the Bank of Portugal (“Banco de Portugal”), Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and Insurance and Pension Funds Supervisory Authority (ASF).

The lifting of banking secrecy in criminal cases follows the procedure outlined in Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In light of said procedure, where a witness considers that the duty of professional secrecy prevents the answering of certain questions, this circumstance must be declared before the judicial authority seised of the specific case.

Where there are well-founded doubts as to the legitimacy of the refusal, the judicial authority (judge or prosecutor, depending on the stage of the criminal procedure) shall hear the professional body representing the profession to which the relevant duty of professional secrecy relates – for example, the Bar Association in the case of lawyers, or the Portuguese Medical Association in the case of medical doctors.

Ultimately, the lifting of professional secrecy may be ordered by the higher court, where it recognises that the facts are indeed covered by such secrecy but nonetheless considers that the giving of evidence is justified, on the basis that other interests – for example, the ascertainment of the material truth – prevail over the interest underlying professional secrecy.

Portuguese legislation no longer relies on a purely fragmented, anti‑money laundering and counter‑terrorist financing (AML/CTF) centric approach to crypto-assets. Since the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (also known as MiCA) and the adoption of a dedicated national implementing statute, Portugal now benefits from a more comprehensive, sector-specific regulatory framework. This framework designates Banco de Portugal and CMVM as the competent authorities for supervision, sanctioning powers, and interim measures in the crypto-asset market, without prejudice to the continued robust focus on AML/CTF.

Within this limited regulatory landscape, Law No 83/2017, of 18 August, remains central. It has now been updated to include specific measures concerning crypto-asset transfers and self-hosted addresses, and to subject crypto-asset service providers to the supervision of Banco de Portugal. Although the term “virtual asset” was historically used for compliance purposes, the legal framework now expressly refers to the definition of crypto-assets by reference to MiCA and places the corresponding services under sectoral supervision, while preserving the AML/CTF focus.

Although drafted in functional terms, this AML/CTF framework – together with the MiCA implementing regime – recognises the economic and proprietary nature of crypto-assets for supervisory and enforcement purposes, subjecting them to regulatory controls, registration requirements, and interim measures within the remit of the Banco de Portugal and the CMVM.

As referenced in 5.1 Methods of Enforcement, Portuguese criminal procedure and mutual recognition instruments allow for the seizure of objects connected with the commission of a criminal offence, as well as the instruments, proceeds, and benefits derived from it, under Article 178 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure.

This normative framework, combined with the principle that any property liable to be confiscated must be subject to seizure, has enabled judicial authorities and criminal police bodies to seize physical crypto wallets (ie, hardware wallets), where such assets are linked to offences such as fraud, aggravated swindling, corruption, money laundering, or tax evasion.

In the case of custodial wallets – particularly those managed by centralised exchanges based within the European Union or operating in co-operation with judicial authorities – it is possible, via international judicial co-operation mechanisms, to order the freezing or transfer of the respective assets, in accordance with applicable mutual assistance instruments.

The main challenge – common across all legal systems and particularly acute in the crypto-asset context – lies in the identification, tracing, seizure, and recovery of the specific economic advantage obtained through the commission of a crime. This difficulty stems largely from the intangible, decentralised, and technologically complex nature of blockchain-based assets, which allows offenders to rapidly dissipate, fragment, or conceal illicit proceeds using global platforms, encryption systems, anonymous digital wallets, and obfuscation techniques such as mixers or tumblers.