Criminal Offences
A criminal offence is constituted by the presence of the following general elements:
Substantive elements are prescribed either by a particular law or by the Criminal Code.
Criminal intent (culpability)
Criminal intent exists if the offender was mentally competent, acted with premeditation and was aware (or should or could have been aware) that their action was prohibited.
The offender may also be guilty when acting with negligence, which is defined as follows:
Action and omission
A criminal offence is usually perpetrated by active behaviour. Omission is exceptional and exists only where specifically provided for.
Attempted criminal offences, inappropriate attempts and voluntary abandonment
An attempt is an incomplete criminal offence, where the offender fails to fully commit the criminal offence. If the offence is punishable by five or more years in prison, the attempt can be punished. For other offences, punishment for an attempt applies only if explicitly stated by law. Inappropriate attempts, using unsuitable means or targeting the wrong object, may result in a remitted sentence. An offender who voluntarily stops or prevents the offence’s consequences may also be exempt from punishment.
Commercial Offences
A commercial offence refers to a socially harmful violation of the regulations on economic or financial operations. A legal entity or entities (LE or LEs) may be liable for a commercial offence, as may the person responsible for economic or financial operations within that LE.
A person is generally liable for a commercial offence if it occurs due to their action or lack of supervision, whether intentional or negligent. In some cases, the law may require intent. Liability for an attempted commercial offence exists if the regulation defining the offence expressly stipulates that an attempt will be punished.
Misdemeanour
A misdemeanour is an illegal act for which a misdemeanour sanction is prescribed. It may be committed by action or by omission when the regulation so stipulates.
An attempt of misdemeanour is punishable only if explicitly prescribed as such.
A person (natural or natural person-entrepreneur), LE (including all companies, government bodies, governmental agencies and local authorities) or a person responsible for an LE may be liable for a misdemeanour if, at the time of committing the misdemeanour:
Negligence is deemed sufficient for a misdemeanour liability to exist, except where intent is explicitly required by regulation.
Criminal Offences
The Criminal Procedure Law places the burden of proof on the prosecutor, who must defend their indictment. The defence is responsible for proving its own claims, although the Public Prosecutor may gather evidence in favour of the defence. If there is doubt about the facts essential to the case, the court will rule in favour of the defendant. The court evaluates the evidence according to its free will.
Which facts will be taken as proven is decided by conscientious and careful evaluation of each piece of evidence separately and all pieces of evidence together.
There is no legally established mechanism for the presumption of guilt, but there is an established presumption of innocence.
Commercial Offences
The rules for criminal offences also apply to commercial offences.
Misdemeanour Proceedings
The burden of proving the features of the misdemeanour and misdemeanour liability lies with the applicant for the initiation of misdemeanour proceedings (any state or administrative authority that has standing to initiate misdemeanour proceedings). The standard of proof is identical to that for criminal and commercial offences.
Criminal Offences
There are statutes of limitations for:
Relative Statute of Limitations for Criminal Prosecution
Criminal prosecution cannot be undertaken when the following periods have elapsed:
The statute of limitations is paused during circumstances that prevent prosecution; time stops when the obstacle occurs and resumes once it ends, without counting the delay period.
Absolute Statute of Limitations for Criminal Prosecution
Since every suspension of the statute of limitations extends the time limit and every interruption restarts it, practically, the statute of limitations would never expire if there were no institute of absolute limitations. An absolute statute of limitations occurs in any case after the expiration of double the period of relative limitations, at which point the proceedings can no longer be initiated or continued, and interruptions and suspensions have no effect on this period.
Relative Statute of Limitations for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions
The imposed sentence cannot be executed when the following periods have elapsed:
If the imposed sentence is reduced by an act of amnesty or pardon, or by a court decision on an extraordinary legal remedy, the time necessary for the statute of limitations to occur is determined according to the new sentence, but the duration of the statute of limitations is counted from the previously final judgment.
Absolute Statute of Limitations for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions
The statute of limitations for sentence execution applies after double the legally prescribed time has passed. When it occurs, any ongoing sentence execution is suspended.
The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution begins from the date the criminal offence took place or the date the consequence of the offence occurred, whichever is later. The statute of limitations for sentence execution starts when the judgment becomes final or, if a conditional sentence is revoked, from the date the revocation decision becomes final.
There is no separate statute of limitations for concealed criminal offences: the statute of limitations principle outlined above is applied.
As for continuing offences, the statute of limitations starts from the last committed offence and the statute of limitations principle outlined above is applied.
Commercial Offences
The (relative) statute of limitations for prosecuting commercial offences is three years from the offence date. However, it extends to five years for foreign trade, foreign exchange and customs-related offences. The Law on Commercial Offences aligns with the Criminal Code, establishing an absolute statute of limitations of six years for prosecution. The same principles for executing sentences and for concealed and continuing offences apply as in criminal cases.
Misdemeanours
The statute of limitations for misdemeanour prosecution begins from the date the misdemeanour was committed. The statute of limitations for the enforcement of misdemeanour punishment begins from the date the judgment becomes final and binding.
There are absolute and relative statutes of limitations for both the prosecution of misdemeanours and the enforcement of punishment for misdemeanours:
For concealed and continuing offences, the same principles as for criminal offences apply.
For offences related to customs, foreign trade, finance, public procurement, trade, the environment, corruption prevention and air traffic, special laws may extend the statute of limitations, but not beyond five years. The absolute statute of limitations for these offences is double that period: ten years.
The legal framework that has extraterritorial reach includes the Criminal Code of Serbia, the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, the Law on Corporate Criminal Liability and the Law on Protection of Competition.
Criminal Offences
Extraterritorial reach may be applied in the following circumstances:
If the offence was recognised as a crime under international law when committed, Serbia can prosecute it (with approval from the Republic Public Prosecutor), regardless of the laws in the country where it occurred.
Domestic and foreign legal entities are liable for criminal offences committed on Serbian territory. Foreign LEs are liable for criminal offences committed abroad to the detriment of Serbia, its citizens or a Serbian LE.
Domestic LEs are liable for a criminal offence committed abroad.
Commercial Offences
A foreign LE and a person responsible for a foreign LE may be liable for a commercial offence only if the foreign LE has a representative office on Serbian territory or if the commercial offence was committed by means of transport.
Misdemeanours
Foreign natural and legal persons and foreign persons responsible for LEs are liable for misdemeanours, as are domestic natural, legal and responsible persons. However, a foreign LE and a responsible person may only be punished for a misdemeanour committed on Serbian territory if:
In exceptional circumstances, offenders may be punished for misdemeanours committed abroad if such punishment is explicitly provided for by regulations ‒ for example, in the case of certain customs offences.
International Legal Instruments
Serbia has signed 52 bilateral agreements with 31 countries for international legal assistance in criminal matters, and is a member of 24 Council of Europe conventions and more than 30 UN conventions. Key treaties include:
Council of Europe and UN conventions also cover cross-border co-operation in criminal matters, including corruption.
The Republic Public Prosecutor's Office in Serbia collaborates with international prosecutorial bodies such as Eurojust, SEEPAG and the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors, and has strengthened ties with Eurojust. Serbia does not have blocking statutes or equivalent regulation.
Extradition
Serbia has signed bilateral agreements with 28 countries. Additional applicable legal instruments include the European Convention on Extradition of 1957 and additional protocols from 1975, 1978, 2001 and 2012.
The state requesting the extradition is not a party in the extradition proceedings and does not have any rights (such as the right to inspect the file or to file motions or remedies). There are no special rules that govern or distinguish the matter of extradition in the case of white-collar crimes, so general rules are applied.
Extradition will not be permitted if:
Extradition may be postponed until:
Extradition of Serbian citizens
The extradition of Serbian citizens is permitted only in exceptional circumstances, as the Constitution does not address this issue.
The Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters states that it applies only when there is no existing agreement or when specific matters are not covered by an agreement. Serbia has extradition agreements with several countries, including Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy and the USA. The Extradition Treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Serbia, signed in 1901, remains in effect today. Under this treaty, both parties agree to extradite individuals being prosecuted or sentenced for extraditable criminal offences upon request.
An LE is liable for any criminal offences that are committed by the person in charge while they are working within the scope of its operations or authorisation, with the intention of gaining benefits for the LE. An LE is also liable if a person in charge fails to supervise or control individuals under their authority, allowing those individuals to commit a crime for the benefit of the LE. Individuals and companies may be held liable. The liability of an LE is based on the fault of the responsible person. An LE is liable for the criminal offence of the responsible person even if the criminal proceedings against the responsible person have been dismissed or the charges have been rejected. Both an LE and the responsible persons therein may be held liable for the same offence.
There is no policy preference regarding whether to pursue an LE or a natural person (or both), but prosecutors hesitate to prosecute LEs because of a general fear that this will have a negative impact on the economy.
If an LE is found guilty of a crime due to the actions or omissions of its responsible person (eg, failure to supervise), it must compensate third parties for damages. The LE can then sue the responsible person for recourse, unless it involves business policy, in which case it cannot sue for damages.
The law prescribes rules on criminal offences committed by an LE in respect of termination or a status change to the LE, or the opening of bankruptcy proceedings. If the LE ceases to exist before the criminal proceedings conclude or undergoes a status change, its successor may face sanctions. If the entity changes its status after committing a crime, it remains liable if the responsible person is found guilty.
The Ministry of Justice primarily shapes penalties and the penal policy, which is implemented by the executive branch, as prosecution is part of this branch. Policy enforcement occurs through prosecutions, with procedural stances adopted by higher courts and applied to lower courts. Legislators restrict judges' sentencing discretion by:
Judges assess punishments within legal limits, considering the purpose of punishment (special or general prevention) and all relevant circumstances. Reductions or increases in punishment can only occur in exceptional cases defined by law.
There are certain rules regarding governing the assessment of penalties, as follows.
Victims’ Compensation in Criminal Offences
The elements of criminal liability are narrower than the elements of civil liability. Criminal liability is linked to a criminal, economic or misdemeanour verdict. In such cases, the victims submit a compensation claim before the court handling the white-collar offence case. This claim can be resolved by the judge presiding over the white-collar offence case, or it can be referred to civil proceedings for solving.
The legal grounds for damage compensation are:
In regular civil court, the victims must prove the active standing (legitimacy) of the plaintiff, the passive standing of the defendant, a direct causal link between the defendant's action or inaction, and the damage suffered by the victim, as well as the amount of damage incurred. Basic or higher courts may be competent, depending on the financial census of the case in question. In existing case law, victims are usually directed to pursue their compensation claims via civil proceedings if there has been a conviction. If one LE files a compensation claim within a criminal application against another LE, the competent basic or higher court can decide about it, but the parties are mostly instructed to exercise their right in litigation, which in this situation would be a commercial court.
Victims’ Compensation in Commercial Offences
As the parties involved in these proceedings are LEs, commercial courts are usually the competent courts when it comes to damage compensation for white-collar crimes. In rarer cases, basic or higher courts may be competent, depending on the financial census of the case in question.
However, even in cases where there is no conviction (eg, a not-guilty verdict, acquittal or statute of limitations application) for a criminal/commercial/misdemeanour offence, it is still possible to claim for damages in a civil court because civil liability is generally much broader than criminal liability.
Victims’ Compensation in Misdemeanour
A compensation claim from a misdemeanour can be addressed during misdemeanour proceedings, at the request of the injured party or authorised person, unless it would cause significant delay. If the evidence is insufficient, the request is rejected; if the defendant is acquitted, the court will direct the injured party to pursue the claim in civil litigation.
Class Action Lawsuits
In Serbia, there are no class action lawsuits. However, there are circumstances in which compensation for damage can be claimed in much the same way as a class action lawsuit. For example, in some criminal cases the victims will be hundreds of thousands of minor shareholders. In such cases, the court will order one sum to be paid as compensation, and this sum will be distributed to all shareholders according to their participation in the shareholder structure.
Serbia recognises derivative claims, allowing a plaintiff to seek damages for third-party victims. If a person in charge requests a company to file a lawsuit and the request is denied or no action is taken within 30 days, it can file the lawsuit in its own name on behalf of the company. This applies to cases of breach of caution of care, approval of transactions with personal interest, avoiding conflicts of interest, maintaining business confidentiality, and prohibiting competition.
The main authorities responsible for prosecution and investigation are:
The competent courts are:
The authorities responsible for investigation (administrative authorities) are:
The main authorities responsible for law enforcement are:
The difference in authority for handling white-collar crimes is based on monetary census. Organised crime authorities are responsible if the illegal gain exceeds RSD200 million, or if a public procurement exceeds RSD800,000; otherwise, corruption authorities handle the case. Basic prosecutors' offices, local police departments dedicated to commercial crime and basic courts are competent for tax evasion, damaging creditors and some other minor white-collar criminal offences.
The misdemeanour procedure is initiated by authorised authorities, defined by specific laws and regulations, including civil and administrative bodies like investigative, tax and customs authorities. The Special Department of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office for combatting corruption is responsible for the fight against economic crime and the suppression of criminal offences related to official duty and corruption.
Jurisdiction conflicts can arise when an event involves elements of both criminal and misdemeanour offences, such as tax evasion, where the distinction is based on the amount of tax evaded. If someone is found guilty of a misdemeanour, they cannot be tried for a related criminal offence due to the ne bis in idem principle. Administration of Criminal Police's department for combatting corruption is a specialised police squad that is responsible for detection and suppression. There are no specialised judges in Serbia for white-collar offences but there are Special Departments in Higher Courts for Organised Crime.
Rules on initiating white-collar investigations are determined by the powers and legal standing of the competent authorities, whether administrative or criminal.
Public prosecutors are obliged to perform their duties professionally, conscientiously, impartially, fairly and without undue delay, taking particular care to protect victims and prevent discrimination on any basis.
The Prosecutor’s Offices are authorised to:
The police have the general authority to:
Investigators within the various administrative authorities are authorised to:
Authorities will temporarily confiscate and secure objects required by law or objects that may serve as evidence in criminal proceedings. All individuals must surrender such items, except the defendant and those excluded from testifying.
If there are grounds to suspect an offence is prosecuted ex officio, the police must take measures to uncover and secure evidence, including investigating the premises of LEs in the presence of responsible personnel, inspecting documentation and confiscating it. In addition, the employees, officers or directors of a company may be summoned for questioning under the same conditions.
Internal investigations are not deemed mandatory and are not provided for by any regulation. However, the Data Protection Law and the Labour Law have provisions that regulate certain procedures that must be carried out before notifying the Commissioner for Data Protection of a breach of personal data.
The benefit of conducting an internal investigation and presenting the results (self-reporting) is that doing so makes it possible to enter into a non-prosecution agreement with the competent prosecuting authority. During the internal investigation, attention should be paid to personal data as per the Data Protection Law.
The investigator must ensure that interviews and statements are voluntary. If an employee agrees, their statement can be taken according to the Civil Code and notarised, serving as evidence in civil proceedings or indicating suspicion in criminal cases. Employees are not obliged to co-operate but, during the initial phase of an internal investigation, they may be informed of potential legal benefits to co-operating, regardless of the investigation's outcome. Employees may engage legal counsel at their own expense, but this is not mandatory.
Best practices for taking statements during an internal investigation include three steps:
White-collar prosecutions begin with criminal applications from authorities, police, citizens or companies. For white-collar offences punishable by up to eight years' imprisonment, a proposal is filed with the public prosecutor; for those punishable by over eight years' imprisonment, an indictment is submitted. Enforcement bodies can file a criminal application but leave the charging decision to the prosecutor. Courts do not charge white-collar offences; they make decisions based on submitted evidence. Only prosecutors have a discrete right to determine a criminal or misdemeanour offence. In certain situations, as a means of securing an improved status, certain persons can enter into a special type of plea agreement with the Public Prosecutor’s Office that, for example, grants them the status of:
This plea agreement is made by the Public Prosecutor's Office but needs to be approved by the court. The court can only refuse to approve the agreement in the following two situations:
The guidelines in this respect concern what evidence the Public Prosecutor's Office will receive from the offender by concluding the plea agreement, which can be considered when deciding whether or not to drop the charges.
The public prosecutor may defer criminal prosecution for offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to five years as alternative means. The prosecutor will drop the charges if the suspect agrees to fulfil one or more of the following obligations:
In the order to defer criminal prosecution, the public prosecutor will specify a deadline within which the suspect must fulfil the obligations undertaken, with the provision that the deadline cannot exceed one year. If the suspect fulfils the obligation within the specified deadline, the public prosecutor will issue a decision to dismiss the criminal complaint and notify the injured party.
The prosecutor has the discretionary right to apply this alternative mechanism, as it is not obligatory and is only prescribed as a possibility.
The following criminal company law and corporate fraud offences are recognised in the Serbian Criminal Code.
Fraud in Conducting Business Activity
Basic constituent elements
This criminal offence consists of the following:
Sanctions
The basic form of this offence is punishable by a fine and imprisonment for a term of between six months and five years. Qualified forms of this criminal offence depend on the amount of illegal gain/damage incurred.
Fraud in Insurance
Basic constituent elements
This criminal office consists of the following:
Sanctions
The basic form of this offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between three months and three years. Qualified forms of this criminal offence depend on the amount of illegal gain/damage incurred. Attempt is also punishable.
Embezzlement in Conducting Business Activity
Basic constituent elements
This crime is committed when the offender:
Sanctions
The basic form of this offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between three months and five years. Qualified forms of this criminal offence depend on the amount of illegal gain/damage incurred.
Abuse of the Position of a Responsible Person
Basic constituent elements
This criminal offence occurs when, by abusing their position or powers, the responsible person exceeds the limits of their powers or fails to perform their duties and, in doing so (and providing this does not constitute another criminal offence or parts thereof):
Sanctions
The basic form of this offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between three months and three years. Qualified forms of this criminal offence depend on the amount of illegal gain/damage incurred.
Additional Criminal Offences
The following also constitute white-collar criminal offences in the Republic of Serbia:
The Serbian Criminal Code outlines the following main bribery and influence peddling offences.
Abuse of Office
Basic constituent elements
This offence can only be committed by an official who achieves the following by exercising their official position or authority, exceeding the limits of their official authority or failing to perform their official duty:
Sanctions
The basic form of this offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between six months and five years. Qualified forms of this criminal offence depend on the amount of illegal gain/damage incurred.
Trading in Influence
There are several different forms of this criminal offence, as follows.
Basic constituent elements
The request for or receipt of a gift (or any other benefit) for one's self or another ‒ directly or through a third party ‒ in exchange for the use of ab official or social position or actual or presumed influence to mediate in the performance or non-performance of an official action.
Sanctions
The basic form of this offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between six months and five years. There are additional forms of this criminal offence (with varying sanctions), which include variations on the basic constituent elements.
Soliciting and Accepting Bribes
There are also several forms of this criminal offence.
Basic constituent elements
This offence is committed when:
Sanctions
The basic form of this offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between two and 12 years. There are additional forms of this criminal offence (with varying sanctions), which include variations on the basic constituent elements.
Bribery
There are also several forms of this criminal offence.
Basic constituent elements
This offence is committed by:
Sanctions
This offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between six months and five years.
Under the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the Serbian Criminal Code criminalises bribery involving foreign public officials. A bribe exists if given, promised or offered to a foreign public official, who can also be charged with accepting a bribe.
The law distinguishes between bribery in the private and public sectors by specifically addressing bribery in economic activities. While anyone can commit the offence of accepting a bribe in economic contexts, the gift or benefit must be requested or received during the performance of economic activities, implying the perpetrator has authority over contracts, business agreements or obligations.
Serbia does not provide a specific obligation to prevent bribery and influence peddling, except for the financial industry (investment funds, banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms), auditors, lawyers, accountants, tax advisers and luxury retailers. In these heavily regulated industries, there is an obligation to maintain a compliance programme, as stipulated by regulations including:
A compliance programme comprises a system of internal controls within which appropriate administrative and other procedures are agreed. Management is then obliged to organise and apply these policies and actions in a way that corresponds to the nature, complexity and risk of the work and the framework of internal control. A compliance programme also entails procedures for the purpose of:
The Anti-Corruption Commission is established under the Law on Prevention of Corruption and sector-specific regulations, and primarily monitors the property and conflicts of interest of public officials.
The Securities Commission operates under the Law on Capital Markets, the Law on Digital Assets and the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering. It requires LEs to provide a compliance programme, with sanctions ranging from RSD10,000 to RSD3 million for non-compliance.
The Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering collaborates with MONEYVAL, the Council of Europe's monitoring body, submitting reports on AML compliance and receiving recommendations for improvement.
Lawyers must inform the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering if they suspect a transaction involves money laundering or terrorist financing; failure to do so can result in fines ranging from RSD10,000 to RSD150,000.
Manufacturers and wholesalers of medicinal products and medical devices, as well as retailers of medical devices, must comply with the Law on Medicines and Medical Devices and Good Manufacturing Practice Guidelines. The Ministry of Health oversees compliance through inspectors for medicinal products and medical devices. If a manufacturer fails to align its operations with the law within the specified period, the Ministry will issue a decision to terminate the approval for producing medicines or medical devices. In addition, the ISO 37001 Anti-Bribery Management System has been translated and adopted in Serbia.
Although failing to maintain a compliance programme is not foreseen as a criminal offence by these laws, they do foresee misdemeanour offences and commercial offences, and various fines can be rendered by the National Bank of Serbia (NBS) in case of violation of such obligations.
The main offences and sanctions in relation to insider dealing, market abuse and criminal banking law are detailed in the following Serbian laws.
The Law on Capital Markets
The Law on Capital Markets prescribes the following criminal offences and sanctions.
The Law on Digital Assets
The Law on Digital Assets prescribes sanctions of a fine or up to one year in prison for anyone who uses insider information as follows, with the intention of obtaining material gains or causing damage to other persons:
The Law on Digital Assets also prescribes sanctions of a fine and between six months and five years in prison for anyone who engages in market manipulation for their own or another's benefit or who harms other persons by:
The Law on Banks
The Law on Banks prescribes a prison sentence of between three months and five years for anyone who engages in the following criminal offences:
The sanctions may be stricter if the amount of material gain obtained by committing these offences exceeds certain amounts provided by the Law.
The Law on Foreign Currency Operations
The Law on Foreign Currency Operations prescribes the following actions as criminal offences, and includes accompanying sanctions:
The Law on Open Investment Funds with Public Offering
The Law on Open Investment Funds with Public Offering prescribes the following actions as criminal offences, and includes accompanying sanctions:
The Criminal Code prescribes two types of tax fraud, which are essentially differentiated by the type of public income that is defrauded.
Tax Evasion
The first offence occurs where the offender intends to fully or partially avoid paying more than RSD1 million in taxes by:
Criminal intent must be proven.
Sanctions for tax evasion include fines and prison sentences ranging from one to five years, with longer terms for qualified forms based on the evaded amount.
Relevant tax laws also provide penalties for misdemeanours or commercial offences for amounts evaded below RSD1 million.
Evasion of Withholding Tax
The second criminal offence is non-payment of withholding tax, a specific type of tax evasion involving unpaid taxes and mandatory social security contributions. The offence is established by failing to pay with the intent to evade payment. Intent is proven by the sole act of failure to pay.
Sanctions include fines and prison sentences of one to five years, with longer sentences for qualified forms based on the amount evaded.
The LTPTA and Obligations to Prevent Tax Evasion
The Law on Tax Procedure and Tax Administration (LTPTA) provides for the following criminal offences.
The LTPTA, along with other relevant regulations that prescribe liability for the payment of specific types of taxes and other duties, provides obligations for LEs and entrepreneurs' regarding such payment in detail. Failure to comply with such obligations is sanctioned as a misdemeanour.
The LTPTA and related regulations outline obligations for companies to calculate and pay taxes and submit tax applications, with non-compliance resulting in misdemeanour or commercial offences.
A director who fails to act within their authority, as defined by company acts or decisions, may face fines or up to one year in prison. If the company incurs damages exceeding RSD10 million, the director can face six months to five years in prison and a fine.
Under the Law on Accounting, LEs and entrepreneurs must maintain proper accounting documents, business books and financial reports, designating responsible individuals and storage methods. Financial and audit reports must be retained for 20 years, while investment companies must keep relevant records for five years as per the Law on Capital Markets. Non-compliance can result in commercial offences or misdemeanours.
The Law on Archival Material allows for criminal complaints or misdemeanour proceedings if archival or documentary materials are damaged or destroyed before their retention period expires. Damaging financial records may also be considered concealment of a criminal offence, requiring proof of intent. Penalties for failure to keep or disclose accurate financial records range from RSD50,000 to RSD2 million for LEs and from RSD5,000 to RSD150,000 for responsible persons in an LE.
Commercial offences with regard to keeping accurate financial records are prescribed by the Law on Accounting, with monetary penalties that range from RSD100,000 to RSD3 million for LEs and from RSD20,000 to RSD150,000 for responsible persons in an LE.
The primary criminal offence in competition law is the signing of a non-exempt restrictive agreement, which leads to criminal liability. Companies abusing a dominant position or engaging in restrictive agreements may face fines of up to 10% of their annual revenue in Serbia. Companies reporting violations may be exempt from penalties.
Compensation for damages resulting from competition law violations, as determined by a decision of the Commission for the Protection of Competition, can be pursued in civil court. Damages must be proven, as they are not presumed.
The Criminal Code prohibits the signing of restrictive or cartel agreements aimed at fixing prices, limiting production or sales, or dividing markets. Without an exemption, individuals involved in such agreements face fines and imprisonment of six months to five years. The law does not explicitly mention cartel agreements.
The Criminal Code imposes penalties of a fine and six months to five years in prison for the production and circulation of harmful products. Various administrative misdemeanours also exist to protect consumer rights, such as failing to issue invoices, misleading consumers and engaging in unfair business practices.
Companies and their responsible persons can face fines ranging from RSD50,000 to RSD2 million for these violations, along with potential protective measures against both.
The Criminal Code recognises the following criminal offences in relation to cybercrime, computer frauds and breach of company secrets.
Damaging Data and Computer Programs
Basic constituent elements
Deleting, altering, damaging or concealing data without authorisation or otherwise making computer programs unusable.
Sanctions
The basic form of this offence is punishable by up to one year in prison. Stricter sanctions are prescribed for several qualified forms of this offence, depending on the amount of damage incurred by the illegal activity.
Creating and Introducing Computer Viruses
Basic constituent elements
Creating a computer virus with the intent to introduce it into another’s computer or computer network.
Sanctions
This criminal offence is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to six months. If damage is incurred as a result, the prescribed sanctions are a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.
Computer Fraud
Basic constituent elements
This offence is committed when someone intentionally enters incorrect data, fails to enter correct data or otherwise conceals or falsely represents data in order to affect the results of electronic processing and the transfer of data, leading to:
Sanctions
Prescribed sanctions are a fine or a prison sentence of up to three years. Qualified forms of this offence with stricter sanctions exist, depending on the amount of damage.
Unauthorised Access to Computers, Computer Networks or Electronic Data Processing
Basic constituent elements
Accessing a computer or computer network without authorisation by circumventing protection measures, or accessing electronic data processing without authorisation by circumventing protection measures.
Sanctions
Prescribed sanctions are a fine or imprisonment for up to six months. If certain special criteria are fulfilled, the sanction may be more strict.
Additional Cyber-Offences
The following cyber-offences are also included in the Criminal Code:
Disclosing a Business Secret
The Criminal Code classifies disclosing a business secret as a criminal offence, punishable by six months to five years in prison. If the disclosure is for gain or involves highly confidential information, penalties range from a fine to two to ten years in prison.
A “business secret” is defined as information protected by law or authority that, if disclosed, could harm the business. In addition, Article 21 of the Law on Protection of Trade Secrets criminalises the unlawful obtaining, using or disclosing of a business secret, with fines ranging from RSD100,000 to RSD3 million.
Financial, trade and customs offences are prescribed by various laws, including the Criminal Code, the Law on Foreign Exchange Operations, the Customs Law and the Law on the National Bank of Serbia.
The following main financial crimes are foreseen by the Criminal Code:
The only customs criminal offence that is prescribed by the Criminal Code is smuggling. This is also a matter of misdemeanour regulation.
The main trade criminal offences prescribed by the Criminal Code are illegal trade and illegal production.
There are also numerous commercial offences and misdemeanour offences prescribed in relation to finance, trade and customs.
Based on the Criminal Code, concealment is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to three years. The penalty may not exceed the statutory penalty for the offence by whose commission the object was acquired.
It may also be treated as aiding and abetting a crime.
As for concealment as a white-collar crime, two criminal offences relate to this issue.
Concealment predicate offences can vary – for example, giving a false statement to the competent authority in order to conceal the exact order of a company's finances may be a predicate offence under fraud in conducting business activity. It can also be a predicate offence in tax evasion, as it often involves providing false information about legal income or expenditures to facilitate tax evasion.
To confirm the existence of a predicate offence, there must be an underlying crime (eg, fraud, drug trafficking, embezzlement or corruption) from which the concealed information or assets originate. The individual must have known about the predicate offence and intended to conceal it, indicating awareness of its illegality and consciously hiding. There must be clear actions taken to conceal the crime or its proceeds, such as hiding assets, falsifying documents or providing misleading information to authorities.
A person can be held liable for both the predicate offence and concealment. The Serbian Criminal Code allows for charges related to the underlying crime (eg, fraud or embezzlement) and for the concealment or money laundering if the individual takes steps to hide their actions or the proceeds.
Sanctions for concealment and predicate offences vary based on the nature and severity of the crimes, and include imprisonment, fines, probation or restitution.
The general rules of criminal law apply to aiding and abetting in corporate offences. Anyone who falls under these rules can be punished for aiding in corporate crimes. An abettor faces the same punishment as the related offence, but with potential penalty mitigation. A conspirator or abettor is judged based on their own intent, which may differ from that of the principal offender. In addition, a conspirator or abettor who intentionally prevents the crime may be exempt from punishment.
Predicate offences and events include all types of corporate fraud offences, including:
Money laundering is defined as:
The above-mentioned elements must be proven. The Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism mandates banks, currency exchange offices and money transaction service providers to perform necessary checks (eg, KYC and transaction verification) when opening accounts and transferring funds. The NBS has issued by-laws detailing compliance procedures.
The NBS, the Basic Prosecutor's Office (for commercial offences) and the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering are the main prosecuting authorities for these violations. The special Criminal Police Administration is responsible for the suppression of these offences.
Both natural and legal persons can be held liable for concealing or failing to report violations under the Criminal Law and the aforementioned law.
Sanctions
The defence depends on the type and circumstances of the white-collar offence in question and on the specific case.
In tax evasion cases, the defence typically aims to demonstrate a lack of criminal intent, arguing that omissions resulted from differing interpretations of regulations. Paying the owed taxes, even during ongoing proceedings, can help establish the absence of intent, potentially leading the prosecutor to drop the charges. The defence often presents evidence of effective internal procedures and compliance programmes. If proven, this can lead to a not-guilty verdict for company directors or serve as a mitigating factor, particularly in regulated sectors like banking, insurance and pharmaceuticals, although this is not guaranteed.
There are a few significant exceptions for white-collar offences in Serbia.
Tax evasion does not constitute a criminal offence, for example, if the amount of evaded tax is less than RSD1 million ‒ such cases are considered merely misdemeanour offences.
In accordance with the Law on Health Care, it is possible to give a non-monetary gift of thanks to medical staff if the individual value does not exceed 5%, and the total value does not exceed the amount of one average monthly salary without taxes and contributions in the Republic of Serbia; this is not considered corruption, a conflict of interest or a private interest.
In criminal offences, the defendant may voluntarily admit to the charges, in which case the prosecutor and the defendant may reach a plea agreement. This is possible from the beginning of the investigation until the end of the trial. The defendant will voluntarily acknowledge charges in exchange for:
Plea agreements for misdemeanours, including tax-related offences, must be approved by the court, which ensures legal compliance. There are no such agreements for commercial offences.
In tax-related misdemeanours, plea agreements require acknowledging the offence, correcting the violation and paying the owed tax. The type and amount of the misdemeanour sanction are determined in the plea agreement and are based on:
Two sub-criteria, depending on the nature of the offence, are:
Self-disclosure, co-operation with authorities and reparation of damages are mitigating factors, although leniency measures vary by case. The behaviour of the offender post festum and the significance of the protected object in the criminal offence in question may be highlighted. The court considers factors like guilt, motives, the severity of the harm, and the offender's background and behaviour post-offence when determining sentences. For monetary fines, the offender's financial situation is also taken into account.
In misdemeanours, lighter punishment or exemptions may apply if the offence occurred under extenuating circumstances or exceeded necessary defence.
A special law provides limited protection for whistle-blowers, mainly focused on employment (eg, protection from termination or salary reduction), but it does not protect them from criminal charges if they were involved in the criminal offence. Protection applies if they disclose information properly, within deadlines, and if the information is deemed truthful.
Participation in the crime may be considered a mitigating factor in a criminal case. Employees who report workplace corruption cannot be harassed for doing so. If harassment occurs, they can seek a court-ordered interim measure within eight days, followed by a fast-tracked case in a higher court. The burden of proof is reversed: the accused must prove there was no corruption or harassment.
Internal whistle-blowing involves reporting corruption to the employer, who must act on the information, stop any harmful actions and protect the whistle-blower. Employers with more than ten employees are required to adopt a Rulebook outlining procedures for internal whistle-blowing, protection and remedies.
Sremska Street No.4
1st Floor/5
21000 Novi Sad
Serbia
+381214721788
+381216617541
office@sunjkalawoffice.com www.sunjkalawoffice.comRecent Developments in Combatting White-Collar Crime
In the past year, there has been one significant development in terms of new legislation adopted in the field of white-collar crime: the new Law on Public Prosecutor Offices and the Law on High Prosecutor Council with Constitutional laws were enacted as part of a package of judicial laws that also included the Law on the Organisation of Courts, the Law on Judges and the Law on High Judiciary Council.
In terms of white-collar crime, the most significant development is the Law on Public Prosecutor Offices and the changes and solutions it introduced, including the following.
The practical implementation of this law and how much it will contribute to the effectiveness and quality of investigations and the conduct of criminal proceedings in general are yet to be seen.
The government of the Republic of Serbia published a Proposal of the National Strategy for the fight against corruption for the period 2023–2028, with an Action Plan for the same period. It identifies comprehensive key areas that have been recognised as being sensitive to corruption, including:
At the time of writing, public debate is ongoing.
These draft documents represent an attempt to incorporate recommendations provided by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) to combat corruption. The extent of their practical effect is difficult to assess at this moment, especially since these are only drafts and not final documents.
In parallel, the state authorities have made significant efforts to implement the existing legislative framework and increase international co-operation in combatting organised crime, with a view to harmonising with European security systems.
As a country of the Western Balkans, Serbia is increasingly important as a beneficiary of EU funds as a candidate member state, so it is of utmost importance that Serbia co-operates with EU and regional actors in the protection of financial resources against fraud, corruption and other illegal activities, and in the connection of EU administrative investigations with national criminal investigations. In this sense, there have been increased efforts in co-operation and training in co-operation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
Serbia entered the Western Balkans Criminal Justice project dedicated to enhancing cross-border judicial co-operation in the Western Balkans, implemented by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and funded by the European Union Instrument of Pre-accession Assistance (IPA III). This project was meant to enhance the capacities of Western Balkan states (including Serbia as an EU candidate member state) to combat serious crimes, including white-collar crimes.
In addition to this, there has been noted increased co-operation with Eurojust and Europol in the past year. One of the most high-profile cases involved the multinational co-operation of law enforcement agencies from Germany, Serbia, Bulgaria and Cyprus, co-ordinated by Eurojust and Europol, in the takedown of an organised criminal group when 26 persons were arrested for suspicion of fraud in connection with cryptocurrencies, with damage worth tens of millions of US dollars suspected.
Recent trends in white-collar crime – the rise of cyber fraud
This specific case represents a recent trend in white-collar crime in Serbia: hi-tech crimes such as crypto and cyber fraud.
Online platforms were utilised to attract victims to invest in cryptocurrencies with the mediation of three companies from Belgrade; the target victims were foreign citizens mainly from Germany, Canada, Switzerland and Australia (but not exclusively). Suspects falsely portrayed that they deal with cryptocurrencies on fake online platforms (although there was no real trade in fact), for which they used modern technologies like the “VoiceSpin” program.
This trend is certain to continue with the expansion of modern technologies like generative artificial intelligence models, for example, which fraudsters utilise to their benefit in different ways – one of them being deepfakes, which are expected to rise in the year ahead.
Deepfakes
Fraud
Deepfake technology is used to impersonate a real existing person with the goal of authorising and authenticating activities, such as impersonating a company CEO or CFO to authorise financial transactions for the benefit of fraudsters. It has been suggested that this will be the most frequent type of fraud in the future, due to its time efficiency.
Fraudsters even use deepfakes to circumvent biometric security measures for online payments, such as facial recognition.
Stock price manipulation
Deepfake news and headlines are already very well known, and there is a clear and present danger that they will be further and more frequently used in market manipulation. For example, a deepfake video of a purported explosion near the Pentagon recently went viral after it was retweeted by outlets such as Russia Today, causing some destabilisation in the US stock markets.
The high demand for deepfake videos significantly outweighs the supply, which is highly worrying. Their prices range between USD300 and USD20,000 per minute of video, depending on the quality.
Political election manipulation
These deepfake technologies can be used to manipulate political elections, by influencing voters. A major media outlet in the Republic of Serbia recently released deepfake video of one of the local politicians, with significant effects. It was quickly withdrawn, but it goes to show that it is very easy for deepfakes to be used as an instrument to influence the outcome of elections.
Social media cryptocurrency scams
“We are celebrating and giving away N bitcoins to our fans! Just transfer 0.01 BTC to the wallet below and we’ll return 0.1 BTC!” This is an example of a classic cryptocurrency scam.
Once the unsuspecting individual has transferred cryptocurrency to the specified wallet, the fraudsters have completed their goal and got their money. Due to the certain degree of anonymity linked to cryptocurrency, it is more difficult to trace these fraudsters and recover the money.
Reputation and brand schemes
Deepfakes could be used to harm the reputation of a company or an individual. For example, they could be used to create false information about a product or service, or to create an unwanted and socially unacceptable behaviour of the targeted individual or senior executive of the company, which can range from racial and sexually abusive behaviour to something more personally disturbing. This then affects the financial and business aspect of the company/individual, with lost business opportunities, decrease in sales, etc.
Amplification
Once the “original” deepfake material is out there, fraudsters need to further the effect of the initial deepfake by giving it credibility via various further comments to the initial post, using new deepfakes (instead of bot comments, for example).
This tactic is used to further the effect of an attack on a company's brand or reputation, or to expand a social media cryptocurrency scheme, or any other scheme for that matter.
Social platforms and phishing
Other forms of cyber fraud that are expected to increase in the coming months include the abuse of social platforms.
False social platform violations have been noted as a method of attack – the target receives information on a violation of the rules of the platform and that their account/page has been suspended/deleted, and that it is necessary to file an appeal, which requires the target to click on the link. However, once the target has clicked on the link, they are directed to a phishing page where user information and credentials are harvested for illegal purposes on the dark web. Generally, fraudsters use artificial intelligence language models to mimic the language that is usually expected from social platforms and the ever-increasing personalisation of e-mails, which enables them to avoid the usual obvious telltale signs of fraud.
This new level of fraud sophistication and personalisation is used to improve the results of the classic business email compromise (BEC) invoice fraud – fraudsters use generative AI models to falsely present themselves as vendors requesting payment, employees processing invoices for payment or even (real-life existing) lawyers sending their invoices for payment for services rendered. In these cases, AI collects the accessible information on existing vendors, lawyers, their engagement by the companies and activities that have been made public, and use it against the target of the attack by mimicking credible communication.
This method has increased the sophistication level of online attacks as it becomes more and more demanding to identify and differentiate scams from legitimate online communication.
Other white-collar crime trends
Other recent trends in white-collar crime show that money laundering cases are on the rise in connection with unlawful VAT refunds from the Tax Authority, and steps will need to be taken to counter these activities.
The modus operandi in these criminal activities is that the VAT returns are filed with untrue content based on false invoices on the purchase of goods. In this way, criminals use the right to deduct previously paid VAT, thus effectively avoiding VAT payment and damaging the budget of the Republic.
A specific sort of VAT fraud has been noted of late, where the suspects establish many companies and register them in the Business Registers Agency with Chinese citizens as founders and directors, in order to conceal their effective management and control over them. All companies formed in this manner share the same accounting agency, within which they organise false mutual invoicing, so that no company under their control is obliged to pay VAT. In every tax period, several business entities submit tax returns with an illegal amount of VAT for refund, thus avoiding VAT payment.
In the second phase of these frauds, fraudsters use the illegally acquired gains to buy real estate and other assets in order to launder the proceeds of criminal activities.
As a consequence, and in response, Prosecutor Offices have introduced the practice of filing charges for tax fraud and money laundering as separate criminal offences in such cases.
Due to a suspicion of the involvement of tax inspectors (and even higher ranking officials from the Tax Authority) in this specific fraud case, several tax inspectors and (for now) one branch director of the Tax Authority were recently arrested. A broader criminal organisation is suspected, but the case and investigation are ongoing at the time of writing. What is known for now is that there is a founded suspicion that the apprehended tax officials have been knowingly and intentionally verifying tax returns with untrue information filed by the fraudsters, without any (field or office) control whatsoever.
Basel Institute on Governance – Basel AML Index
At the heart of the Basel AML Index is a ranking of global jurisdictions according to their risks of money laundering/terrorist financing. The ranking is based on a composite index of 18 indicators of money laundering/terrorist financing risk in five domains:
The latest Basel AML Index 2023, with 12th Public Edition Ranking Report on money laundering and terrorist financing risks around the world, lists Serbia among the 12.5% of jurisdictions that are evaluated as “compliant”. In 2022, Serbia had an AML score of 4.87 on the Index, with the average score for the quality of its AML/CFT framework improving slightly in 2023, to 4.74.
Money laundering measures and the financing of terrorism – MONEYVAL
Serbia has made significant advancements in enhancing its AML/CFT framework, particularly in relation to compliance with Recommendation 15 of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) concerning new technologies. This progress has been acknowledged by the Council of Europe's anti-money laundering body, MONEYVAL, in a follow-up report published on 18 March 2024. Consequently, MONEYVAL has re-evaluated Serbia's compliance with this recommendation, upgrading its rating from “Partially Compliant” to “Largely Compliant”, and has concluded the follow-up procedures for Serbia in the current monitoring cycle.
Since November 2021, Serbia has implemented additional measures to identify and assess the risks associated with money laundering and terrorist financing arising from virtual asset activities and the operations of virtual asset service providers (VASPs). Serbia has also adopted a risk-based approach, ensured the enforcement of the travel rule by VASPs, and taken steps to facilitate the exchange of information on prudential and AML/CFT matters.
Serbia has made notable progress in addressing the technical compliance deficiencies identified in its 2016 Mutual Evaluation Report. Of the 40 FATF Recommendations, Serbia currently has:
As a result of its improved compliance with FATF Recommendations, Serbia is no longer required to report to MONEYVAL under the 5th evaluation round.
Fifth GRECO Evaluation Round
The most recent Fifth Evaluation Round was initiated on 1 January 2017. The purpose of this report is to assess the effectiveness of the measures adopted by Serbian authorities to prevent corruption and enhance integrity within central government bodies (at the highest executive functions) and law enforcement authorities.
The Compliance Report assesses the measures taken by the Serbian authorities to implement the recommendations made in the Fifth Round Evaluation Report on Serbia, which was adopted by GRECO at its 90th plenary meeting in 2022.
GRECO issued 24 recommendations to Serbia in its Evaluation Report. The Compliance Report for Serbia was adopted at its 97th Plenary meeting in Strasbourg in June 2024, and states that Serbia has fully implemented only one recommendation and partially implemented 13, and has not implemented ten of the proposed recommendations.
National Anti-Corruption Strategy
On 25 July 2024, the government of Serbia adopted the National Anti-Corruption Strategy for the period from 2024 to 2028. The strategy identifies several areas as high-risk, including the police, healthcare, education, local government, construction, political financing, taxation and customs, public procurement, privatisation and public enterprises. Whistle-blower protection and lobbying are also addressed within these high-risk areas.
The implementation of the National Strategy contributes to fulfilling 14 interim benchmarks for Chapter 23: Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, specifically within the Subchapter: Fight Against Corruption. This includes aligning the normative framework with GRECO recommendations, strengthening co-operation with the Anti-Corruption Council, and improving the enforcement of anti-corruption regulations such as the Whistle-blower Protection Act, the Law on Financing Political Activities and the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance.
In terms of repressive measures, the Strategy will address the need for amendments to the Law on the Organisation and Jurisdiction of State Authorities in Combatting Organised Crime, Terrorism and Corruption, and for improving the outcomes of investigations, prosecutions of criminal offences, increasing the number of convictions, and the seizure of assets derived from criminal activities.
The first Action Plan for the period 2024–2025 covers only part of the GRECO recommendations and interim benchmarks for Chapter 23, while the second Action Plan for the period 2026–2028 will include activities aimed at fulfilling all interim benchmarks as well as GRECO recommendations.
Conclusion
Taking into account that the future trends in white-collar crime include an increase in various hi-tech/cyber frauds, it is obvious that further strengthening of international co-operation and integration into European security systems will be imperative for Serbia as a candidate for EU membership.
Increasing the capacity of law enforcement agencies is another top priority, in order to provide a robust response to the evolving and time-sensitive nature of the cyber frauds. A systematic approach to the regulation framework regarding the abuse of new technologies in criminal activities is necessary, and an immediate reaction is required. However, there have not yet been any significant efforts in that direction.
Amendments to the Criminal Code are also required, to recognise the evolving landscape of hi-tech crimes. For example, since the Criminal Code (“Official Gazette of RS”, No 85/2005, 88/2005 – corrected, 107/2005 – corrected, 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014 and 94/2016) does not recognise identity theft as a criminal offence, the provisions related to the falsification of documents and fraud are applied in these situations, which is highly problematic.
It is important to point out that it is still necessary to harmonise the legal regulations that regulate the work of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the police, especially in the segment that regulates responsibility for work. The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the leading role of the prosecutor in the pre-investigation procedure, and it is necessary for this provision to take effect in reality so as to enable more efficient and effective proceedings. The current situation is that the prosecutor manages the work of the police, but the police are not accountable to the Prosecutor's Office for the quality and timely execution of their work.
The new Law on Public Prosecutor Offices may be a step in the right direction, but without the prosecutors having effective control over the work of the police and their actions, it is only a step in the right direction, rather than the solution which is very much needed in practice.
In addition, the importance of asset recovery is expected to rise in the future, considering that it will be harder than ever to prevent fraud with the day-to-day evolution of modern technologies and cyberspace, combined with a lack of regulation thereof (such as AI regulation, which is still in the initial phase and is heavily lagging behind the development of AI and its application in daily operations).
Sremska Street No.4
1st Floor/5
21000 Novi Sad
Serbia
+381214721788
+381216617541
office@sunjkalawoffice.com www.sunjkalawoffice.com