Categories of Criminal Offences Under Belgian Law

Belgian criminal law has traditionally classified crimes, misdemeanours and infractions as separate categories of offence. As of 1 September 2026, the new Belgian Criminal Code (BCC) abolishes this tripartite classification and replaces it with a single concept of “offences”, while differentiating between crimes mainly by reference to the applicable sanction level. This reform removes the historical reliance on “correctionalisation” (a procedural technique in which more serious criminal offences are reclassified as lesser ones) as a structural mechanism.

Constituent Elements of a Criminal Offence

Under the new BCC, an offence exists only if three constituent elements are present: a material element, a mental element and unlawfulness. The material element can consist of an act or an omission, and it may itself be composed of multiple factual components depending on the definition of the offence. The new BCC expressly recognises unlawfulness as a separate requirement, meaning the conduct must constitute an infringement of criminal law and cannot be justified. Where the material and mental elements are fulfilled, unlawfulness is presumed, but that presumption can be rebutted by a legally recognised justification (eg, legitimate defence).

Intent, Negligence and Other Forms of Fault

The new BCC regulates the mental element explicitly and distinguishes offences by reference to four categories: (i) regulatory offences; (ii) unintentional offences; (iii) intentional offences requiring general intent; and (iv) intentional offences requiring specific intent. Across all categories, the baseline requirement is that the person must have been able to act consciously and of their own free will, subject to the possibility of invoking an excuse such as irresistible coercion or unavoidable mistake.

For regulatory offences, it is sufficient that the common baseline requirement is met.

For intentional offences requiring general intent, the new BCC defines general intent as the intention to knowingly engage in conduct that is punishable by law, which excludes mere carelessness.

For specific intent offences, the new BCC requires on top of general intent, proof of an additional purpose or particular mental state that is defined in the offence description (eg, “with intent to achieve a defined result” or “with fraudulent intent”).

For unintentional offences, the new BCC requires a serious lack of care or prudence, rather than any (even slight) negligence. The lack of care or prudence is considered serious when the error is so excessive that it is incomprehensible that a reasonable and cautious person would commit it.

Motive and Its Legal Relevance

The new BCC’s framework focuses on the required mental element rather than on a person’s broader reasons for acting. As a result, motive will typically be relevant in practice mainly when it overlaps with specific intent or when courts assess the circumstances of the offence at sentencing.

Criminal Liability for Attempted Offences

From September 2026, the punishability of attempt is linked primarily to the mental element of the underlying offence rather than to the statutory penalty of the completed offence. An attempt will, as a rule, be punishable for intentional offences (general or specific intent). Attempt is inherently incompatible with unintentional offences, and for regulatory offences it is punishable only where the law expressly provides so.

The attempt is generally punished at a sanction level immediately below that of the completed offence, with a specific adjustment mechanism where the completed offence is already at the lowest level.

Belgian criminal law is built on the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof lies, in principle, with the public prosecutor, who must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any remaining doubt must benefit the defendant.

Belgian law nevertheless recognises evidential mechanisms that may affect how proof is assessed in practice. In particular, in money laundering cases, courts may accept that the prosecution does not need to establish the precise unlawful origin of the assets if it can demonstrate that a lawful origin is implausible, in which case the defendant may be expected to provide a credible explanation, without this amounting to a full reversal of the burden of proof.

Where a defendant invokes a justification or an excuse affecting culpability, they must make that claim plausible. After which it is for the prosecution to disprove the justification or excuse.

Belgian law distinguishes between the limitation of criminal prosecution and the limitation of the execution of sentences.

Limitation of Criminal Prosecution

The limitation of the criminal prosecution was fundamentally reformed by the Act of 9 April 2024, which has been in force since 28 April 2024 and applies to all offences not yet time-barred on that date.

The applicable limitation periods:

• 30 years for level 8 offences (punishable by life imprisonment);
• 20 years for level 7 offences (imprisonment of more than 20 and up to 30 years);
• 15 years for level 4 to 6 offences (imprisonment of more than five and up to 20 years); and
• ten years for level 1 to 3 offences, which include virtually all financial and economic offences.

As a rule, limitation periods start to run on the day the offence is committed and are no longer affected by attenuating circumstances. Once the case is brought before a trial court, the limitation period can no longer expire. Certain offences are not subject to limitation, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and a limited category of particularly serious sexual or violent offences.

For continuing offences, the limitation period begins when the unlawful situation has ended. Where multiple acts form part of a single, ongoing criminal scheme driven by the same intent, the limitation period runs from the date of the last established act, provided that the time between successive acts does not exceed the applicable limitation period.

Limitation of the Execution of Sentences

Once a conviction becomes final, separate rules apply to the limitation of the execution of sentences, harmonised under the new BCC. The limitation period runs from the date the judgment becomes final and depends on the level of the principal sentence (these levels are discussed in further detail in 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties), applying equally to ancillary penalties.

Sentences for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not subject to limitation. For other offences, the execution limitation periods are:

• 20 years for sentence levels 8 and 7;
• ten years for sentence levels 6, 5 and 4;
• five years for sentence levels 3, 2 and 1.

In no case is the limitation period shorter than the duration of the sentence imposed. These periods may be interrupted or suspended, notably by concrete steps taken to enforce fines or confiscation.

Belgian criminal jurisdiction is primarily territorial but may extend to offences with a Belgian nexus or, in specific cases, to conduct committed abroad, including foreign bribery and offences linked to Belgian nationals or companies. Cross-border investigations rely on EU instruments (such as the European Investigation Order and the European Arrest Warrant) and international mutual legal assistance treaties, with Belgium also actively participating in Europol, Eurojust, the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the Financial Action Task Force, and the OECD Working Group on Bribery.

Criminal Liability of Legal Entities

Under Belgian law, a legal entity may incur criminal liability where the offence is intrinsically linked to its corporate object or interests, or was committed on its behalf. From 2026, the new BCC has replaced the former reference to the “corporate purpose” with the notion of “corporate object”, expressly referring to the entity’s actual activities. Liability is autonomous and requires establishing the mental element at the level of the legal entity, which may be inferred from organisational failures, lack of supervision, or intent or negligence attributable to its governing bodies.

Concurrent Liability and Individual Responsibility

Belgian law allows for the cumulative prosecution and conviction of legal entities and natural persons for the same offence. There is no statutory hierarchy between prosecuting companies, individuals, or both; prosecutors assess factors such as personal involvement, organisational failure, the benefit obtained and deterrence considerations. Managers and directors are not automatically criminally liable solely because a legal entity is convicted, and the constituent elements of the offence must be independently established for each individual. For unintentional offences committed before 30 July 2018, only the party whose conduct constitutes the most serious fault may ultimately be convicted.

Mergers, Acquisitions and Successor Liability

In principle, criminal proceedings against a legal entity come to an end when it ceases to exist, including following a merger or demerger. Prosecution may nevertheless continue where the restructuring is aimed at evading criminal liability, or where the legal entity, before losing its legal personality, had been formally charged by an investigating judge, referred to trial by an investigating court or directly summoned before the trial court. Outside these specific situations, successor entities are not criminally liable for offences committed prior to the restructuring, although civil liability may continue. Belgian law does not recognise automatic parent-company or group criminal liability; each legal entity is assessed individually.

“Failure to Prevent” and Compliance-Based Liability

Belgian law does not provide for a general “failure to prevent” offence. Deficiencies in organisation or supervision may evidence corporate intent or negligence, but compliance programmes are not a statutory defence and may only be considered as mitigating factors at sentencing.

Sentencing Framework

Sentencing in Belgian white-collar cases is governed by statutory penalty ranges, with courts retaining discretion to tailor sanctions to the circumstances of the case.

From September 2026, the new BCC introduces a system of eight sentencing levels, each defining the applicable principal penalties. These levels are defined separately for natural persons and legal entities, abolishing the former mechanism for converting between custodial sentences and corporate fines.

As a result, sanctions for companies are now determined directly by the applicable sentencing level, mainly through predefined ranges of fines and other non-custodial penalties (Articles 36 and 38 of the new BCC).

Sentencing levels under the new BCC (from September 2026) are as follows.

• Level 8 – Life imprisonment or treatment under deprivation of liberty (which is a security measure applied to offenders suffering from serious mental disorders) for 18–20 years for natural persons, and a fine of EUR4 million to EUR5.76 million for legal entities.
• Level 7 – Imprisonment for 20–30 years or treatment under deprivation of liberty for 16–18 years for natural persons, and a fine of EUR1.6 million to EUR4 million for legal entities.
• Level 6 – Imprisonment for 15–20 years or treatment under deprivation of liberty for 11–16 years for natural persons, and a fine of EUR1.2 million to EUR1.6 million for legal entities.
• Level 5 – Imprisonment for 10–15 years or treatment under deprivation of liberty for 6–11 years for natural persons, and a fine of EUR800,000 to EUR1.2 million for legal entities.
• Level 4 – Imprisonment for 5–10 years or treatment under deprivation of liberty for 4–6 years for natural persons, and a fine of EUR600,000 to EUR800,000 for legal entities.
• Level 3 – Imprisonment for 3–5 years or treatment under deprivation of liberty for 2–4 years for natural persons, and a fine of EUR360,000 to EUR600,000 for legal entities.
• Level 2 – Imprisonment from six months to three years or treatment under deprivation of liberty from six months to two years; electronic monitoring; community service; probation; or a declaration of guilt for natural persons. A fine of EUR20,000 to EUR360,000; community service valued accordingly; probation; the combination of two level 1 penalties; or a declaration of guilt for legal entities.
• Level 1 – A fine of EUR200 to EUR20,000; community service; probation; confiscation; a penalty based on unlawful benefit; or a declaration of guilt for natural persons. A fine of EUR200 to EUR20,000; community service; probation; a temporary ban on activities forming part of the corporate object (for 1–10 years); confiscation; a penalty based on unlawful benefit; the closure of an establishment; or a declaration of guilt for legal entities.

All fines are subject to the statutory surcharge (opdeciemen/décimes additionnels) under the Act of 5 March 1952. For offences committed between 1 February 2026 and 31 August 2026 under the old BCC, the amounts are multiplied by ten (previously eight). The fines under the new BCC are multiplied by 1.25.

When determining the appropriate penalty, courts may consider a range of relevant factors, including prior convictions, co-operation with the authorities, the seriousness and duration of the offence, the benefit obtained, any remediation, and, for companies, the adequacy of internal controls and compliance measures. In cases of recidivism or aggravating circumstances, a heavier penalty may or must be imposed within the statutory framework.

Mitigating Factors and Corporate Conduct

Belgian criminal law treats mitigating circumstances as an open concept, giving courts broad discretion to reduce the applicable penalty, including by sentencing one or more levels below the statutory level. For legal entities, factors such as corporate culture, governance, internal controls and remediation measures may be taken into account to mitigate the sentence, without excluding liability or binding the court.

Settlements and Alternatives to Prosecution

Article 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) provides for a guilty plea mechanism, allowing the accused to admit guilt in writing in exchange for a sentence proposed by the public prosecutor and approved by the court. Belgian law also allows out-of-court settlements and mediation for certain offences, subject to conditions such as full compensation, forfeiture where applicable and proportionality, with co-operation and remediation influencing their availability and terms (Articles 216bis and 216ter of the CCP).

Under Belgian law, victims may seek compensation for their loss either within the criminal proceedings by joining as a civil party, or before the civil courts. By joining the criminal proceedings, victims enable the criminal court to rule both on the criminal charges and the related civil claim, allowing them to benefit from the investigative powers of the criminal authorities and to avoid separate civil litigation.

Victims may alternatively bring their claim before the civil courts; however, where criminal proceedings concerning the same facts are pending, civil courts must await the outcome of the criminal case and are bound by the final criminal judgment as regards the existence of the offence and the defendant’s guilt.

The legal basis for compensation is civil liability arising from an unlawful act. The victim must establish fault, damage and a causal link, with a criminal offence automatically constituting a fault for civil law purposes. Compensation may cover material and, where applicable, moral damage.

Belgian law does not provide for US-style class actions in criminal matters. While limited forms of collective redress exist in civil law, mainly in consumer cases, they are rarely used for white-collar offences. In practice, where multiple victims are affected, compensation claims are usually pursued through individual civil party claims within the same criminal proceedings.

Criminal Procedure

In Belgium, the Public Prosecutor’s Office bears the overall responsibility for the prosecution of criminal offences. Belgian criminal procedure distinguishes between a preliminary investigation, conducted under the authority of the Public Prosecutor using measures not requiring prior judicial authorisation, and a judicial investigation, conducted under the supervision of an investigating judge with broader coercive powers, including searches, seizures and special investigative techniques. A judicial investigation is typically ordered in complex cases or where intrusive measures are required, and one is mandatory when a complaint with civil party status is filed directly before the investigating judge.

Prosecutors exercise discretion in deciding whether to prosecute, settle or dismiss cases. Investigations are carried out by the police, including specialised units dealing with economic and financial crime. At federal level, the Federal Judicial Police play a central role in large-scale or cross-border white-collar cases, and includes a dedicated Central Anti-Corruption Office. Belgium does not have separate criminal courts exclusively dedicated to white-collar crime.

Civil and Administrative Enforcement

In addition to criminal enforcement, certain white-collar offences may also give rise to administrative or civil enforcement by sector-specific authorities, such as the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) or the National Bank of Belgium for financial misconduct, the Belgian Competition Authority for competition law infringements, and the Belgian Data Protection Authority for data protection breaches. These authorities may impose administrative sanctions independently of criminal proceedings. Where the same facts give rise to both criminal and administrative proceedings, Belgian law requires compliance with the ne bis in idem principle, meaning that a person may not be sanctioned twice for the same facts where the sanctions are criminal in nature, and enforcement must be co-ordinated to avoid duplication.

White-collar investigations in Belgium may be initiated either as a preliminary investigation or as a judicial investigation. A preliminary investigation may be opened following a report by a victim or witness, on the prosecutor’s own initiative, or on the basis of information received from public services or regulatory authorities, at the discretion of the Public Prosecutor. A judicial investigation, conducted under the authority of an investigating judge, may be initiated following a complaint with civil party status, at the request of the Public Prosecutor where coercive measures are required, or (exceptionally) on the investigating judge’s own initiative in legally defined circumstances.

The scope of investigative powers in a criminal investigation depends on whether the case proceeds as a preliminary investigation under the authority of the Public Prosecutor or a judicial investigation led by an investigating judge. In both types of investigation, authorities may request companies and third parties to voluntarily provide relevant documents or information, subject to the right against self-incrimination and specific statutory co-operation duties, notably for regulated entities such as financial institutions and telecommunications providers.

Searches and seizures, including of business premises, documents and electronic data, generally require authorisation by an investigating judge and are carried out within a judicial investigation, with due respect for legal privilege and professional secrecy.

Authorities may also question suspects and third parties, with suspects benefiting from procedural safeguards, and may trace, freeze and seize assets, including bank accounts and digital or crypto-assets, in accordance with Belgian criminal law.

There is no Belgium-specific statute governing the use of AI in criminal investigations. The legal framework is derived from general criminal procedure rules, data-protection law applicable to law enforcement authorities, and EU law, in particular the EU AI Act, which entered into force in August 2024, and which classifies certain law-enforcement AI uses as prohibited or high-risk and subjects permitted uses to strict safeguards.

The AI Act expressly prohibits certain law-enforcement uses of AI, including systems that create or expand facial recognition databases through untargeted scraping, AI systems that categorise individuals based on sensitive biometric attributes, and systems that predict criminal behaviour solely on the basis of profiling.

Other AI systems commonly used in investigations, such as tools for biometric identification, profiling in criminal investigations or the evaluation of evidence, are classified as high-risk AI systems. Their use is permitted only under strict conditions, including requirements relating to accuracy, transparency, human oversight, documentation and accountability, and subject to compliance with national criminal procedure and data-protection rules.

Since 16 December 2024, internal investigations involving employees are governed by the Law on Private Investigations, which includes the obligation to establish internal regulations, imposes documentation requirements and restricts certain investigative methods. Internal investigations are also subject to GDPR and labour law. Courts may exclude evidence obtained in breach of mandatory rules.

Belgium has implemented a statutory whistle-blower protection regime through the Act of 28 November 2022, transposing Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which applies to both the public and private sectors and covers, inter alia, fraud, money laundering and financial services. Private-sector entities with 50 or more employees are required to establish internal reporting channels and procedures allowing whistle-blowers to report breaches in a confidential manner. Investigations conducted under the whistle-blower framework are excluded from the scope of the Law on Private Investigations, as they are carried out pursuant to a statutory obligation.

In Belgium, white-collar prosecutions may be initiated in three distinct ways, depending on whether a preliminary inquiry or a judicial inquiry has been conducted.

Council Chamber

Following a judicial inquiry, the case is reviewed by the Council Chamber, which may order further investigation, dismiss the case for lack of evidence, or find sufficient indications of guilt and refer the suspect to the police or correctional court. If the case is dismissed, the plaintiff and/or the public prosecutor may appeal, in which case the Chamber of Indictments may still decide to refer the matter to the criminal court.

Summons by the Public Prosecutor

Second, in the context of a preliminary inquiry, the public prosecutor’s office may decide, at its discretion, to prosecute or dismiss the case and may bring infractions and misdemeanours before the criminal court by way of a summons. This discretion is exercised within the framework of internal prosecution guidelines.

Direct Summons by the Plaintiff

Third, a prosecution may be initiated through a direct summons by the plaintiff, either where the public prosecutor has dismissed the case or where the plaintiff considers that sufficient evidence exists.

Criminal Court

Once a case is validly brought before the criminal court, it is for the court alone to assess whether the offence has been proven and to rule on guilt. While the court is not bound by the legal characterisation or submissions of the public prosecutor or the civil party, it is bound by the facts as set out in the summons or referral decision and may not rule on facts that fall outside that procedural framework. The court must base its decision on its own assessment of the evidence and give a reasoned judgment.

Belgian law does not provide for deferred or non-prosecution agreements in the Anglo-Saxon sense, but it does recognise statutory alternatives to a criminal trial, in particular those set out in Articles 216, 216bis and 216ter of the CCP.

Under Article 216 of the CCP, a guilty plea procedure allows the public prosecutor to agree in advance on a penalty with a suspect or accused who acknowledges guilt in writing. This mechanism is available only if the offence does not appear to be punishable by more than five years’ imprisonment, the offence is not excluded by law, the damage has been fully compensated or civil liability has been acknowledged, and, in the case of tax or social offences, the amounts due have been paid. The agreement becomes effective only after judicial review and approval.

Article 216bis of the CCP provides for a criminal settlement whereby the public prosecutor may propose the payment of a sum of money if the offence does not appear to be punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment and does not involve serious physical harm. The settlement has to be approved by a judicial body. Proceedings are discontinued once the agreed amount is paid, confiscation has been executed and the damage has been compensated.

Finally, Article 216ter of the CCP allows the public prosecutor to invite the offender to compensate for the damage caused by the offence or to propose their compliance with certain conditions, if the offence does not appear to be punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. If the suspect agrees to and fully complies with the proposed measures or conditions, and civil liability is acknowledged where applicable, the criminal action lapses and no trial may take place.

Fraud (Article 496, Old BCC/Article 479, New BCC)

Fraud is committed where a person seeks to obtain an undue economic advantage for themselves or for a third party by means of fraudulent conduct (such as the use of a false name, false capacity or other deceitful tricks) and acts with fraudulent intent.

Since the Act of 12 July 2023, fraud no longer requires an actual transfer or delivery of assets: seeking to obtain an unlawful economic advantage through fraudulent conduct suffices, and the concept of “unlawful economic advantage” also covers intangible and immovable property. The new BCC retains this approach and simplifies the description of the purpose of the fraudulent means to “cunningly gaining another person’s trust”.

Under the old BCC, fraud was punishable by imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and/or a fine of between EUR26 and EUR3,000 for natural persons, while legal entities faced potential fines of between EUR500 and EUR120,000. Under the new BCC, fraud is classified as a level 3 offence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail).

Abuse of Trust (Article 491 et Seq, Old BCC/Article 475, New BCC)

Abuse of trust consists of the fraudulent appropriation or dissipation, to the detriment of another person, of movable property with economic value that was entrusted to the offender under an obligation to return it or to use or apply it for a specific purpose.

Since the Act of 12 July 2023, the offence covers any movable asset with economic value, including intangible assets such as software, databases and proprietary information. The new BCC retains that definition. What is new under the new BCC is that attempted abuse of trust becomes punishable, as attempt is now punishable for all intentional offences (Article 9 New BCC).

Under the old BCC, abuse of trust was punishable by imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and/or a fine of between EUR26 and EUR500 for natural persons, while legal entities faced potential fines of between EUR500 and EUR120,000. Under the new BCC, abuse of trust is classified as a level 3 offence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail).

Forgery and the Use of Forged Documents (Article 193 et Seq, Old BCC/Article 451, New BCC)

Forgery occurs where a legally protected written document is altered or created in a manner that distorts the truth, with fraudulent intent or an intent to cause harm, and where such conduct is capable of causing prejudice. The document must be one that commands public trust.

Forgery and the use of forged documents are separate offences: a person may be convicted of one without the other.

Under the old BCC, forgery of commercial or private documents could in theory be punished by imprisonment of five to ten years, although in practice courts routinely accepted mitigating circumstances and imposed imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and/or a fine of between EUR26 and EUR2,000 for natural persons, while legal entities faced potential fines of between EUR 500 and EUR 120,000. Under the new BCC, forgery of commercial or private documents is classified as a level 3 offence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail).

Abuse of Corporate Assets (Article 492Bis, Old BCC/Article 476, New BCC)

Abuse of corporate assets arises where a director of a legal entity intentionally uses the assets of the company, directly or indirectly for personal purposes or for the benefit of a third party, while knowing that such use is significantly detrimental to the financial interests of the company, its creditors or its shareholders.

Under the old BCC, abuse of corporate assets was punishable by imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and/or a fine of between EUR100 and EUR500,000 for natural persons, while legal entities could be fined between EUR500 and EUR1 million. Under the new BCC, abuse of corporate assets is classified as a level 3 offence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail).

Bankruptcy-Related Criminal Offences (Article 489 – 490Quater Old BCC/Article 489 – 495 New BCC)

Belgian law recognises various bankruptcy-related offences aimed at protecting creditors and the integrity of insolvency proceedings. These offences typically target directors who, in the context of insolvency or bankruptcy, engage in fraudulent or seriously negligent conduct, such as misappropriation of assets, falsification of accounts or unlawful preferential treatment of creditors. Sanctions vary depending on the offence.

Belgian criminal law distinguishes between active and passive bribery, as well as between public and private bribery.

Active bribery consists of proposing, directly or through intermediaries, any advantage to induce a person to act or refrain from acting, while passive bribery involves requesting or accepting such an advantage for that purpose.

Public Bribery (Article 246 et Seq, Old BCC and Article 638, New BCC)

Public bribery concerns domestic and foreign public officials, irrespective of whether the bribery is active or passive.

Under the old BCC, public bribery was punishable by imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and/or a fine of between EUR100 and EUR100,000 for natural persons, and a fine of between EUR3,000 and EUR200,000 for legal entities. Under the new BCC, public bribery is classified as a level 3 offence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail). Under both the old and the new BCC, several aggravating circumstances apply to bribery offences – eg, where the offence involves a foreign public official.

Private Bribery (Article 504Bis et Seq, Old BCC and Article 487, New BCC)

Private bribery concerns private-sector actors and applies irrespective of whether the bribery is active or passive.

Under the old BCC, private bribery was punishable by imprisonment ranging from six months to three years and/or a fine of between EUR100 and EUR100,000 for natural persons, while legal entities could be fined between EUR3,000 and EUR200,000. Under the new BCC, private bribery is classified as a sentencing level 2 offence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail).

Belgian law does not contain a general criminal law provision requiring companies to implement anti-bribery compliance programmes or to report suspected bribery. The absence of adequate preventive measures may, however, aggravate criminal liability. Furthermore, indirect duties arise from corporate governance and EU-driven requirements such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, while reporting duties mainly apply in regulated sectors and under whistle-blowing regimes (see 4.4 Whistle-Blower Protection).

Offences under special criminal legislation that has not itself been harmonised with the new BCC are, since 1 September 2026, read through the conversion mechanism of Article 78 of the new BCC: a maximum prison term of more than three and up to five years corresponds to level 3, one to three years to level 2 and up to one year to level 1. The penalties for legal entities follow from the corresponding level in Article 38 of the new BCC, the former conversion mechanism of Article 41bis of the old BCC having been repealed. The penalties set out below are those of the special acts themselves; for offences committed on or after 1 September 2026 they must be read in light of this conversion.

Insider Dealing

Insider dealing is criminalised under Article 40 of the Act of 2 August 2002 on the supervision of the financial sector and on financial services. The offence is committed where a person possesses inside information and knowingly and willingly uses that information by acquiring or disposing of financial instruments to which the information relates, for their own account or for a third party, directly or indirectly. Inducing or encouraging another person to engage in insider dealing is a separate criminal offence.

Sanctions include imprisonment from three months to four years and/or a fine of EUR50 to EUR10,000 for natural persons, and fines from EUR1,500 to EUR96,000 for legal entities. In addition, courts may order payment of up to three times the financial benefit obtained from the offence. Under Article 78 of the new BCC, this corresponds to a level 3 offence

Market Abuse (Market Manipulation)

Market abuse is criminalised by Article 39 of the Act of 2 August 2002. It covers conduct such as transactions, trading orders or other behaviour that gives or is likely to give false or misleading signals as to the supply, demand or price of a financial instrument, or that secures or is likely to secure prices at an abnormal or artificial level. Conduct carried out for legitimate reasons and in accordance with accepted market practices does not constitute an offence.

Market abuse is punishable by imprisonment from one month to four years and/or a fine of EUR300 to EUR10,000 for natural persons, and fines from EUR500 to EUR96,000 for legal entities. The offender may also be ordered to disgorge up to three times the financial benefit derived from the abuse. Under Article 78 of the new BCC, this corresponds to a level 3 offence

Illicit Banking Activities

The unlawful provision of credit institution services is criminalised by Article 348 of the Banking Act of 25 April 2014. The offence consists of carrying out credit institution activities without the required prior authorisation.

Sanctions include imprisonment from one month to one year and/or a fine of EUR50 to EUR10,000 for natural persons, and fines from EUR500 to EUR24,000 for legal entities. Under Article 78 of the new BCC, this corresponds to a level 1 offence.

Tax fraud is categorised into ordinary tax fraud and serious tax fraud. Ordinary tax fraud involves deliberate violations of tax regulations, such as failing to declare income. Since 1 September 2026, the Act of 16 May 2024 aligns tax offences with the new BCC. Ordinary tax fraud is a level 2 offence.

Serious tax fraud penalties include sentences of up to five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine that corresponds to a level 3 offence (Article 449 of the Income Tax Code (WIB). Attempted tax fraud is now penalised. For offences committed before 1 September 2026, the former penalties apply where more favourable.

In addition, Belgium has implemented preventive measures against tax evasion, including mandatory annual tax declarations under Article 305 of the WIB, anti-abuse provisions under Articles 344 and 344/1 of the WIB, and reporting obligations such as DAC6 disclosures for cross-border tax arrangements.

Belgian legal entities are obliged to maintain accounting records and supporting documents for a period of at least ten years.

Furthermore, Article 3.1 of the Belgian Code of Companies and Associations (BCCA) obliges legal entities to disclose a financial report to the National Bank of Belgium on an annual basis.

Failure to comply with these obligations may result in a criminal fine ranging between EUR50 and EUR10,000. Article 3:43 of the BCCA imposes heavier penalties where the offence is committed with fraudulent intent, increasing the sanction to a fine ranging between EUR50 and EUR10,000 and/or imprisonment for a term of one month to one year.

Cartel activities, such as price-fixing, market allocation, and bid-rigging, are mainly sanctioned through administrative penalties under the Belgian Code of Economic Law (CEL). The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) may impose fines of up to 10% of the worldwide turnover of the companies involved where they intentionally or negligently commit an infringement of competition law (Article IV.79, CEL).

Criminal sanctions apply exclusively to bid rigging in public procurement, which constitutes a criminal offence under Article 314 of the BCC, punishable by imprisonment from 15 days to six months and fines ranging from EUR100 to EUR3,000. Under the new BCC, bid rigging in public procurement (Article 541, new BCC) is punishable as a level 2 offence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail).

Key offences under Belgian consumer law include non-compliance with product safety regulations and breaches of consumer protection legislation.

Such offences are subject to criminal fines of up to EUR100,000 (or EUR200,000 in the event of recidivism) or up to 6% of the liable party’s last annual turnover in Belgium, whichever is higher (Article XV.70, CEL). Separately, liability for defective products under Book 6 of the Belgian Civil Code holds producers and distributors liable for harm caused.

Breaches of consumer protection laws under the Omnibus Directive include misleading practices against consumers with fines of at least 4% of turnover or EUR2 million if annual turnover is unknown.

Cybercrime and computer-related offences are mainly regulated in Articles 210bis, 504quater, 550bis and 550ter of the BCC.

The core offence is illegal access to an IT system (“hacking”) (Article 550bis, old BCC), and is established where a person knowingly and without authorisation accesses an IT system or remains in such an IT system after authorisation has expired. The constituent elements are: (i) the existence of an IT system; (ii) unauthorised access or continued presence; and (iii) intent. Aggravated forms apply where the access is accompanied by data manipulation, copying, or the intent to defraud. Sanctions ranged from imprisonment of three months to one year and/or a fine of between EUR26 and EUR25,000 for basic hacking, up to three years’ imprisonment where aggravating circumstances were present. Under the new BCC, hacking will be subdivided into several offences, including external and internal hacking (Articles 524 and 525 of the new BCC), both punishable at sentencing level 2 (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail).

Closely related is computer fraud (Article 504quater, old BCC), which consists of obtaining an unlawful economic advantage by manipulating data, altering the normal use of an IT system, or interfering with data processing, with fraudulent intent. Computer fraud is punishable by imprisonment up to five years and/or criminal fines ranging between EUR26 and EUR100,000. The new BCC will punish this offence with a level 3 sentence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail) (Article 488, new BCC).

Additional cyber-related offences include data interference and system interference (Article 550ter, old BCC), covering the intentional deletion, alteration or destruction of computer data, or the serious hindrance of an IT system’s functioning. These offences require proof of intent and unlawful interference and are sanctioned by criminal fines of up to EUR25,000 and imprisonment of up to three years, with higher penalties where fraudulent intent or significant damage to critical infrastructure are involved. In the new BCC, this offence is punishable with a level 2 sentence or higher in case of aggravating circumstances (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail) (Article 531 new, BCC).

Computer-related forgery is criminalised under Article 210bis of the old BCC and concerns the intentional manipulation of data through an IT system in a manner that alters their legal significance. The offence requires data manipulation, alteration of legal or evidentiary value and intent, and is punishable by imprisonment of six months to five years and/or fines of up to EUR100,000. Any person who knowingly uses data obtained through such computer-related forgery is punishable as the perpetrator of the forgery itself. In the new BCC, this offence is punishable with a level 3 sentence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail) (Article 451 new, BCC).

Finally, breaches of company secrets are criminalised under Article 309 BCC and concern the disclosure of manufacturing or business secrets by persons who obtained them through their profession or position, with fraudulent or malicious intent. This offence is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years and fines of up to EUR2,000. Under the new BCC, this offence is punishable with a level 2 sentence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail) (Article 539, new BCC).

Offences relating to financial, trade and customs sanctions mainly arise from EU sanctions regimes, which are directly applicable in Belgium.

At national level, enforcement is based on the Act of 13 May 2003 implementing EU restrictive measures.

Breaches of EU Regulations may be sanctioned criminally and/or administratively. Criminal sanctions include imprisonment (ranging from eight days to five years) and criminal fines (ranging between EUR25 and EUR25,000 for a natural person, or a fine ranging between EUR500 and EUR120,000 for legal entities), often accompanied by confiscation and ancillary penalties, while administrative authorities may impose administrative fines (ranging from EUR250 to EUR2.5 million) (Article 6, Act of 13 May 2003). Under Article 78 of the new BCC, this corresponds to a level 3 offence.

Concealment is criminalised as handling or receiving goods of illicit origin under Article 505 of the BCC.

The material element of concealment consists of taking possession of property that has been obtained through a criminal offence that has been committed by another person. The mental element requires intention and knowledge of the illicit origin of the goods at the time of the conduct, negligence is insufficient.

Concealment is punishable by imprisonment ranging from 15 days to five years and/or a fine between EUR26 and EUR100,000 for natural persons, and between EUR500 and EUR200,000 for legal persons, and may additionally give rise to special confiscation.

In the new BCC, this offence is punishable with a level 3 sentence (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail) (Article 501, new BCC).

A person who conspires with or assists another to commit a (corporate) offence may be held criminally liable, either as a co-perpetrator or as an accomplice.

First, co-perpetration is governed by Article 66 of the old BCC. A person qualifies as a co-perpetrator where they knowingly and intentionally participate in the commission of an offence through a concerted action with the principal offender. Co-perpetrators are punished as principal offenders and are subject to the same criminal sanctions as those applicable to the (corporate) offence itself.

Secondly, complicity (aiding and abetting) is criminalised under Article 67 of the old BCC. A person is an accomplice where they intentionally provide assistance before or during the commission of an offence, such as by giving instructions, providing means, or facilitating execution, without directly committing the offence. Accomplices are criminally liable but generally face reduced penalties compared to principal offenders, in accordance with Article 69 of the BCC.

These rules apply equally to corporate offences. In addition, pursuant to Article 5 of the BCC (and Article 18 of the new BCC), a legal person may itself incur criminal liability for offences intrinsically linked to the pursuit of its purpose or interests, without excluding the simultaneous liability of natural persons who acted as co-perpetrators or accomplices.

The new BCC abolishes the division between co-perpetrator and accomplice. As of 1 September 2026, perpetrators are those who fulfil all constituent elements of the offence (Article 17 of the new BCC), while participants are those who knowingly and willingly make a meaningful contribution to the offence in one of the ways listed in Article 19 of the new BCC (direct participation, facilitating preparation or execution, direct incitement, a failure to act that directly facilitates the offence, or assistance after the offence agreed in advance). Participants can be punished in the same way as perpetrators.

Money laundering offences are criminalised under Article 505 of the BCC. There are three main offences:

• the first offence involves anyone who buys, exchanges, receives free of charge, possesses, keeps or manages assets, while knowing, or having a duty to know, at the time of starting these actions, what the criminal origin of those assets is;
• the second offence consists of the conversion or transfer of assets with the intention to conceal or disguise their illegal origin, or of helping a person involved in the offence from which those assets originate to evade the legal consequences of their acts; and
• the third offence is committed by anyone who conceals or disguises the nature, origin, location, disposition, movement or ownership of the assets, while knowing or having a duty to know, at the time of starting these actions, that those assets have a criminal origin.

Belgian law imposes a specific obligation to prevent money laundering, as stipulated in the Act of 18 September 2017, on the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing. Failure to comply with this obligation may result in criminal, administrative, or civil penalties. The Financial Intelligence Processing Unit (CFI) is the competent authority responsible for receiving and forwarding suspicious transactions to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The penalties for money laundering offences include imprisonment ranging from 15 days to five years and fines of between EUR26 and EUR100,000.

Article 502 of the new BCC imposes a punishment of sentencing level 3 (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties for further detail).

Belgian law recognises a broad range of criminal offences linked to ESG misconduct, although these are not grouped under a single ESG framework. Environmental offences are criminalised mainly under the regional environmental legislation (of Flanders, Wallonia or Brussels).

Belgium has recently gone further by criminalising “ecocide” under Article 94 of the new BCC. Ecocide covers conduct causing serious, widespread and long-term damage to the environment, committed intentionally and with knowledge of the substantial likelihood of such damage and carries severe sanctions, including imprisonment of up to 20 years (sentencing level 6, as outlined in 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties) significant fines, confiscation and remedial measures, and applies to both natural and legal persons.

On the social and human rights side, Belgian law criminalises human trafficking and exploitation, including forced labour and degrading working conditions, under Articles 433quinquies et seq of the old BCC. These offences require exploitative conduct combined with abuse of vulnerability or coercion and intent, and were punishable under the old BCC by imprisonment of one to five years and a fine, which could be applied as many times as there were victims. Under the new BCC, human trafficking is a level 3 offence (Article 258 new BCC), with the same multiplication of the ancillary fine per victim. Additional labour-law violations (such as health and safety or illegal employment) may be sanctioned criminally or administratively. The new BCC punishes this offence with sentencing level 3 (Article 258, new BCC).

As regards governance and supply chains, Belgian law does not yet impose a general criminal obligation to monitor entire supply chains for ESG compliance. However, Belgium is subject to evolving EU ESG due-diligence frameworks (such as Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence), which increasingly impose monitoring and risk-management obligations, primarily enforced through administrative sanctions.

There are currently no standalone criminal offences specifically targeting the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI), algorithmic trading or automated decision-making as such. Instead, misconduct involving these technologies is sanctioned through technology-neutral offences under criminal, financial-regulatory and economic law.

There are no crypto-specific criminal offences as such, but misconduct involving crypto-assets, blockchain-based assets or digital currencies is prosecuted through technology-neutral criminal offences and EU financial regulation.

Crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), such as exchanges and custodial wallet providers, are subject to mandatory registration and AML obligations under Belgian law implementing EU AML rules (Article 5, 14°/1 Act of 18 September 2017). They must conduct customer due diligence, monitor transactions, keep records and report suspicious activity to the Belgian financial intelligence unit (CTIF-CFI). Failure to comply may lead to diverse sanctions (including substantial fines, withdrawal of registration and publication of decisions).

Defences for white-collar crimes in Belgium are largely similar to those for common crimes, focusing on principles like lack of intent, insufficient evidence, procedural violations, and the right to legal representation. These defences are not exclusive to financial or business-related offences and apply broadly across criminal investigations. For example, proving a lack of intention can mitigate charges in fraud cases.

Effective Compliance Programmes as a Defence

An effective compliance programme can play an important mitigating role in white-collar cases, particularly in matters involving bribery, corruption and financial misconduct. However, while the authorities may take such programmes into account as evidence of proactive risk management and good governance, their existence alone does not automatically exclude criminal liability.

Belgian law provides neither general de minimis nor sector-wide or industry-wide exemptions for white-collar offences.

That said, limited and offence-specific thresholds or filtering mechanisms do exist. In certain areas of social criminal law, statutory provisions distinguish between criminal offences and administrative infringements based on criteria such as the seriousness of the conduct, the degree of fault (intent versus negligence), or the amount involved. This is notably the case under the Social BCC, which applies a “dual-track” enforcement model allowing less serious breaches to be sanctioned administratively rather than criminally (Article 101, Social BCC). These mechanisms do not exclude liability but affect the mode of enforcement and level of sanctions.

As regards regulated sectors (such as financial services, insurance, energy or pharmaceuticals), these are not exempt from white-collar criminal law. On the contrary, they are often subject to heightened compliance and enforcement regimes. Sector-specific rules may provide for tailored supervisory enforcement, but they do not displace criminal liability where the constituent elements of an offence are met.

A defendant may voluntarily acknowledge charges in exchange for a conviction on reduced charges or an agreed-upon sentence, subject to specific conditions.

Article 216 of the CCP 13.1 outlines a procedure for preliminary acknowledgement of guilt, allowing the public prosecutor to propose applicable penalties and measures, including a suspension of sentencing or simple conviction, provided the defendant acknowledges the charges. This procedure is limited to offences with a maximum penalty of five years of correctional imprisonment and excludes certain severe crimes.

Self-disclosure and co-operation with investigators or prosecuting authorities are recognised as mitigating factors. Article 216/1 of the CCP allows the public prosecutor to grant concessions to individuals providing substantial, revealing, sincere, and complete statements about their own involvement and that of third parties in certain crimes. These concessions are proportional to the severity of the crime, the statements provided, and any mitigating circumstances. The offender and the public prosecutor enter into a written memorandum setting out:

• the charges brought against the offender;
• the factual elements in respect of which the offender agrees to provide statements; and
• the undertakings assumed by the public prosecutor.

The memorandum is subsequently subject to approval by the competent judicial authority.

Additional leniency measures are available under Articles 216bis and 216ter of the CCP, which allow the prosecutor to propose out-of-court settlements or alternative measures. These may include financial compensation, restitution, or participation in rehabilitation programmes, provided the defendant accepts responsibility for the offence and fulfils conditions such as reimbursing damages or undergoing therapy. Upon successful completion, the criminal prosecution may be dismissed. These only apply to offences punishable by a maximum of two years of correctional imprisonment or a lighter sentence.

Belgium provides a comprehensive statutory protection regime for whistle-blowers, primarily through the Act of 28 November 2022 on the protection of whistle-blowers in the private sector, which entered into force on 15 February 2023 and implements the EU Whistle-blowing Directive.

Scope and Protection Framework

The regime applies to private-sector entities with 50 or more employees, requiring the implementation of accessible internal reporting mechanisms aligned with statutory standards. It protects a broad range of reporting people (including employees, directors, shareholders and business partners) and covers reports of diverse infringements. Whistle-blowers benefit from strict confidentiality guarantees, and companies with more than 250 employees must provide anonymous reporting channels.

Internal Safeguards and Procedures

Companies must:

• establish at least one internal reporting channel;
• appoint a designated “reporting manager”; and
• follow a legally prescribed internal investigation and follow-up procedure.

These obligations are substantive and failure to comply may expose companies to liability.

External and Anonymous Reporting

Whistle-blowers may also report externally to competent authorities, depending on the nature of the infringement, and in certain circumstances public disclosure is protected. The Act further prohibits any form of retaliation, such as dismissal, demotion or intimidation. In case of retaliation, whistle-blowers may claim statutory damages of up to 26 weeks’ remuneration.

Belgian law does not provide financial incentives for whistle-blowers. Comparable protection mechanisms apply in the public sector at federal and regional level.

When white-collar investigations or prosecutions involve multiple jurisdictions, defence strategies under Belgian law are significantly shaped by issues of jurisdiction, evidence-gathering, procedural safeguards and co-ordination between authorities.

First, defence counsel must assess concurrent jurisdiction and forum risks, as the same conduct may fall within Belgian and foreign (or EU) jurisdiction, directly influencing strategic choices on co-operation, self-disclosure and settlement given the differences in procedural rights, sanctions and plea mechanisms. Belgian authorities regularly co-operate through EU frameworks, notably Eurojust and Europol, which can result in parallel or joint investigations and co-ordinated prosecutorial strategies.

Secondly, cross-border information gathering relies on mutual legal assistance (MLA) instruments and EU mechanisms (such as European Investigation Orders). Belgian courts will scrutinise whether cross-border co-operation respected fundamental rights.

Lastly, there are limits to cross-border co-operation. These include the principle of specialty (use of evidence only for the purposes authorised), data protection constraints, legal professional privilege, and the ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) principle, which may prevent multiple prosecutions for the same facts within the EU.

The new BCC entered into force on 1 September 2026, replacing the Code of 1867. Entry into force had been scheduled for 8 April 2026 but was postponed by five months because the harmonisation of special criminal legislation, which only started in Parliament in November 2025, could not be completed in time. Books I and II are accompanied by a repair act correcting the new Code on a number of points.

Book I reformulates the general principles of criminal law; abolishes the traditional distinction between crimes, misdemeanours and contraventions; raises the fault threshold for unintentional offences; extends punishable attempt to all intentional offences; restructures participation and corporate liability; and introduces a coherent eight-level sentencing scale applicable to both natural and legal persons.

Legal persons may now be sentenced to new forms of punishment, including the provision of services for the benefit of the community and probationary sanctions, under conditions largely mirroring those applicable to natural persons. Fines are directly regulated for legal persons within the same penalty-level structure as for individuals, with amounts decreasing progressively across sentencing levels and assessed in light of the entity’s financial capacity and social impact, allowing courts to reduce fines below statutory minima where financial distress is proven.

Book II reorganises and updates substantive offences, decriminalises certain conduct, adjusts penalties, and introduces new offences, most notably ecocide and concealment of evidence.

Overall, the reform seeks greater coherence, proportionality and alignment with contemporary societal values.

The year ahead will be dominated by transitional questions. For offences committed before 1 September 2026, courts must apply the more lenient of the old and the new law, offence by offence and penalty by penalty, which will generate litigation before the Court of Cassation for years.

Two further reforms remain pending: a new Code on the Execution of Sentences and the long-announced reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure.