Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/business-crime-laws-and-regulations/greece
Timestamp: 2018-11-21 16:41:14
Document Index: 70529375

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 109', 'arts 66', 'arts 111', 'arts 30', 'art. 30', 'art. 59', 'arts 251', 'art. 253', 'arts 100', 'art. 263', 'arts 46', 'Art. 46', 'Art. 47', 'art. 187', 'art. 187', 'art. 263', 'art. 27', 'arts 25', 'art. 84', 'arts 79']

Business Crime 2019 | Laws and Regulations | Greece | ICLG
Home Practice area Business Crime Greece
Business Crime 2019 | Greece
Prosecution is always initiated by the Prosecutor’s Office. There is one Prosecutor’s Office with every First Instance Court (which roughly covers a prefecture). There are also Prosecutors with the Court of Appeal (12 circuits), and there is a Prosecutor with the Supreme Court. An investigation is always supervised by a Prosecutor. The majority of cases are handled by Prosecutors of the First Instance Court (who may receive guidelines or orders for specific investigations by their superiors). In exceptional cases, a Prosecutor with the Court of Appeal may step in and conduct or co-ordinate the proceedings. In recent years, two separate Prosecutorial Offices have been established, specialising in the prosecution of economic crimes and corruption:
The Prosecutor for Financial Crime (Law 3943/11), with powers to prosecute and supervise investigations of financial fraud, criminal tax offences, financial and economic crimes against the State and the European Communities.
The Prosecutor for Corruption (Law 4139/2013), with powers to prosecute and supervise investigations of crimes involving public officials and persons assigned to public organisations who manage State funds or have administrative duties.
Both of the above are Prosecutors with the Court of Appeal (senior Prosecutors) and may request the co-operation of Public Prosecutors with the First Instance Court, the Police, regulatory authorities or other administrative authorities in the course of their investigations.
Two very high-profile cases have opened in the past year, both related to the health and pharma sector. There are currently under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor for possible acts of corruption, mismanagement and money laundering. These cases have been under continuous press coverage in part because there are allegations of connections with political persons and in part because the Prosecuting Authorities have taken the position that they involve a large amount of money (alleged proceeds of crime).
Jurisdiction between types of Courts is provided for by the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP), arts 109–116.
Law 4174/2013, arts 66 and 67 mainly concern avoiding the declaration and payment of taxes or income, or issuing and/or accepting false invoices and/or making false registrations of transactions. These acts are punishable when the perpetrator has committed them with intent (intent as opposed to negligence. Levels of intent may vary depending on applicable law).
Market manipulation and inside trading is provided for in Law 4443/2016, which regulates all stock market transactions. Punishable acts include the use of confidential information in promoted transactions for the purposes of financial gain, pursuing a transaction under fraudulent or misleading circumstances, and manipulation of prices, etc.
Greece has ratified the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and has also adapted internal legislation to the European Directive on attacks against information systems (2013/40/EU). There is a complex of provisions in force for punishment of attacks against information systems and infrastructure, unauthorised processing of data, interception, computer-related forgery and fraud, etc. As regards data protection, there are provisions in legislation for criminal punishment of illegal disclosure of data, collection and processing without consent as well as illegal use or trading of such data.
There are special criminal provisions in respect to violations in relation to trade and exports, many of them included in the tax and customs legislation and regulation or other special legislation.
Another category of business-related crimes is that of offences related to health and safety at work. There are complex legal provisions regarding obligations of businesses to comply with health and safety standards. Lack of health and safety standards or poor implementation result in administrative fines and/or other measures (e.g. suspension of activities) and may be punishable criminal offences.
In Greek law, there is no general rule for criminal liability of entities. The structure and pre-requisites of most legal provisions in terms of knowledge and intent are applicable to individuals. However, Greece has ratified a series of treaties and conventions on various aspects of fraud and corruption, which call for measures against entities in cases where they benefit from the criminal actions of their employees. These provisions have been included, among others, in Law 2803/2002 (Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Community), Law 3666/2008 (UN Convention on Combating Corruption), Law 3560/2007 (Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and Additional Protocol), Law 3691/2008 (Money Laundering and Prevention of Terrorism Funding), Law 2656/1998 (OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions), and Law 4042/2012 (Environmental Offences). It should be noted that an entity’s liability is not criminal in the strict sense of the term but includes a series of administrative measures usually in the form of fines. Liability of the entity is dependent on the liability of the entity’s employees.
Crimes related to an entity may be committed by members of the entity; mainly managers, officers and directors. These individuals are personally liable in any case, but they could not be held liable for criminal acts “committed” by the entity if they do not meet the criteria (objective and subjective) of the relevant legal provision. In some types of offences, e.g. tax offences, there are special provisions as to which persons are deemed liable under the relevant law. These legal provisions may expand or restrict liability to individuals holding certain positions in an entity.
As already stated, entities are not criminally liable, stricto sensu, but they may face consequences in the form of administrative fines or other measures. Due to the nature of these penalties (administrative penalties enforceable through administrative proceedings) the successor entity, as a principle, will continue to be liable. This is almost always the case with obligations of the acquired/merged entity related to tax offences and irregularities.
The general rules of limitations periods are set out in arts 111–116 of the GCC. The limitation time for felonies punishable with a life sentence is 20 years. Felonies punishable with imprisonment (5–20 years) are time-barred after 15 years, and misdemeanours punishable with sentences of up to five years are time-barred after five years. As a matter of principle, calculation of said times is done from the time of the act, unless there is a special legal provision on a certain criminal act (e.g. tax offences, where time limitation starts from the exposure of the act by the authorities, or violation of building safety standards, where limitation is calculated from the day of the incident/accident, and not the date of the building’s completion).
It should be noted that these limitation times are suspended for five years (felonies) or three years (misdemeanours) while the case is pending before a Court and until an irrevocable decision is delivered or there is a legal obstacle in prosecuting and/or continuing prosecution. This five-year extension is not valid in cases where there is suspension of the proceedings by law, following the provisions of arts 30 par. 2 and 59 of the GCCP, i.e. in such cases, suspension is unlimited. There are special provisions for cases relating either to the country’s international affairs (art. 30 par. 2 of the GCCP) or cases that are very closely connected to other criminal cases already pending, and their outcome is of major importance to the suspended criminal case (art. 59 of the GCCP).
Greek enforcement agencies have no authority outside Greek jurisdiction. Any type of enforcement would require use of bilateral or multilateral instruments on mutual assistance and/or enforcement of judgments.
Prosecuting authorities have formal mechanisms for co-operating with foreign Prosecutors (most commonly using the provisions for mutual assistance in criminal matters in the EU or the provisions of other bilateral agreements with third countries). Some agencies also have a network to exchange information (e.g. through Europol, the Schengen Information System, Economic and Financial Crime Units or Customs Agencies).
After a Prosecutor has pressed charges for a crime – and during the course of an investigation – an investigating judge has extensive powers to gather evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (arts 251–268 of the GCCP), the Constitution (which protects privacy, confidentiality of communication and other fundamental rights), and relevant laws (Law 3115/2003, presidential decree 47/2005) and regulations of the Independent Authority for the Protection of Communications. In principle, when conducting such an investigation, the investigating judge requests from the competent authority (the Judicial Council, which is a panel of three judges deciding in camera) that the secrecy of communications (mail and other), bank transactions, etc., is lifted.
It should be noted that in all instances of investigation where issues of gathering information from private places (homes, work establishments, etc.) may arise, the investigating authority needs to have an order by the Prosecutor and/or a decision by the Judicial Council describing the kind of information the investigator is entitled to look for. General searches and seizures are not allowed. However, when an investigation is conducted for offences relating to organised crime, the investigators and Police officers are directly given extensive powers to look for evidence (art. 253A of the GCCP). This is also the case with investigations and inquiries conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office against Corruption. The Prosecutor is given extensive powers to request any type of information, even privileged such as bank and tax records, and there are also provisions for the speedy lifting of secrecy of communications.
As of 24/5/2018, Greece has the EU GDP Regulation in force, as in all other EU countries. In addition, there are provisions in respect to the protection of correspondence, protection of privileged information (e.g. attorney-client privilege) and protection of private life, which may be applicable in circumstances where processing of data of employees are sought after. These restrictions may be not applicable if personal data is collected or processed within the context of a criminal investigation. In cases where this information is requested for disclosure in other jurisdictions, restrictions may apply depending on the scope of collection and disclosure.
In all cases where questioning of individuals is involved, relevant provisions of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure apply, i.e. the right to avoid self-incrimination, the right to an attorney, time to prepare one’s defence, etc. (arts 100–104 and 240–241 of the GCCP). The structure of pre-trial procedure is such that a suspect may have full representation by a defence attorney and full protection of his rights. All privileges as described above (see questions 7.6 and 7.7) apply.
If a person involved in acts of bribery and corruption reports substantial evidence for such acts committed by a public servant or a judge, it is provided (art. 263B of the GCC) that he/she receives a lesser sentence, which the Court may decide to suspend. The filing of charges may be suspended until the authorities are satisfied that the supplied information is valid and offers substantial evidence. This suspension may be confirmed by the Court if the offered evidence is deemed strong enough to secure a conviction in the appeal hearing. The official or accomplice who gives substantial information to the authorities is likely to receive a much lesser sentence following a trial, or even impunity, in cases of whistle-blowing in relation to ministers or other high-ranking officials.
There are no provisions for deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreements.
In the Greek system, the burden of proof lies primarily with the prosecution. The Prosecutor, when referring the case to trial, needs to include all evidence necessary to substantiate it. It should be noted, however, that under Greek law, the Prosecutor is not a party to the trial, i.e. the Prosecutor is not a plaintiff, but rather a judicial authority with the power to prosecute and refer cases to trial but is also under the obligation to gather any exonerating evidence for the defendant as well. Regarding affirmative defences, the burden of proof lies with the party raising such defence.
According to arts 46 and 47 of the GCC, individuals participating in a criminal act are also criminally liable. Art. 46 of the GCC provides that individuals instigating (causing the perpetrator’s act) or directly aiding (principal accessory) the perpetrator in committing a crime are punishable as the perpetrator. Art. 47 of the GCC provides that an individual assisting the perpetrator before or during the act (simple accessory) is punishable with a lesser sentence.
There is no general rule for leniency measures through co-operation in a criminal investigation. There are provisions, though, for specific types of crimes such as organised crime (art. 187B of the GCC), terrorism (art. 187B of the GCC), corruption (art. 263B of the GCC), drug trafficking (art. 27 of Law 3459/2006) and cartel offences (arts 25 and 44 of Law 3959/2011). Moreover, as a general rule, co-operation is considered to constitute “mitigating circumstances” under art. 84 (2) of the GCC, resulting in a reduction of the sentence to be passed.
The Law provides for much lesser sentences for defendants that pay (themselves or third parties) or give their consent (themselves or third parties) for seized assets to be given to the “victim” of the crime. The amount the defendant (or third party) has to return is the amount of the financial damage caused by the act as it is described in the charges or indicting decision. It is noted that the above procedures are only applicable to individuals. Corporations are not prosecuted and may not be the subject of a criminal trial.
The Greek Criminal Code (arts 79–85) sets out the guidelines for imposition and calculation of sentences. The Court examines basic elements at the stage of sentencing: severity of the act; and personality of the defendant. The Court also examines – following a request by the defence – the application of mitigating circumstances, which may lead to a lesser sentence. Such circumstances are, for instance: lack of prior involvement in criminal acts; good behaviour after the act; showing true remorse after the act; and making efforts to amend or lessen the negative impacts of their actions. These provisions are only applicable on individuals. Corporations may not be defendants in a criminal trial.
When imposing a sentence on a corporation, the Court considers the following factors: entity size and annual turnover; seriousness of the offence; damages caused; benefit amount; and prior “criminal” misconduct. The actual imposition of the fine is done through the competent authorities (by latest amendments of Law, it is the Financial and Economic Crime Unit). Apart from a fine, the competent authority may also impose other measures, e.g. prohibition of business activity for a period of time, revocation of licences and/or registrations, ban from public tenders or investment programmes, etc.
Sentencing takes place after the guilty verdict and is included in the Court’s decision; technically, it is not a separate procedure. As a matter of practice, when appealing against the verdict, the defendant or the Prosecutor can also appeal against the sentence. It is possible, however, to appeal only against the sentence (especially when there is a certain claim for application of mitigating circumstances or specific rules of sentencing).