Greece

Under Greek law, fraud may give rise to several civil causes of action, depending on the circumstances of the case.

The principal remedies are based on:

• Tort liability. Pursuant to Article 914 of the Greek Civil Code, any person who unlawfully and culpably causes damage to another is obliged to compensate the injured party. Where fraudulent conduct causes financial loss, the victim may seek full compensation for both actual loss and loss of profit, provided that a causal link between the fraudulent act and the damage is established.
• Contract avoidance due to fraud. Where fraud has induced a party to enter into a contract, the deceived party may seek annulment of the contract pursuant to Articles 147 et seq. of the Greek Civil Code. Upon annulment, the parties are generally required to restore the benefits received under the contract in accordance with the rules on unjust enrichment.
• Unjust enrichment. A claim for unjust enrichment may be available where assets or funds have been transferred without legal basis or where the legal basis subsequently ceases to exist. Such claims are governed by Articles 904 et seq. of the Greek Civil Code.
• Claims for restitution of property. Depending on the nature of the asset involved, the claimant may pursue proprietary remedies, including actions seeking the return of movable or immovable property unlawfully acquired or retained by the defendant.
• Actio Pauliana. Greek law provides creditors with a powerful avoidance remedy through the Actio Pauliana (Articles 939 et seq. of the Civil Code). Where a debtor transfers assets with the intention of prejudicing creditors, and the transferee possesses the requisite knowledge, the transaction may be declared ineffective vis-à-vis the claimant creditor, thereby facilitating enforcement against the transferred asset.
• Corporate law claims. In cases involving corporate fraud, additional remedies may arise under corporate law, including actions against directors or officers for breach of their fiduciary and statutory duties.

Yes. Greek law provides a comprehensive framework addressing fraud, dishonesty and financial crime through criminal, civil and regulatory legislation.

The principal criminal provisions are contained in the Greek Penal Code.

Fraud is primarily criminalised under Article 386 of the Greek Penal Code, which punishes any person who, by knowingly presenting false facts as true or unlawfully concealing true facts, induces another person to act, tolerate or omit an act, thereby causing financial loss and obtaining an unlawful financial benefit.

Depending on the circumstances, fraudulent conduct may also constitute other offences, including:

• breach of trust;
• embezzlement;
• forgery;
• money laundering;
• corruption and bribery offences;
• market manipulation and insider trading offences;
• tax evasion; and
• offences relating to organised criminal groups.

The jurisdiction of Greek courts in international fraud disputes is determined by applicable European Union instruments, international treaties and domestic procedural law.

Where the defendant is domiciled in a Member State of the European Union, jurisdiction is primarily governed by Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (“Brussels I Recast Regulation”).

Where the Brussels I Recast Regulation does not apply, jurisdiction is determined by the provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure and any applicable international conventions.

In practice, Greek courts most commonly exercise jurisdiction in international fraud cases where the fraudulent scheme has a substantial connection with Greece, such as the location of the defendant, the victim, the assets to be recovered or the place where the damage occurred.

Greek courts will generally accept jurisdiction where:

• the defendant is domiciled or has its seat in Greece;
• the harmful event occurred in Greece;
• the damage was suffered in Greece;
• assets relevant to the dispute are located in Greece;
• contractual jurisdiction clauses confer jurisdiction on Greek courts; or
• jurisdiction arises under specific statutory provisions of Greek procedural law.

Greek courts determine the applicable law in fraud and asset tracing disputes primarily by reference to the relevant European Union conflict-of-laws instruments and, where these do not apply, the provisions of the Greek Civil Code.

For non-contractual obligations, including claims arising from fraud, the applicable law is generally determined pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 (“Rome II Regulation”). As a general rule, the law applicable to a tort claim is the law of the country in which the damage occurs, irrespective of the country where the event giving rise to the damage took place or where indirect consequences are suffered.

Where the dispute arises out of a contract allegedly induced by fraud, the law governing contractual issues is generally determined under Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 (“Rome I Regulation”). The parties’ choice of law will ordinarily be respected, subject to mandatory provisions and public policy considerations.

Rights in rem over immovable property are generally governed by the law of the state where the property is situated (lex rei sitae). Similar principles often apply to certain proprietary issues involving movable assets.

Issues relating to corporate ownership, shareholder rights and the internal affairs of legal entities are generally governed by the law of the state of incorporation of the relevant entity.

Greek courts may also apply overriding mandatory provisions of Greek law where the circumstances justify their application and may refuse to apply a foreign law if its effects are manifestly contrary to Greek public policy (ordre public).

In principle, any asset capable of ownership or economic valuation may be the subject of tracing and recovery efforts, including:

• funds held in bank accounts;
• cash and financial instruments;
• shares, securities and other investment products;
• interests in companies and other legal entities;
• movable property;
• immovable property;
• receivables and contractual rights;
• intellectual property rights; and
• digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and other cryptoassets.

Where fraudulently obtained assets have been converted into different forms, claimants may seek to identify substitute assets or the proceeds derived from the original property, in case property rights have been retained or established.

Tracing through mixed funds is not excluded under Greek law, although there aren’t any formal tracing rules. It is an evidentiary issue. However, asset recovery focuses mainly on damage or value recovery, where no property rights have been retained or established.

Yes. A person who retains ownership of an asset may seek its recovery through vindicatory action (rei vindicatio) against any person unlawfully possessing or retaining the asset and may seek the recognition and protection of its ownership rights, except for third-party good-faith acquisition, regarding movable assets.

In relation to immovable property, a claimant may also seek the correction or annulment of unlawful registrations and the restoration of its property rights where ownership has been affected by fraudulent conduct.

Greek law does not recognise a standalone doctrine of tracing into substituted assets comparable to the equitable tracing principles developed in common law jurisdictions. The recovery focuses on value or damage suffered and not on the asset per se, except for the case that proprietary rights have been retained or established.

In criminal matters, the position is broader. Investigative and judicial authorities may target not only the direct proceeds of crime but also assets that have been acquired through the use, conversion or reinvestment of those proceeds. Consequently, substituted assets may be frozen, seized or ultimately confiscated where a sufficient connection with the underlying criminal conduct is established.

In civil matters, interim relief is primarily governed by the provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure concerning provisional judicial protection. The courts may order protective measures, such as precautionary seizure of movable and immovable assets, registration of a pre-notation of mortgage over real estate property, temporary custody, or judicial sequestration of disputed assets, where the applicant demonstrates an urgent case or an imminent risk that the enforcement of its rights may be frustrated or substantially impaired.

In criminal proceedings, prosecutors, investigating judges and judicial councils may order the freezing, seizure or preservation of assets connected with criminal activity. Such measures are commonly used in cases involving fraud, money laundering, corruption, tax offences and other forms of financial crime.

In civil litigation, parties may request the production of specific documents that are relevant to the dispute and are in the possession of the opposing party or, in certain circumstances, a third party.

Claimants may obtain information from various public registers, including:

• the Land Registry and Cadastre concerning real estate ownership;
• the General Commercial Registry (GEMI) concerning companies and corporate filings;
• insolvency and bankruptcy records; and
• certain publicly accessible regulatory databases.

Banking secrecy and tax confidentiality are generally protected under Greek law and cannot ordinarily be lifted through private civil proceedings alone.

The most effective asset-identification tools are often available within criminal proceedings.

Prosecutors and investigating judges may order disclosure of banking records, lifting of banking, tax and professional secrecy, and so on.

No. Greek law does not recognise a general pre-action disclosure regime. In urgent circumstances, a party may seek interim judicial protection, aimed at preserving evidence or preventing its loss or destruction, before the commencement of the main proceedings where there is a legitimate concern that the evidence may become unavailable at a later stage.

Yes. Greek courts may assist foreign proceedings involving fraud, asset tracing, and asset recovery through a variety of mechanisms provided by European Union law, international treaties and domestic procedural legislation.

Cooperation between Greek courts, prosecutors, regulatory authorities and their foreign counterparts is generally effective, particularly within the framework of the European Union and established international cooperation mechanisms.

In civil and commercial matters within the EU the relevant instruments may include:

• the Brussels I Recast Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters;
• the Rome I and Rome II Regulations concerning applicable law;
• Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters; and
• Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents.

In civil and commercial matters, Greek courts may also rely on Hague Convention instruments.

For fraud and asset recovery practitioners, the most significant instruments are typically the Brussels I Recast Regulation for civil and commercial matters and the European Investigation Order framework, Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on freezing and confiscation orders in criminal matters.

Judgments rendered by the courts of EU Member States are primarily governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

Under this framework, judgments issued in civil and commercial matters are generally recognised in Greece without any special procedure. A judgment that is enforceable in the Member State of origin may ordinarily be enforced directly in Greece without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

Where no applicable EU instrument or international treaty exists, recognition and enforcement are governed by the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, according to which the recognition is declared by the court.

Where a freezing order or other interim measure has been issued by a court of an EU Member State, recognition and enforcement are generally governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

Subject to the requirements of the regulation, provisional and protective measures ordered by the court of origin may be recognised and enforced in Greece. The applicant must generally produce the judgment and the relevant certificate issued by the court of origin.

Where the order originates from a non-EU jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement will generally require separate proceedings before the Greek courts under the applicable treaty framework or, in the absence of a treaty, under the provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure.

In practice, where urgent asset preservation is required, applicants frequently seek parallel protective measures before the Greek courts rather than relying exclusively on the recognition of a foreign freezing order. This approach may reduce delays and minimise the risk of asset dissipation.

Greek insolvency law provides that once insolvency proceedings commence, individual enforcement actions against the debtor are generally restricted or suspended, and creditors are ordinarily required to pursue their claims through the collective insolvency process.

As a result, victims of fraud who hold claims for damages, restitution or unjust enrichment will generally participate in the insolvency proceedings as creditors and seek recovery alongside other creditors in accordance with the applicable ranking rules.

However, where assets are alleged to fall outside the insolvent estate due to ownership or lack of lawful transfer, claimants may seek their exclusion from the estate through proprietary or vindicatory actions.

Yes. Under Greek insolvency law, insolvency officeholders may bring a range of actions aimed at protecting the insolvency estate, recovering assets and maximising returns for creditors.

Yes. Greek insolvency law provides mechanisms that may enable assets dissipated through fraud or other prejudicial transactions to be recovered and restored to the insolvency estate.

In practice, insolvency officeholders frequently use avoidance actions to recover assets transferred shortly before insolvency, particularly where there are indications of fraud, asset stripping or preferential treatment of insiders. Where the original asset can no longer be recovered, the insolvency officeholder will generally seek restitution of its value rather than the asset itself, subject to the applicable avoidance and civil law remedies.

Yes. Under Greek law, criminal proceedings and civil recovery actions may generally run in parallel.

In practice, criminal proceedings are often viewed as an important asset recovery tool rather than merely a prosecution mechanism, particularly because of the investigative powers available to prosecutorial authorities and the possibility of obtaining freezing measures at an early stage. Whereas civil proceedings remain the primary mechanism through which victims seek compensation and recovery of losses.

Greek law does not provide a standalone civil forfeiture regime comparable to the in rem civil recovery mechanisms available in certain common law jurisdictions. As a general rule, confiscation is a criminal law measure governed by the Greek Penal Code and anti-money laundering legislation.

However, confiscation is not necessarily limited to assets formally held by the offender. Assets transferred to third parties may be subject to confiscation where it is established that the third party knew, or under the circumstances ought to have known, that the assets constituted proceeds of criminal activity or were transferred for the purpose of avoiding confiscation.

The anti-money laundering framework provides limited forms of non-conviction-based confiscation in exceptional circumstances, where criminal proceedings cannot continue or be concluded for reasons expressly provided by law, including the death of the suspect or accused, abscondment of the individual, and illness or incapacity of the suspect or accused, resulting in them being permanently unfit for prosecution.

Yes. Victims may participate in criminal proceedings and, in certain circumstances, directly benefit from asset preservation and confiscation-related measures.

Where seized or frozen assets are proven to derive directly or indirectly from the offence and correspond to the victim’s loss, the criminal court may order their return to the victim rather than their confiscation by the state. Likewise, property seized during criminal proceedings may be restored to its lawful owner where ownership is established and no basis for confiscation exists.

In practice, criminal investigations often play an important asset recovery function by identifying, tracing and preserving assets that may ultimately be returned to victims.

The applicable procedure depends on whether the assets can be specifically linked to a particular victim and on the existence of competing claims by other victims, creditors or third parties. In the latter case, competing claims are generally determined according to the applicable priority rules or the ranking of claims.

The applicable limitation period depends on the legal basis of the claim.

Claims for damages arising from fraud are generally subject to the limitation period applicable to tort claims under the Greek Civil Code. Such claims become time barred five years from the date on which the injured party became aware of both the damage and the identity of the person liable for it. However, if the wrongful civil act that gave rise to the respective claims constitutes, in parallel, a criminal offence, which is subject to a longer limitation period, preclusion of civil claims follows the latter statute of limitations. In any event, the claim is extinguished 20 years after the wrongful act occurred.

Where the claim is based on the avoidance of a contract induced by fraud, the right to seek annulment is generally subject to a two-year limitation period commencing from the discovery of the fraud.

Claims based on unjust enrichment are generally subject to a 20-year limitation period, unless a shorter period applies under the specific circumstances of the case.

In addition, claims brought through an Actio Pauliana (avoidance of fraudulent transfers prejudicing creditors) are subject to a five-year limitation period from the date of the impugned transaction.

Fraud does not automatically suspend or extend limitation periods under Greek law. However, the commencement of the limitation period often depends on the claimant’s knowledge of the damage and the identity of the liable person.

Commonly raised defences include lack of particularisation of the claim or failure to plead the alleged fraud with sufficient specificity, limitation period, absence of unlawful conduct or causation or quantifiable damage, good-faith acquisition of assets or absence of ownership or proprietary rights on the part of the claimant, lack of enrichment or justification of it, and procedural objections relating to jurisdiction, standing or admissibility of the claim.

The remedies available under Greek law depend on the nature of the claim and the assets involved. A successful claimant may obtain:

• damages, including compensation for actual loss and, where applicable, lost profits;
• value-based restitution;
• annulment of contracts and restoration of the parties to their pre-contractual position;
• ownership recognition and return of possession; and
• avoidance of fraudulent transfers.

No, there is no equivalent to constructive trusts or equitable liens under Greek law.

The manner in which recovered assets are realised and distributed depends on the legal basis of the recovery and the nature of the proceedings.

Where a claimant obtains a civil judgment, the recovered assets may be realised through the ordinary enforcement procedures provided by the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, such as the attachment and judicial sale of movable and immovable property, the attachment of bank accounts and receivables, and other enforcement measures. The proceeds are distributed in accordance with the applicable statutory ranking and priority rules.

Where the claimant establishes ownership of specific assets, the assets may be returned directly to the claimant rather than being liquidated and distributed.

In insolvency proceedings, recovered assets generally form part of the insolvency estate and are distributed among creditors according to the statutory order of priority.

In criminal proceedings, assets identified as belonging to the victim or representing the victim’s loss may be returned to the victim pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assets subject to confiscation are otherwise transferred to the state, subject to the rights of victims and bona fide third parties.

Yes. A successful claimant may generally recover both interest and legal costs, subject to the applicable statutory provisions and the court’s discretion, although cost recovery is typically partial rather than full.

Overall, Greece offers a robust framework for asset preservation and recovery, especially through the combined use of civil, criminal and insolvency remedies. Accordingly, once assets have been identified, the available preservation and recovery mechanisms are generally effective, but locating concealed assets may be more challenging than in jurisdictions offering extensive discovery and tracing remedies.

In practice, while the speed of the process varies depending on the circumstances, temporary protective relief can often be secured within a matter of days where a credible risk of asset dissipation is established.

The costs of fraud and asset recovery proceedings in Greece vary significantly depending on the complexity of the case, the value of the claim, the number of parties involved, the need for expert evidence, and whether parallel civil, criminal or cross-border proceedings are pursued. In practice, most fraud and asset recovery cases in Greece are financed directly by the claimant. Third-party litigation funding remains relatively uncommon. Alternative funding mechanisms may include conditional or success-based fee arrangements.

In practice, the most significant procedural challenges in Greece are the absence of extensive discovery mechanisms, the need for detailed factual pleadings, especially regarding the damages, and the importance of obtaining early asset preservation measures. Foreign practitioners should also bear in mind that evidence obtained through criminal proceedings frequently plays a central role in civil asset recovery litigation, making coordination between civil and criminal strategies particularly important.

From a practical asset recovery perspective, the most notable recent trend has been the growing integration of anti-money laundering tools, confiscation measures and cross-border cooperation mechanisms in financial crime investigations.

There is no clear judicial trend towards either a significant expansion or restriction of asset tracing and recovery tools. Rather, recent developments indicate a growing willingness by courts and authorities to make effective use of the remedies already available under Greek law.

One notable trend is the increasing focus on asset tracing and preservation at an early stage of the dispute, before commencing substantive proceedings. Another trend is the use of parallel criminal and civil proceedings to maximise the effectiveness of asset tracing.