Portugal

No dedicated statutory civil cause of action for fraud exists. Victims rely on:

• extracontractual liability (Articles 483–487, Civil Code) for unlawful act, fault, damage and causal link;
• annulment for fraud or error (Articles 253–254 and 247, Civil Code);
• unjust enrichment (Articles 473–482, Civil Code); and
• civil compensation claims within criminal proceedings (the adhesion principle (Article 71, Code of Criminal Procedure)). This is the most common route in practice: it leverages the Public Prosecutor’s investigative resources at a lower cost.

Key statutory instruments comprise:

• Penal Code: Article 217 (fraud), Article 368-A (money laundering), Articles 372–374 (corruption), Article 234 (misappropriation of public assets).
• Law No. 83/2017 (Anti-money laundering law): due diligence, reporting, and compliance obligations on financial institutions, lawyers, accountants, estate agents, and virtual asset service providers.
• Law No. 109/2009 (Cybercrime Law): computer-related fraud and unauthorised access.
• General Regime of Tax Offences (RGIT), Articles 103–104: tax fraud.
• Law No. 5/2002: extended confiscation and forfeiture for organised and financial crime.
• Law No. 93/2021: whistleblower protection (EU Directive 2019/1937).
• Law No. 4/2024: broadened money laundering predicate offences; criminalised misuse of EU funds (Directive (EU) 2017/1371).

Portuguese courts accept jurisdiction over international fraud claims under:

• Brussels I Recast (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012): defendant domiciled in Portugal; harmful event in Portugal (Article 7(2)); or agreed jurisdiction (Article 25).
• Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 62–63): for defendants outside the EU. Jurisdiction established where constitutive facts occurred in Portugal, assets are located there, or it is unreasonable to require the claimant to sue abroad.
• Criminal jurisdiction (Articles 4–8, Penal Code): offences occur in Portuguese territory or involve Portuguese nationals as perpetrator or victim.

Principal connecting factors:

• Location of assets. Courts have jurisdiction over assets in Portugal, especially in enforcement and interim relief proceedings.
• Domicile or habitual residence of the defendant. This is the primary factor under Brussels I Recast.
• Place of the harmful event. Either where the fraudulent act was committed or where the damage materialised (Article 7(2), Brussels I Recast, as confirmed by the CJEU).
• Place of performance of the contractual obligation. This is relevant in contract-based fraud claims (Article 7(1), Brussels I Recast).
• Nationality of the victim or perpetrator. This is relevant for criminal jurisdiction.

Portuguese courts apply EU private international law instruments:

• Contractual claims. Rome I (Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008): party autonomy, subject to mandatory rules.
• Non-contractual claims. Rome II (Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007): law of the country where damage occurs (Article 4(1)).
• Property rights and asset tracing. Lex situs: the law where the asset is situated governs proprietary questions.

Foreign law is disapplied if manifestly contrary to Portuguese international public order.

Assets susceptible to tracing and recovery include:

• Cash, bank deposits, securities, real property, moveable assets, vehicles, shareholdings, and insurance proceeds.
• Crypto-assets. Article 178, Code of Criminal Procedure permits seizure of hardware wallets and custodial wallets can be frozen via judicial cooperation. Law No. 70/2025 (complementing the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1113) strengthened traceability of cryptoasset transfers.

There is no dedicated civil asset tracing statute. Victims rely on general civil liability and interim measures.

No formal equitable tracing doctrine exists. In practice:

• Courts apply unjust enrichment principles (Article 473, Civil Code) and restitutionary claims to trace proceeds through mixed funds.
• Claimants must establish a sufficient connection between original fraud proceeds and the funds sought.
• In criminal proceedings, Article 7(1) of Law No. 5/2002 assists where assets disproportionate to lawful income are presumed to derive from criminal activity, removing the need to prove specific commingling.
• Forensic accounting and blockchain analytics are increasingly accepted as evidence to trace commingled cryptoassets.

Proprietary claims in the common law sense are not recognised as Portugal has no equity jurisdiction. Functional equivalents include:

• Restitution in kind (Article 566, Civil Code): preferred where the specific asset is identifiable.
• Impugnação Pauliana (Articles 610–618, Civil Code): sets aside dispositions made to defraud creditors.
• Unjust enrichment (Article 473, Civil Code).

There is no “backwards tracing” or “exchange product” doctrine. Courts apply restitutionary and unjust enrichment principles to follow proceeds into substituted assets where a sufficient factual connection is shown.

In criminal proceedings:

• Law No. 5/2002 allows confiscation of equivalent value where the original asset has been dissipated or substituted, without requiring identification of the specific asset.
• The proposed extended confiscation regime (approved by Council of Ministers in May 2025 and currently in pre-legislative public consultation) would remove the requirement to link proceeds to a specific crime, focusing instead on disproportionate asset value.

Available interim and protective measures:

• Preventive attachment (arresto, Articles 391–396, Code of Civil Procedure): civil proceedings; requires prima facie claim and founded fear of dissipation. Available ex parte where urgency is shown.
• Preventive seizure (apreensão preventiva, Article 228, Code of Criminal Procedure): criminal proceedings; ordered by judge on application by Public Prosecutor or injured party; no prior notice required where there is risk of dissipation.
• Search and seizure (busca e apreensão, Articles 174–178, Code of Criminal Procedure): requires judicial authorisation; residential searches are limited to 07.00–21.00.
• Unspecified injunctive relief (providência cautelar não especificada, Article 362, Code of Civil Procedure): flexible civil measure to prevent irreparable harm pending judgment.

Civil fines can be imposed for non-compliance, and criminal liability for disobedience (Article 348, Penal Code). Third parties (including banks) are bound once notified.

There is no general disclosure regime comparable to common law discovery. The main tools available are:

• In criminal proceedings, the Public Prosecutor and Judicial Police (Polícia Judiciária) have broad investigative powers, including compelled document production and access to banking information (judicial authorisation required under Article 135, Code of Criminal Procedure). The Asset Recovery Office (GRA, Gabinete de Recuperação de Ativos) has cross-border tracing powers and cooperates with Europol and the CARIN network.
• In civil proceedings, courts may order third parties (including banks and public registries) to produce documents (Articles 429 and 432, Code of Civil Procedure). Courts can issue official information requests to the Land Registry, Vehicle Registry, Commercial Registry, and the Bank of Portugal’s central credit register.
• Whistleblower channels are provided for by Law No. 93/2021 which requires entities with 50+ employees to maintain confidential reporting mechanisms, which is an increasingly valuable intelligence source in corporate fraud cases.

Formal pre-action disclosure as known in common law jurisdictions is not available. Practical alternatives include:

• Urgent evidence preservation (Article 362, Code of Civil Procedure). The court may order production before formal proceedings where urgency and risk of evidence loss are shown.
• Criminal complaint against unknown persons (Articles 113 et seq., Penal Code). This triggers a Public Prosecutor investigation, which functions in practice as a pre-action disclosure mechanism.
• Public registry searches (Land Registry, Commercial Registry, Vehicle Registry). These searches are available without court intervention at any stage.

Portugal actively cooperates with foreign fraud and asset recovery proceedings under:

• Criminal matters. Law No. 144/99 (International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters) — mutual legal assistance, extradition, and enforcement of foreign criminal decisions.
• EU instruments. European Investigation Order (Directive 2014/41/EU, transposed by Law No. 88/2017); European Arrest Warrant (Law No. 65/2003); mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders (Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1805).
• Civil matters. Evidence Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/1783) facilitates cross-border evidence gathering.

The GRA cooperates with the Egmont Group, CARIN, and Europol’s ARO Platform for international asset tracing.

Portugal cooperates with states within and outside the EU:

• EU Member States. Generally effective, particularly under the European Investigation Order framework.
• Non-EU jurisdictions. Slower and less predictable; dependent on bilateral treaties and reciprocity. Offshore financial centres present particular challenges.

Portuguese courts, especially in Lisbon and Porto, face significant practical limitations due to backlogs in major fraud cases. Court staff strikes announced for 2025 are expected to cause further delays.

The GRA participates in Europol’s ARO Platform and has established working relationships with EU counterpart asset recovery offices.

Principal instruments include:

• Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast): civil judgment enforcement.
• Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1805: mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders (EU).
• Council of Europe Warsaw Convention (2005): confiscation of proceeds of crime.
• European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (1959) and Additional Protocols.
• UNCAC and Palermo Convention.
• Hague Convention on Service Abroad (1965).
• Bilateral MLA treaties with CPLP states: Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde.

Yes, subject to the applicable regime:

• EU Member States (Brussels I Recast): automatic recognition; enforceable without a declaration of enforceability if enforceable in the state of origin, unless Article 45 grounds for refusal apply (public policy, improper service, irreconcilable judgments).
• Non-EU jurisdictions: prior exequatur by a Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação) required under Articles 978–985, Code of Civil Procedure. Conditions: authentic and final judgment; jurisdiction of foreign court not obtained by fraud; proper service on defendant; no conflict with exclusive Portuguese jurisdiction or prior Portuguese judgment; compatibility with international public order.

Punitive damages may be refused to the extent they exceed the compensatory function recognised in Portuguese law.

• EU Member States. Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1805 enables direct cross-border freezing and confiscation with minimal formality (in force since December 2020).
• Non-EU states (criminal orders). Criminal orders are enforced under Law No. 144/99 (Article 96). The Public Prosecutor submits the request to the Minister of Justice and, if admitted, it is forwarded to the competent Court of Appeal for review and confirmation. The court verifies procedural compliance and public order compatibility, and there is no review of the merits.
• Non-EU states (civil interim orders). Exequatur is required before Portuguese courts will act, unless Brussels I Recast applies.

Declaration of insolvency (CIRE, Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas) triggers a universal stay. Therefore, fraud victims must assert claims within insolvency proceedings.

Fraud victims with proprietary claims or prior attachments over identifiable assets may be recognised as secured or preferential creditors.

Fraudulent trading or breach of directors’ duties causing insolvency can result in directors’ personal liability for the estate deficit (Articles 186–189, CIRE (insolvency qualification)).

A criminal conviction for fraud or misappropriation supports priority claims within the estate.

The insolvency administrator (administrador da insolvência) may:

• bring clawback actions (resolução em benefício da massa insolvente and impugnação pauliana) to set aside pre-insolvency transactions prejudicial to creditors;
• pursue directors’ liability claims for fraudulent or reckless conduct under Articles 186–189, CIRE and Articles 72–79, Companies Code;
• file criminal complaints on behalf of the estate; and
• cooperate with the Public Prosecutor in ongoing fraud investigations connected to the insolvency.

The CIRE provides two clawback mechanisms:

• Unconditional clawback (resolução incondicional, Article 120, CIRE). This applies regardless of bad faith and includes creation of in rem security for pre-existing obligations within six months before filing, and onerous transactions within one year before filing where the debtor’s obligations substantially exceeded those of the counterparty.
• Conditional clawback (resolução condicional, Article 121, CIRE). Applies to transactions within two years before filing that were detrimental to the estate and entered into in bad faith (counterparty’s knowledge of insolvency risk).

Clawback has retroactive effect. The administrator acts by registered letter within six months of discovering the transaction. The third party may challenge within three months of notification.

Under the adhesion principle (Article 71, Code of Criminal Procedure), civil compensation claims for criminal offences must, as a rule, be filed within criminal proceedings.

Standalone civil action is permitted where criminal proceedings did not produce an indictment within eight months of complaint; the offence requires private prosecution; or the victim filed civil proceedings before becoming aware of the criminal conduct.

Civil courts may stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case where criminal findings are determinative.

A criminal conviction creates a binding factual presumption in subsequent civil proceedings.

An acquittal does not automatically bar a civil claim.

Currently, a fully developed non-conviction-based forfeiture regime does not exist. The primary mechanism requires criminal conviction under Article 110, Penal Code (confiscation of instruments, proceeds, and advantages of crime) and Law No. 5/2002 (extended confiscation for organised and financial crime).

Under Article 7, Law No. 5/2002, upon conviction for a listed offence, assets disproportionate to lawful income are presumed to be proceeds of crime and the burden shifts to the defendant to prove legitimate origin.

A pre-conviction preventive seizure (Article 228, Code of Criminal Procedure) is available as an interim measure.

The draft extended confiscation regime (Council of Ministers in May 2025 and currently in pre-legislative public consultation) would introduce autonomous confiscation proceedings that could proceed despite prescription, death or amnesty of the defendant.

Victims may participate as assistants (assistentes, Article 68, Code of Criminal Procedure) and have the right to be notified of procedural acts, to request evidence, and to appeal certain decisions.

As civil parties (partes civis), victims may seek compensation within the criminal proceedings.

The victim’s civil compensation claim takes priority over the state’s confiscation claim to the extent necessary to cover the victim’s loss.

No mechanism exists for victims to claim a direct share of confiscated assets: forfeiture runs to the state.

Confiscated assets are managed by the Asset Management Office (GEOTA, Gabinete de Gestão e Alienação de Bens Apreendidos) and forfeited to the state.

Victims do not automatically receive a share. Instead, compensation is pursued via the civil claim within, or ancillary to, criminal proceedings.

In practice, courts may order victim compensation from seized assets before remittance to the state.

In insolvency, recovered assets enter the estate and are distributed per the CIRE waterfall (secured creditors first from specific assets).

Limitation periods depend on the nature of the claim:

• Civil tort (extra-contractual liability): three years from date the claimant became aware of its right and the responsible party; absolute 20-year longstop from the date of the wrongful act (Articles 498(1) and 309, Civil Code).
• Contractual claims: 20-year general period (Article 309, Civil Code).
• Unjust enrichment: three years from awareness; 20-year longstop (Article 482, Civil Code).
• Criminal periods (also govern civil claims joined to criminal proceedings): 15 years (offences carrying over 10 years’ imprisonment); 10 years (5–10 years); 5 years (1 year or more); 2 years (minor offences or fines) (Article 118, Penal Code).
• Corruption offences: special 15-year criminal period (Article 118(1)(a), Penal Code).

Where the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, the civil limitation period is extended to match the longer criminal prescription (Article 498(3), Civil Code), which is a significant advantage for fraud claimants.

Filing a criminal complaint suspends the civil limitation period for the duration of the criminal proceedings.

The three-year civil period starts from the “date of awareness” of the right and of the responsible party. Concealment by the perpetrator delays this trigger until the victim could reasonably have discovered the fraud.

Common defences in fraud and tracing cases:

• Prescription: limitation period expired, particularly where time elapsed between the fraudulent act and its discovery.
• Bona fide purchaser (Article 616(1), Civil Code): transferee who acquired in good faith and for value may resist a pauliana
• Causation: no sufficient causal link between the alleged fraud and the claimed loss.
• Contributory fault (culpa do lesado, Article 570, Civil Code): victim’s own negligence contributed to the loss.
• Right to silence and self-incrimination privilege (Article 32, Constitution; Article 61(1)(d), Code of Criminal Procedure).
• Banking secrecy: third-party banks may resist disclosure absent a judicial order.

Available remedies upon a successful civil fraud claim:

• Compensatory damages: actual loss (dano emergente) and lost profits (lucro cessante); non-pecuniary loss where appropriate (Articles 483 et seq., Civil Code). Punitive or exemplary damages are not available.
• Restitution in kind: preferred by courts where the specific asset remains identifiable (Article 566, Civil Code).
• Disgorgement: not available as a standalone remedy, but unjust enrichment claims (Article 473, Civil Code) require the defendant to disgorge the benefit gained.
• Annulment of fraudulent transactions: pauliana action (Articles 610–618) or contractual annulment for fraud or error (Article 254).
• Criminal confiscation of proceeds and instruments of crime (Articles 109–111, Penal Code; Law No. 5/2002).

Constructive trusts and equitable liens do not exist in Portuguese law. Functional equivalents are:

• Unjust enrichment (Articles 473–482, Civil Code): defendant must return the benefit received.
• Pauliana action (Articles 610–618, Civil Code): fraudulent transfers rendered void or ineffective as against creditors.
• Vindication of property (reivindicação, Article 1311, Civil Code): recovery of specific property where claimant retains ownership.
• Preventive attachment (arresto): de facto security interest over identified assets pending judgment.
• Foreign trust structures recognised to the extent required by private international law, but with no specific domestic law protections.

• Civil Assets are sold by public auction or court-authorised private sale, supervised by the enforcement agent (agente de execução). Proceeds are consequently distributed by priority: secured creditors (from specific assets), then preferential creditors, then unsecured creditors pari passu.
• Insolvency. Liquidated proceeds are distributed in accordance with the CIRE waterfall: estate administration costs, then secured claims over specific assets, then employee claims, then general preferential creditors, then ordinary unsecured creditors.
• Criminal confiscation. Proceeds are remitted to the state (GEOTA), subject to prior satisfaction of the victim’s civil compensation award.

• Interest. The statutory default rate is 4% per annum for civil obligations. Commercial transactions attract a special rate (11.25% for H2 2024). Interest runs from date of default or, in tort, from service of proceedings.
• Costs. The unsuccessful party pays court fees (custas judiciais) and a contribution towards the successful party’s legal fees, which is capped at half the total court fees paid by both parties. This cap recovers only a fraction of actual legal costs in high-value cases. The parties may contractually agree full legal fee recovery, thereby removing the cap.
• Criminal proceedings. The convicted defendant bears court costs. Fraud victims joining as civil parties are generally not liable for costs in relation to their civil claim.

Portugal is a moderately claimant-friendly jurisdiction.

Its strengths include:

• the adhesion principle: civil claims can be raised within criminal proceedings at low cost, leveraging state investigative resources;
• the GRA provides effective cross-border asset tracing;
• a full EU enforcement toolkit is available; and
• ex parte interim relief is available on accessible thresholds.

Its weaknesses include:

• no standalone civil asset tracing legislation;
• civil-only proceedings, which are slow and costly relative to recoverable legal fees;
• major economic crime cases before the Lisbon TCIC can last between four to eight years; and
• court staff strikes in 2025 causing further delays.

• Ex parte preventive attachment (arresto). This is obtainable within 24–72 hours where evidence of risk and a prima facie claim are clearly presented.
• Criminal preventive seizure. The Public Prosecutor may apply a preventive seizure before charges are formally laid; courts in major economic crime cases are responsive to urgent applications.
• EU cross-border freezing orders (Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1805). These orders can be issued and transmitted rapidly; cross-border execution may take several weeks depending on the receiving state.

In practice, a bottleneck can occur as courts require a specific, documented list of assets in order to grant relief. Generic or speculative applications will fail.

Typical costs and funding options comprise:

• Court fees: proportional to claim value; significant in high-value fraud cases.
• Legal fees: not regulated beyond Bar Association guidance. Contingency fees (pactum de quota litis) are prohibited as fees cannot be exclusively dependent on outcome. Success fee top-ups are permissible.
• Third-party litigation funding: legally permissible (no specific regulation, no legal prohibition), but the market is incipient and funding arrangements are uncommon in practice.
• After-the-event insurance: similarly underdeveloped.
• Legal aid (apoio judiciário): available for means-tested claimants.

In practice, high-value international fraud recovery is primarily funded on a fee-for-service basis with negotiated success fee elements.

Key procedural pitfalls include:

• Adhesion obligation. Civil claims for criminal offences must be filed within criminal proceedings or the right to a standalone civil action is lost. Missing the procedural window is fatal.
• Limitation. The “date of awareness” trigger for the three-year civil prescription is frequently disputed. It is advisable to address it proactively in pleadings.
• Asset identification. Courts require a specific, documented list of assets for preventive attachment. Generic or speculative applications are refused.
• Banking secrecy. Voluntary bank disclosure is not obtainable; a judicial order is required. Seek judicial assistance rather than informal bank cooperation.
• Crypto-assets. There is no specific civil enforcement mechanism for cryptoassets. Recovery must be routed through criminal seizure or international judicial cooperation, and both introduce delay.
• Court backlogs. Major fraud cases before the Lisbon TCIC take years. Parallel civil proceedings in commercial courts may offer a faster route to interim relief.

Legislative reforms include:

• Law No. 4/2024 (Penal Code amendment): broadened money laundering predicate offences; criminalised misuse of EU funds (Directive (EU) 2017/1371); expanded definition of “public official”.
• Law No. 70/2025: implemented Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 strengthening the traceability of cryptoasset transfers.
• Draft extended confiscation regime: approved by the Council of Ministers in May 2025. The pre-legislative public consultation (consulta pública) closed on 30 July 2025 but has not yet been submitted to Parliament as a formal bill. It introduces autonomous confiscation proceedings even where the defendant is deceased, proceedings are time-barred, or amnesty has been granted.

There is a clear expansionary trajectory in Portugal. Courts have extended existing fraud and money laundering statutes to cover digital fraud, synthetic identity schemes, and AI-facilitated deception.

The draft extended confiscation regime would, if enacted, represent a material broadening of state confiscation powers, including a new procedural standing (“affected person”) for parties impacted by freezing and confiscation.

However, there is an ongoing tension: the existing presumption under Article 7(1), Law No. 5/2002 (where assets disproportionate to lawful income are presumed criminal proceeds) is criticised as incompatible with the presumption of innocence. Continued debate in courts and academia is expected.

Three key trends for international practitioners:

• Tech-facilitated fraud. Phishing, deepfake-enabled deception, and synthetic identity fraud prosecuted under existing statutes. Digital forensic evidence is gaining judicial acceptance. MiCA and the new AML package (Regulation (EU) 2024/1624; Directive (EU) 2024/1640) will expand obligations on cryptoasset service providers from 2027.
• ESG (environmental, social and governance) fraud. CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) and forthcoming EU Green Claims Directive increasing exposure for unsubstantiated environmental claims. Portuguese law penalises misleading commercial practices (Decree-Law No. 57/2008, as amended by Law No. 10/2023).
• Whistleblower-driven claims. Law No. 93/2021 confidential reporting channels generating new intelligence for fraud investigations.