Serbia

White-collar crime is regulated through offences contained in the Criminal Code (CC) (Official Gazette No. 85/2005, 94/2024).

Key bribery offences include:

• receiving a bribe (Article 367, CC);
• giving a bribe (Article 368, CC);
• receiving a bribe in the conduct of economic activity (Article 230, CC);
• giving a bribe in the conduct of economic activity (Article 231, CC);
• receiving and giving a bribe in connection with voting (Article 156, CC).

Corruption-related offences include:

• abuse of official position (Article 359, CC);
• trading in influence (Article 366, CC);
• misuse of budget funds (Article 362a, CC);
• abuse related to public procurement (Article 228, CC);
• abuse in the privatisation process (Article 228a, CC);
• unconscientious performance of official duty (Article 361, CC);
• illegal collection and payment (Article 362, CC).

Fraud-related and corporate misconduct are addressed through offences such as:

• fraud in the conduct of economic activity (Article 223, CC);
• insurance fraud (Article 223a, CC);
• abuse of the position of a responsible person (Article 227, CC);
• abuse in the conduct of economic activity (Article 223, CC);
• abuse of trust in the conduct of economic activity (Article 224a, CC);
• embezzlement in the conduct of economic activity (Article 224, CC);
• causing bankruptcy (Article 232, CC);
• causing false bankruptcy (Article 232a, CC);
• damaging creditors (Article 233, CC).

Certain offences often arise in connection with white-collar crime, particularly where unlawful proceeds are involved or financial regulations are violated. These include:

• money laundering (Article 245, CC);
• smuggling (Article 236, CC);
• embezzlement (Article 364, CC);
• unauthorised use of another’s property (Article 365, CC);
• restrictive agreements (Article 229, CC).

A more detailed discussion of the principal white-collar crime offences is provided in Question 5, below.

In addition to the CC, several other statutes regulate areas closely connected with white-collar crime, including the Law on the Prevention of Corruption (Official Gazette No. 35/2019, 14/2022), Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Official Gazette No. 113/2017, 19/2025), Law on the Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime (Official Gazette No. 32/2013, 35/2019) and other sector-specific legislation.

The following international conventions regulate the criminalisation of white-collar crime and apply to both corporate criminal liability and individual criminal liability:

• United Nations Convention against Corruption.
• Criminal Law Convention on Corruption with Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption.
• Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (Warsaw Convention).
• United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention).

Serbian law does not recognise a separate concept of civil liability for criminal offences. However, Serbia has ratified the Civil Law Convention on Corruption, which requires states to provide effective remedies for persons who have suffered damage as a result of corruption, including full compensation for material damage, loss of profit and non-pecuniary damage. In that context, a victim may seek compensation either within criminal proceedings through a property claim or in separate civil litigation.

Additionally, international cooperation in cross-border white-collar crime investigations and prosecutions is primarily governed by:

• European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.
• European Convention on Extradition, together with its Additional Protocols.

More than 50 bilateral treaties on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters further regulate cooperation with foreign authorities.

White-collar crime laws apply to both natural persons and legal entities. Criminal liability of a legal entity does not exclude the liability of the individual perpetrator. Both the responsible person and the legal entity may be held liable for the same offence. Moreover, the legal entity may be held liable even when criminal proceedings against the person responsible have been dismissed or charges rejected.

Individual liability

Criminal liability is attached to individuals who commit criminal offences. In practice, white-collar offences are most often committed by individuals acting in managerial or decision-making positions within companies or other organisations. Public officials and other persons exercising public authority may also incur criminal liability, particularly in cases involving corruption and abuse of office.

Corporate liability

Corporate liability is regulated by the Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences (Official Gazette No. 97/2008). A legal entity may be held liable where a criminal offence is committed by a responsible person acting within the scope of their authority or duties, with the intent to obtain a benefit for the legal entity. A legal entity may also be liable where a responsible person fails to exercise due supervision or control over individuals under their authority, thereby enabling the commission of a criminal offence for the benefit of the legal entity. Corporate criminal liability applies to private sector entities. The Law also regulates liability in situations involving termination, status changes or bankruptcy of a legal entity. If a legal entity ceases to exist or undergoes a status change during proceedings, its legal successor may be subject to sanctions.

Civil liability concept

For the concept of civil liability, see Question 2, above.

The CC applies to any person who commits a criminal offence on the territory of Serbia. This includes both natural persons and legal entities (see Question 3, above). Jurisdiction also extends to offences committed on Serbian vessels and aircraft, regardless of their location at the time of the offence. Under the principle of ubiquity, an offence is considered committed in Serbia where either the conduct or its consequence occurs on Serbian territory. This rule is particularly relevant in cross-border financial and economic offences involving international transactions or corporate structures.

Jurisdiction over domestic entities

Domestic entities are liable for criminal offences committed on the territory of Serbia.

Jurisdiction over foreign entities

Foreign entities are liable for criminal offences committed on the territory of Serbia and for offences committed abroad to the detriment of Serbia, its citizens or a Serbian legal entity.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction

The CC may also apply to offences committed abroad in several situations, including cases where:

• a Serbian national commits a criminal offence abroad and is found in Serbia or extradited to Serbia, provided that the act is punishable under the law of the place where it was committed;
• a foreign national commits a criminal offence abroad against Serbia or its citizens and is found in Serbia or extradited;
• a foreign national commits a serious offence abroad punishable by at least five years imprisonment and is found in Serbia but not extradited;
• the offence constituted a crime under international law at the time of its commission, subject to the approval of the Republic Public Prosecutor.

The principal domestic white-collar crime offences are as follows.

Receiving/giving a bribe (Article 367/368, CC)

This offence is committed by offering or promising a gift (or other benefit) to an official (or another) person in exchange for such person using their official authority or acting in connection with their official authority to:

• perform an official action that they should not perform, or not perform an official action that they should perform;
• perform an official action that they should perform, or not perform an official action that they should not perform; or
• mediating in such bribery of an official.

The offence requires intent. The perpetrator must act with the purpose of influencing the performance or omission of an official duty in exchange for an unlawful benefit. Attempt is punishable, intent is required and the unlawful benefit is subject to confiscation.

Penalties depend on the form of the offence:

• Receiving a bribe:
  • imprisonment from two to 12 years where the official act should not be performed;
  • imprisonment from two to eight years where the act should otherwise be performed lawfully;
  • imprisonment from three to 15 years where the offence is connected to criminal investigations or criminal proceedings;
  • imprisonment from three months to three years where the benefit is requested or received after the official act has been performed;
• Giving a bribe:
  • imprisonment from six months to five years for unlawful performance or omission of an official act;
  • imprisonment of up to three years where the act concerns a lawful official action.

Fraud in economic activity (Article 223, CC)

Elements of the offence:

• intent to obtain unlawful material gain for oneself or another person;
• misleading by false representation or by concealing facts or maintaining the false conviction of another; or
• leading another to do something or not do something that results in damage to the assets of:
  • a business entity they work for or with; or
  • another legal entity.

The offence requires intent (dolus). The perpetrator must act with the purpose of obtaining unlawful material gain for themselves or another.

Financial thresholds: aggravated forms apply where the unlawful gain or damage exceeds:

• RSD 450,000, punishable by imprisonment from one to eight years;
• RSD 1,500,000, punishable by imprisonment from two to 10 years.

Attempt is punishable and possible sanctions include imprisonment from six months to five years, combined with a fine.

Abuse of position of a responsible person (Article 227, CC)

This criminal offence occurs when, by abusing their position or powers, the responsible person exceeds the limits of their powers or fails to perform their duties and, in doing so (and providing this does not constitute another criminal offence or parts thereof):

• obtains unlawful material gain for themselves or for another natural person or legal entity; or
• incurs material damage to another person.

The offence requires intent directed at obtaining unlawful material gain or causing financial damage.

Financial thresholds: aggravated forms apply where the unlawful gain exceeds:

• RSD 450,000, punishable by imprisonment from six months to five years;
• RSD 1,500,000, punishable by imprisonment from two to 10 years.

Attempt is punishable and sanctions include imprisonment from three months to three years.

A common feature of these offences is the requirement of intent. In practice, defence strategies are therefore often focused on disputing the existence of intent in order to exclude criminal liability. In the majority of offences, the prosecution bears the burden of proving intent as a constitutive element of the offence. In certain offences intent may be presumed from the act itself. Financial damage is required in some offences, while in others the offence exists regardless of whether damage occurred.

Serbian law does not recognise separate white-collar crime offences for foreign conduct. The same offences apply irrespective of whether the conduct has a domestic or cross-border element (see Questions 4 and 5, above).

White-collar crime enforcement involves prosecutorial, judicial, police and administrative authorities.

The principal prosecutorial bodies are:

• the Higher Prosecutors’ Office for Organised Crime in Belgrade; and
• the Special Divisions in Higher Prosecutors’ Offices for Combating Corruption in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš and Kraljevo.

The Special Department of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Corruption is responsible for prosecuting economic crime and offences related to official duty and corruption.

Jurisdiction between organised crime and corruption divisions is partly determined by monetary thresholds. Organised crime authorities are competent where the illegal gain exceeds RSD 200 million, or where a public procurement exceeds RSD 800,000, as well as in cases involving organised criminal structures. Other corruption and economic crime cases fall within the competence of corruption divisions.

Basic prosecutors’ offices are competent to handle less serious white-collar offences, including tax evasion, damaging creditors and related offences.

White-collar crime offences (see Question 1, above) are prosecuted ex officio, whereby the authority to initiate and conduct criminal proceedings rests exclusively with the public prosecutor. The primary sources of knowledge concerning these criminal offences derive from criminal complaints and the operational work of the security services. In criminal proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, therefore prosecutors are authorised to collect evidence, interrogate suspects, request banking and financial data, order expert examinations, authorise controlled deliveries and require documentation from public and private entities.

The competent courts exercising jurisdiction at first and second instance are:

• the Special Department for Organised Crime of the High Court in Belgrade;
• the Special Department for Organised Crime of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade; and
• the Special Departments in Higher Courts for Combating Corruption in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš and Kraljevo.

Although Serbia has not established separate courts and prosecutors’ offices with exclusive jurisdiction over white-collar crime, the creation of specialised departments within existing judicial and prosecutorial structures constitutes an important institutional advancement, given that judges and prosecutors assigned to such departments acquire a high degree of specialisation in complex economic and financial criminal cases.

Law enforcement is primarily carried out by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Organizational Unit for Combating Corruption and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Organizational Unit for Combating Organised Crime, as well as by the Security Information Agency (Bezbednosno-informativna agencija, BIA) in cases falling within its statutory competence.

Under prosecutorial supervision, the police may collect information, conduct inspections of premises and documentation of legal entities, seize evidence, summon responsible persons for questioning, temporarily restrict movement within statutory limits, and undertake other investigative measures necessary to secure evidence.

Administrative and regulatory bodies play an important role in detecting and initiating proceedings in white-collar matters, which include:

• the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption;
• the Tax Administration;
• the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering;
• the Customs Administration; and
• other competent administrative bodies empowered to initiate investigations into economic offences or misdemeanours.

Administrative investigators are authorised to inspect and copy records, require the production of business documentation, take written and oral statements, inspect premises, collect samples, secure evidence and undertake other actions necessary to establish the factual situation under applicable laws.

Serbian law does not provide for a formal corporate leniency program comparable to those existing in certain common law jurisdictions. However, several procedural mechanisms may result in mitigation of criminal liability, including voluntary self-reporting, plea agreements and deferred prosecution.

Voluntary self-reporting

Voluntary self-reporting by a company or an individual is not mandatory and is not regulated as a separate legal institution. However, self-reporting of suspected criminal conduct and cooperation with prosecutorial authorities may be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

In practice, self-reporting most often occurs following an internal investigation conducted by a company. If the company or individual discloses misconduct and provides evidence to the authorities, this may positively influence prosecutorial decisions and sentencing.

Response of state authorities

The principal formal mechanism is a plea agreement concluded between the defendant and the Public Prosecutor. The agreement determines the type and measure of the criminal sanction and must be approved by the competent court.

Where the accused has confessed and the offence is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to five years, the prosecutor may request a hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction. This simplified procedure allows the court to impose a more lenient sentence.

The Criminal Procedure Code (Official Gazette No. 72/2011, 62/2021) also allows deferred prosecution for offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to five years. If the suspect fulfils certain obligations, such as compensation of damage or payment to a public fund, the criminal complaint may be dismissed.

Court practice

In practice, cooperation with prosecutorial authorities and early admission of guilt may lead to mitigation of the penalty. Courts generally approve plea agreements where statutory requirements are met. Self-reporting and cooperation may therefore result in reduced sanctions, particularly in cases involving private sector entities, although such mitigation depends on the circumstances of each case.

Legal obligations

Although internal investigations are not mandatory, companies must comply with several legal frameworks, particularly:

• the Law on Personal Data Protection, which governs the lawful processing of personal data during investigations;
• the Labour Law, especially regarding employee rights and workplace monitoring.

Structuring and conducting the investigation

Best practice is to conduct the investigation under the supervision of external legal counsel in order to ensure legal compliance and preserve legal privilege. At the outset, the scope of the investigation should be clearly defined, including identification of relevant individuals, documentation and electronic data. Where criminal exposure is possible, early involvement of defence counsel is advisable.

Internal investigations should include:

• preservation and review of relevant documentation;
• collection and securing of electronic evidence;
• interviews with employees and management;
• assessment of potential criminal, regulatory and compliance risks.

Legal professional privilege

Legal professional privilege applies to communications between a client and an attorney admitted to the Serbian Bar. Only external lawyers enjoy legal privilege under Serbian law. In-house counsels are considered employees, and their communications do not benefit from attorney–client privilege. Involving external counsel at an early stage therefore strengthens confidentiality of internal investigation materials.

Critical issues to address when commencing and conducting a corporate internal investigation

Employees are not legally obliged to cooperate in internal investigations and interviews must, therefore, be voluntary.

Best practice when conducting interviews includes:

• recording the interview (audio or video) with the employee’s consent;
• preparing a written transcript of the statement;
• allowing the employee to review, correct or supplement the statement.

A written statement may be formalised as a notarial deed, pursuant to Article 245(2) of the Civil Procedure Act (Official Gazette No. 72/2011 and 10/2023) in conjunction with Article 88 of the Notaries Act (Official Gazette No. 31/2011 and 94/2024). In such case the statement is certified by a public notary in the presence of the employee.

Whistleblower protection in Serbia is regulated by the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers (Official Gazette No. 128/2014). The Law provides legal safeguards for individuals who report unlawful conduct, including conduct potentially constituting white-collar crime.

Scope of protection

Protection applies to any natural person who, in connection with their work engagement (including employees, contractors, former employees and job applicants), reports information concerning violations of law, abuse of authority or threats to the public interest. The Law applies equally to the public and private sectors. Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation, including dismissal, salary reduction, demotion, disciplinary measures or other forms of harassment.

Protection applies where:

• the disclosure follows statutory procedures;
• the information was obtained in connection with work;
• the whistleblower reasonably believes the information to be true.

Protection operates through a system of confidential reporting channels, prohibition of retaliatory measures, expedited court protection and reversal of the burden of proof in whistleblower protection proceedings. The Law does not provide immunity from criminal liability if the whistleblower participated in the underlying offence, although cooperation may be considered as a mitigating circumstance in criminal proceedings.

Judicial protection

If retaliation occurs, the whistleblower may initiate court proceedings and request urgent interim protection measures within eight days. Proceedings are expedited and conducted before higher courts. The burden of proof is reversed: the employer must demonstrate that the adverse action was unrelated to whistleblowing. Courts regularly grant interim protection where a causal link between disclosure and retaliation is established.

Corporate response

Upon receiving a whistleblower report, the employer must take appropriate steps to examine the allegations, prevent harmful consequences and ensure protection of the whistleblower.

Companies should:

• establish internal reporting channels;
• adopt and regularly update whistleblowing Rulebooks;
• ensure confidentiality and data protection compliance;
• conduct prompt internal investigations;
• avoid any form of retaliatory action.

Failure to properly address whistleblower disclosures may expose the company to labour disputes and potential criminal or regulatory liability.

Review of activities of key agencies

White-collar crime enforcement is primarily conducted by the Special Departments for Combating Corruption within the Higher Public Prosecutors’ Offices in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Kraljevo and Niš.

According to the most recent quarterly reports for the fourth quarter of 2025:

• In Belgrade:
  • criminal complaints were processed against 2,247 persons, including 318 newly reported individuals;
  • investigations were initiated against 24 persons;
  • indictments were filed against 43 persons;
  • 13 convictions were issued, including eight prison sentences and five suspended sentences;
  • unlawful proceeds in the amount of RSD 74,155,417.60 were confiscated.
• In Novi Sad:
  • proceedings were conducted against 1,840 persons;
  • investigations were initiated against 58 persons;
  • 49 persons were indicted;
  • 42 convictions were rendered, including 29 prison sentences and 13 suspended sentences;
  • unlawful proceeds in the amount of RSD 2,090,457.62 were confiscated.
• In Kraljevo:
  • criminal complaints were received against 213 persons, while 1,855 cases from earlier periods remained active;
  • investigations were initiated against 19 persons;
  • 31 persons were indicted;
  • 62 convictions were rendered, including 20 prison sentences and 42 suspended sentences;
  • criminal proceeds in excess of RSD 21,025,578.45 were confiscated.
• In Niš:
  • criminal complaints were processed against 809 persons;
  • investigations were initiated against eight persons;
  • 45 persons were indicted;
  • 13 convictions were rendered, including five prison sentences and seven suspended sentences;
  • criminal proceeds of RSD 8,149,961.13 were confiscated.

These figures indicate sustained prosecutorial activity, particularly in corruption-related offences involving public officials, public procurement, abuse of office and economic crime.

Judgments by courts

Several high-profile cases illustrate the mixed enforcement outcomes in white-collar crime proceedings.

One of the most prominent cases involved businessman Miroslav Mišković, who was ultimately acquitted after years of proceedings concerning alleged tax evasion and abuse related to privatisation. Following the final acquittal, compensation claims against the state were initiated for damages caused by the prosecution.

Another widely discussed case involved defence industry businessman Mile Dragić, who faced lengthy criminal proceedings related to alleged corruption in military procurement. After several years of litigation, the charges were dismissed and Dragić was acquitted.

At the same time, Serbian courts have delivered a number of convictions in corruption and organised economic crime cases prosecuted by the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime, including cases involving:

• abuse of office by public officials;
• corruption in public procurement procedures;
• money laundering schemes connected to organised criminal groups.

Convictions in these cases often involve confiscation of criminal proceeds and prison sentences for senior officials or business actors involved in corruption networks.

Priority given to white-collar crime enforcement

Combating corruption and economic crime has been formally identified as a priority within Serbia’s criminal justice policy.

Institutional reforms have included:

• establishment of specialised prosecutorial departments for combating corruption;
• creation of specialised court departments for corruption cases;
• strengthening of cooperation between prosecutors, financial investigators, and police units.

Strategic anti-corruption frameworks and prosecutorial policies increasingly emphasise proactive financial investigations, asset confiscation and coordination with international partners.

Despite these efforts, public debate continues regarding the effectiveness of enforcement in complex high-level corruption cases, particularly where proceedings last many years or result in acquittals. However, the continued expansion of specialised investigative structures and financial investigation mechanisms demonstrates an ongoing institutional commitment to addressing white-collar crime.

Historical perspective of investigation and enforcement

Serbia fundamentally changed its criminal procedure system with the introduction of the prosecutorial investigation model. The former system based on the investigating judge was abolished by the new Criminal Procedure Code, which entered into full application in 2013.

Under the current system, public prosecutors conduct investigations, while courts primarily perform a supervisory and adjudicative role. The reform was intended to increase efficiency and align the criminal procedure system with modern adversarial models.

In practice, however, the transition has produced mixed results. Prosecutors formally lead investigations, but they depend heavily on police authorities to execute investigative actions and collect evidence.

Legal and institutional gaps affecting enforcement

A structural weakness of the Serbian system is the absence of a prosecutorial police service.

Public prosecutors may issue orders for investigative actions, including searches, arrests or evidence collection. However, the execution of these orders depends on the police, which operates within the executive branch and is hierarchically subordinate to the Ministry of Interior, rather than to the prosecution service. As a result, prosecutors do not have direct operational control over investigative personnel. If police authorities delay or fail to execute prosecutorial orders, prosecutors have limited practical mechanisms to enforce compliance. This institutional arrangement may affect the efficiency of investigations, particularly in complex corruption and financial crime cases.

Capacity of enforcement agencies

Important institutional progress has been achieved through the establishment of specialised anti-corruption departments within prosecutors’ offices, courts and police structures, as well as for organised crime. These specialised units were introduced to strengthen the capacity to investigate complex economic and corruption offences. However, a remaining challenge concerns institutional capacity and specialised training. Judges, prosecutors and police officers assigned to these specialised departments generally do not undergo systematic or continuous specialised training focused exclusively on financial crime, forensic accounting or complex corporate investigations.

Proposed and pending reforms

The most immediate reforms concern the implementation of the recently adopted set of judicial laws commonly referred to as the “Mrdić laws”. These amendments modified several key statutes governing the organisation of courts and public prosecution, including rules on judicial administration, territorial jurisdiction and the functioning of specialised prosecutorial bodies.

The reforms have generated significant public debate within the legal community and broader public, particularly regarding their potential impact on the independence and operational functioning of prosecutorial bodies, including those responsible for organised crime and corruption.

In parallel, the Ministry of Justice has announced further legislative initiatives, including amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, continued digitalisation of the judiciary, and measures aimed at shortening the duration of criminal proceedings.

Key areas for legislative action

Future legislative activity is expected to focus on several areas particularly relevant for white-collar crime enforcement:

• reform of criminal procedure, with the aim of improving efficiency of investigations and trials;
• strengthening financial investigations and asset confiscation mechanisms;
• implementation of measures under the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2024–2028 and the accompanying action plans.

An additional area of potential reform concerns the functioning of specialised prosecutorial bodies and the position of temporarily assigned prosecutors within those institutions.

Prospects over the next 12–18 months

Over the next 12–18 months, reforms are likely to take an incremental rather than systemic form. Legislative activity is expected primarily in the field of criminal procedure, financial investigations and anti-corruption policy implementation.

At the same time, given the public debate surrounding the recently adopted judicial laws, targeted amendments or adjustments to certain institutional solutions cannot be excluded. Future reforms are, therefore expected to focus on improving the efficiency of complex criminal proceedings, strengthening financial investigation capacities and ensuring the stable functioning of specialised anti-corruption and organised crime bodies.