The Global Legal Post

Former Pogust Goodhead chief executive joins BGI in battle for control of Mariana Dam litigation

News — 2026-09-17UTC05:41+00:00

Thomas Goodhead reunites with former PG partners as October hearing looms over which firm should represent Brazilian claimants

Clio hires former Michigan Supreme Court chief justice as GM of its judiciary business

Legaltech — 2026-09-17UTC05:06+00:00

Bridget Mary McCormack will lead Clio’s commercial strategy for its courts-focused unit

Sullivan & Cromwell adds Weil’s London co-chief in double partner hire

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-09-17UTC02:07+00:00

Dealmaker David Avery-Gee joins alongside corporate partner Sarah Flaherty in the latest in string of senior exits from Weil across London and New York

Vehicle-related disputes push standalone US product liability claims to 10-year high

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-17UTC10:23+00:00

Lex Machina data shows total non-MDL filings reached 5,692 cases last year, a 31% year-on-year rise

‘Our focus is increasingly on resilience, scalability and readiness for future firm failures’: FSCS chief counsel James Darbyshire

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-17UTC10:19+00:00

James Darbyshire discusses his role at the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the evolution of the consumer protection landscape and the key challenges impacting financial services lawyers

White-collar crime comparative guide launches

Law Over Borders Comparative Guides — 2026-09-17UTC09:52+00:00

Johnson Winter Slattery partner Robert Wyld edits latest GLP guide covering corporate crime and enforcement worldwide

David Maister’s Frameworks in an AI World: from management theory to law-firm decisions

Artificial Intelligence — 2026-09-17UTC09:19+00:00

Denken’s Morgan Rigby and Annika Lehmann outline how adaptive learning can help law firms apply renowned management guru’s thinking to AI's practical challenges

Wolters Kluwer launches agentic AI outside counsel management tool

Legaltech — 2026-09-16UTC03:25+00:00

New application enables in-house legal teams to better compare law firms on cost, staffing and billing compliance

Pérez-Llorca relocates Colombian partners to New York and Madrid

Law Firm Leadership and Strategy — 2026-09-16UTC02:42+00:00

Move is part of a firm-wide initiative to capitalise on recent internationalisation process

Cybersecurity spending to increase as AI-related attack threats rise, BCG report

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-16UTC11:11+00:00

Spending is outpacing projections as organisations respond to growing threat risk

‘The days of throw the latest and newest at every problem are over’: Legal AI’s shift to consumption-based pricing

Artificial Intelligence — 2026-09-16UTC07:09+00:00

A predicted rollout of pay-per-use pricing for legal AI will likely increase tech costs for law firms and company legal departments, experts warn

US data centre start-up Montera hires Aligned Data Centers deputy GC as inaugural CLO

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-16UTC06:35+00:00

Justin Landfair will help build and lead company’s legal function

Sullivan & Cromwell opens first Middle East office in Abu Dhabi

Law Firm Office Launches — 2026-09-15UTC05:08+00:00

Firm rehires Ahmed el-Gaili as a partner from Latham & Watkins to lead Middle East practice

Scotland appoints 16 new silks, with solicitor advocates taking two places

News — 2026-09-15UTC02:37+00:00

Scottish sets Axiom, Optimum and 1Six secure three appointments each in 2026 round, while three honorary KCs are also named

BonelliErede and Hogan Lovells Cadwalader latest to boost Brussels ranks with partner hires

News — 2026-09-15UTC10:20+00:00

The hires follow a flurry of activity in the de-facto European capital

CME Group promotes associate GC for litigation to top lawyer role

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-15UTC08:29+00:00

John Marchese replaces Jonathan Marcus as the group’s GC

UK AI due-diligence provider Xapien raises $56m in Series B funding round

Legaltech — 2026-09-14UTC04:40+00:00

Spectrum Equity led financing to accelerate company’s US growth plans

High Court rejects bid to pause Mariana Dam litigation amid claimant representation dispute

News — 2026-09-14UTC03:21+00:00

An October hearing will be held in public to resolve what firm represents the claimants in billion-dollar London litigation

Travers Smith hires Baker McKenzie’s international arbitration chair in London

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-09-13UTC04:17+00:00

Dispute resolution specialist Andy Moody joins as a partner after a decade at Baker McKenzie

Scotland’s Court of Sessions welcomes four new judges

News — 2026-09-13UTC03:49+00:00

Two of the quartet – Lady Anwar and Lord Ghosh – are the first senators with South Asian heritage to be appointed

White & Case announces strategic investment in Saudi AI contract review start-up Clauze.AI

Artificial Intelligence — 2026-09-13UTC03:04+00:00

Former White & Case partner Waad Alkurini founded Riyadh-based company this month

Signature Litigation hires seasoned litigator from Triay Lawyers to head up Gibraltar office

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-09-11UTC03:41+00:00

Charles Simpson replaces Elliott Phillips, who is returning to London to join Mishcon de Reya

Legaltech giant Harvey raises $550m in funding round to hit $15.5bn valuation

Legaltech — 2026-09-11UTC02:36+00:00

Company also announces acquisition of AI security platform start-up Guardrails AI

Luxury collaborations: the contracts behind successful brand partnerships

Deals — 2026-09-11UTC01:30+00:00

Behind the apparent simplicity of luxury collaborations, Stocche Forbes lawyers Flavia Câmara e Castro and Thiago Porto Ribeiro explore the network of commercial decisions that need to be reflected in the contract

‘We’re hiring people that historically would only have been hired in the software space’

Legaltech — 2026-09-11UTC10:53+00:00

Six law firm innovation chiefs on how they are seeking to change the way lawyers work and how legal services are delivered

The UK’s Forum of Insurance Lawyers appoints next chief executive

Legal Services Regulation and Representation — 2026-09-11UTC09:00+00:00

Veteran insurance professional Mark Huxley replaces Laurence Besemer in the role

US asset manager Pimco plans internal promotion for GC replacement

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-11UTC02:42+00:00

Head of alternatives business management Rick LeBrun will succeed Sung-Hee Suh at the start of next year

Linklaters lures Wachtell dealmaker to become Americas managing partner

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-09-10UTC04:24+00:00

Mark Gordon is the latest high-profile defection from Wachtell this year

The Associated Press names senior Dow Jones lawyer as GC

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-10UTC02:13+00:00

Craig Linder replaces Karen Kaiser, who joined the Clooney Foundation for Justice earlier this year

Fennemore to merge with Gallagher & Kennedy to reshape Arizona legal scene

Law Firm Mergers and Alliances — 2026-09-09UTC11:08+00:00

Combination is the latest in a string of M&A deals for the fast-growing regional firm

Pogust Goodhead challenges decision by Mariana Dam litigation client committee to instruct new lawyers

News — 2026-09-09UTC05:49+00:00

Firm seeks court declaration clarifying if client committee has authority to change solicitors

Lord Briggs named as next UK Supreme Court president

News — 2026-09-09UTC04:43+00:00

Sir Michael Briggs will succeed Lord Reed at the start of next year

Chilean legal AI platform start-up Magnar raises $8m in Series A funding round

Legaltech — 2026-09-09UTC03:43+00:00

Financing round will extend its Latin American presence into Brazil and Mexico

Anti-Counterfeiting comparative guide launches today

Anti-counterfeiting — 2026-09-09UTC03:10+00:00

Co-edited by Lipkus Law's Lorne Lipkus and Melissa Tarsitano, guide helps brands combat counterfeiting and grey market activities worldwide

PE-backed regional-focused accumulator group Lawfront makes double acquisition

Law Firm Mergers and Alliances — 2026-09-09UTC06:34+00:00

Lawfront firm FJG acquires Giles Wilson in Leigh-on-Sea and Farleys purchases Houldsworth Solicitors in Clitheroe

Italian legaltech Lexroom acquires French, Bulgarian AI legal research start-ups

Artificial Intelligence — 2026-09-09UTC06:19+00:00

Company expands European footprint with purchase of Paris-based Query Juriste and Bulgaria’s Praven Intelekt

Mayer Brown boosts Brussels presence with Baker McKenzie trade partner hire

News — 2026-09-08UTC03:42+00:00

Pablo Bentes, who joins with two team members, specialises in representing sovereign states in international trade disputes

Addleshaw Goddard wins UK government nuclear energy development mandate

News — 2026-09-08UTC02:59+00:00

The firm will support the government’s push to attract private funding for the next-generation of nuclear energy

Excello Law makes double partner hire from Gunnercooke, Smith Thompson

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-09-08UTC08:00+00:00

Hires include corporate partner Stephen Morrall and three-lawyer property litigation team led by partner Claire-Elaine Arthurs

Cloud communications business Bandwidth promotes deputy to GC role

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-08UTC07:28+00:00

Emily Harlan succeeds Brandon Asbill, who is retiring

Belgian legaltech start-up LegalFly launches AI-powered Contract Intelligence tool

Legaltech — 2026-09-07UTC04:38+00:00

Company says new offering covers entire contract lifecycle from drafting through to signature

Fieldfisher hires medical cannabis expert to boost German life sciences practice

Germany — 2026-09-07UTC04:07+00:00

Franziska Katterbach joins in Frankfurt from Oppenhoff amid run of German hires

Apple faces £2bn UK collective action over app tracking rules

Collective and Class Actions — 2026-09-07UTC10:30+00:00

Hausfeld acts for a former CMA antitrust director seeking certification to represent UK app developers against US tech giant

UK AI governance intelligence platform AI Score raises $5.4m in seed funding round

Legaltech — 2026-09-04UTC04:04+00:00

AI start-up was co-founded last year by former White & Case associate Benita Tibb

Travers Smith bolsters employment ranks with Deloitte partner hire

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-09-04UTC07:55+00:00

Andrew Howard, who led Big Four’s people and employee relations team, joins in London

Osborne Clarke builds on European expansion with Luxembourg, Frankfurt office openings

Law Firm Office Launches — 2026-09-04UTC07:30+00:00

Firm adds five partners from firms including Ogier, CMS and White & Case to spearhead office launches

King & Spalding adds former Quinn Emanuel Paris head in latest arbitration hire

News — 2026-09-03UTC04:56+00:00

Thomas Voisin joins amid global disputes build-out as Signature Litigation also expands in Paris

AI-native firm Carta Law makes twin compliance hires in Europe and North America

Law Firm Lateral Hires — 2026-09-03UTC04:36+00:00

Noah Levine and Karin Porstendörfer take up new director positions

Canadian AI legal management platform Clio hires Casetext co-founder as SVP of judiciary

Legaltech — 2026-09-03UTC03:25+00:00

Legaltech pioneer Pablo Arredondo joins to lead company’s courts expansion

Prediction markets start-up Onyx Odds taps Underdog Sports for company’s first GC

Corporate Counsel — 2026-09-03UTC03:14+00:00

Former Orrick partner Nicholas Green joins after almost four years as GC at Underdog Sports

Law Over Borders Comparative Guides:White-collar Crime Law Guide

2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar crime is one of the defining legal and regulatory challenges of modern business. This comparative guide brings together leading practitioners from around the world to examine how jurisdictions investigate, prosecute and combat bribery, corruption, fraud and other corporate white-collar crime offences. Each chapter analyses domestic laws, enforcement agencies, corporate and individual liability, internal investigations, whistleblower protections, self-reporting and emerging reforms.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Editor’s Introduction

Johnson Winter Slattery — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Brazil - Market Insights

Freitas Leite e Avvad Advogados — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: China - Market Insights

JunHe — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Germany - Market Insights

YPOG — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Greece - Market Insights

Αristomenis Tzannetis Law Firm — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Hong Kong - Market Insights

Steptoe — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: India - Market Insights

BTG Advaya — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: United States - Market Insights (Enforcement)

Miller & Chevalier Chartered — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: United States - Market Insights (Securities and Corporate Misconduct)

Hecker Fink — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Australia

Johnson Winter Slattery — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

As a prelude to the discussion on white-collar crime which follows, in Australia, it is important to note that there is an extensive data protection regime to which prosecutors and investigators must remain alive to notwithstanding the possible breaches of law that may have occurred.

For example, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (“Privacy Act”) requires entities to protect personal information from misuse, interference, and loss and unauthorised access, modification, or disclosure. While there are certain exemptions in order to investigate potential misconduct and report matters to authorities, care must be taken to ensure conduct fits within an exemption. In addition to the Privacy Act, Australia’s data protection regime also includes laws relating to health and credit information, telecommunications interception, privacy for state and territory agencies, and surveillance devices.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Denmark

Gorrissen Federspiel — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

In recent years, Denmark has seen a significant increase in white-collar crime cases, driven by heightened political focus on compliance, particularly in the areas of sanctions, export control, and anti-money laundering. White-collar crime has become a clear political priority, and the authorities are devoting significant resources to investigation and enforcement.

The consequences of a white-collar crime case — fines, disqualification, reputational damage, and in the most serious cases, imprisonment — can be life-changing for both individuals and companies. A police investigation puts enormous pressure on a company and requires that a great number of actions be taken within a short period of time. Obtaining a reporting restriction will, in most cases, be a key priority.

This guide provides a practical overview of the Danish white-collar crime landscape, covering the legal framework, the principal offences, and key strategic considerations.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: England and Wales

Peters & Peters — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar crime in England and Wales is regulated through a combination of general criminal law, specialist economic crime legislation and sector-specific regulatory regimes. There is no single statutory definition of “white-collar crime”. Instead, the term is used to describe a broad category of non-violent, financially motivated offences committed by individuals or organisations in a business or professional context. Such offences typically involve dishonesty, abuse of position, concealment, misrepresentation or breach of trust, and frequently arise in complex commercial or regulatory environments.

The legal framework has developed incrementally, with Parliament addressing specific forms of economic misconduct through targeted legislation rather than through a single consolidated code. As a result, white-collar crime in England and Wales encompasses offences ranging from fraud, bribery and corruption to money laundering, sanctions breaches and corporate regulatory failures. In many cases, the same underlying conduct may engage multiple criminal and regulatory regimes simultaneously.

The enforcement environment has become more structured and assertive in recent years. Legislative reform under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 has expanded the circumstances in which organisations may be held criminally liable for economic offences, while updated prosecutorial guidance has clarified expectations around self-reporting, cooperation and the conduct of internal investigations. Enforcement action increasingly involves parallel investigations by multiple domestic agencies and, in appropriate cases, close cooperation with overseas authorities.

This chapter outlines the legal framework governing white-collar crime in England and Wales, with a particular focus on fraud, bribery and corruption, money laundering, sanctions-related offences and the evolving principles of corporate criminal liability. It also addresses the practical realities of investigation and enforcement, including the extraterritorial reach of English law, civil recovery mechanisms and the growing emphasis on corporate compliance and governance.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Germany

Hengeler Mueller — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar criminal law has become significantly more important in Germany over the last two decades. Several large-scale scandals such as the Wirecard collapse and the Cum-Ex scandal have attracted public attention and kept law enforcement and the courts busy. Numerous specialised white-collar crime prosecutor’s offices have been established and regulators such as the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) have increased their enforcement actions significantly. In addition, many new laws imposing criminal and administrative sanctions for business-related offences were enacted, often based on EU initiatives.

While companies cannot be defendants in criminal proceedings under German law, because only individuals can commit offences, the legal situation allows for the imposition of large corporate fines, in some cases of up to 10% of a company’s worldwide annual turnover. In recent years, prosecutors and courts have been using this tool increasingly frequently, including with respect to foreign companies.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Greece

KG Law Firm — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

The core substantive offences relevant to white-collar crime are primarily contained in the Greek Penal Code (GPC), which was comprehensively reformed in 2019 and subsequently amended. These provisions criminalise conduct such as bribery, fraud, breach of trust and related economic offences, often providing for aggravated forms where the offence involves public officials, large-scale financial damage or organised activity. In principle, criminal liability is attributed to individuals acting in a managerial or representative capacity; Recently, however, specific provisions have been adopted which introduce a quasi-criminal liability of legal entities when bribery acts are committed to their benefit.

In addition to the provisions of the GPC, the prosecution of white-collar crime in Greece is supplemented by a range of special criminal laws addressing specific areas of economic activity. These include, inter alia, Law 4557/2018 on the prevention and suppression of money laundering and terrorist financing, criminal tax legislation, as well as capital markets and market abuse laws. These statutes establish autonomous criminal offences and impose extensive regulatory and compliance obligations, breaches of which may give rise to administrative sanctions and criminal liability.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Guernsey

Carey Olsen — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

As a highly regulated jurisdiction, Guernsey has the expected arsenal of laws to combat white-collar crime including fraud, bribery and corruption legislation. (Please note that a reference to Guernsey in this chapter is to the Bailiwick of Guernsey comprising the separate jurisdictions of Guernsey, Alderney and Sark.)

However, given Guernsey’s position as an offshore financial centre, its economy is driven by the financial services industry whose client base is largely international. As a result, the incidences of local bribery, corruption and fraud is minimal.

Rather, Guernsey’s anti-money laundering regime is the key weapon in the fight against white-collar crime both locally and internationally. This is particularly so as the Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1999 (the “Proceeds of Crime Law”), being Guernsey’s principal anti-money laundering legislation, applies a single criminality test in determining criminal conduct caught by that law. That is, an act done legally in a foreign jurisdiction will be deemed criminal conduct for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Law (and, importantly, the money-laundering offence) if it would be illegal to do that act in Guernsey, whether or not the original wrongdoing took place in Guernsey.

Further, Guernsey’s anti-money laundering regime is bolstered by modern civil forfeiture legislation.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: India

Panag, Babu and Sarang — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Bribery and corruption remain core areas for law enforcement, by both domestic as well as international agencies. White-collar crimes in India encompass a broad spectrum of offences, including forgery, cheating, fraud, misappropriation of assets and money laundering.

The Indian criminal justice and regulatory system is not a paper tiger, but rather an active enforcer. Consistent with a trend that has lasted for more than a decade, white-collar crime enforcement remains aggressive in India. As enforcement is conducted through a plethora of enforcement bodies, each with a different statutory mandate, investigations are becoming more complex, with a significant amount of inter-agency reliance as well as competition.

This enforcement climate has also changed the paradigm of internal investigations, which currently do not have de jure recognition but seemingly de facto and strategic merit. Regulatory bodies, as opposed to enforcement bodies, are both recognising and relying on the results of internal investigations, including an organisation’s commitment to corporate governance in their final judgments. This shift is significant, because where enforcement agencies seek to prosecute, regulators seek to evaluate. Thus, companies are going to continue to remain under considerable pressure to conduct swift internal investigations, probably faster than in any other jurisdiction, to be able to effectively respond to and defend themselves against multi-pronged investigations and proceedings.

The propensity of pretrial arrests continues to remain at an all-time high, with judicial reluctance to grant bail in white-collar crime offences becoming a key bone of contention. There are critical constitutional challenges on the mandates and powers of certain law enforcement bodies that are pending before the courts, which are likely to make headway in the coming months. The sectoral trends of corporate investigations have largely remained constant during the past few years, with a sustained focus on defaulting lenders of large loans who have engaged in fraud or misused funds; bribery of government officials; fraud in all forms, with no materiality threshold; corporate governance lapses; and conduct affecting the securities markets.

The foregoing enforcement landscape admits only one rational corporate response: compliance can no longer be reactive or superficial. Failure to invest in robust governance frameworks is no longer just a risk — it is a liability that will not withstand the scrutiny of this enforcement environment. This is a critical inflection point, and companies that do not move decisively may soon find themselves outpaced, outmatched, and exposed.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Indonesia

Moores Rowland Indonesia — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Indonesia’s legal framework combines general criminal law with sector-specific regulatory regimes, requiring a functional definition of “white-collar crime”.

White-collar crime includes offences in corporate, financial, and governance settings, such as corruption and bribery (suap), unlawful gratification (gratifikasi), fraud, embezzlement, falsification and forgery, capital-markets and financial-sector misconduct, tax offences, and money laundering (Law No. 31 of 1999, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001; Law No. 8 of 2010; Law No. 1 of 2023; Law No. 8 of 1995, as amended by Law No. 4 of 2023; Law No. 6 of 1983, as amended by Law No. 16 of 2009 and Law No. 7 of 2021).

These offences are regulated under sector-specific statutes alongside the Criminal Code (KUHP) and are often embedded within legitimate business activities, complicating detection.

In Indonesia, these risks are increasingly driven by digital and financial channels, including fraud conducted through electronic and financial systems, as reflected in financial intelligence and regulatory assessments (for example, Pusat Pelaporan dan Analisis Transaksi Keuangan (PPATK; Indonesia’s independent financial intelligence unit), Indonesia Risk Assessment on Money Laundering 2021; Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures: Mutual Evaluation Report – Indonesia (2023)).

Enforcement is driven primarily by specialised statutes, with the KUHP playing a supporting role. Money laundering depends on an underlying crime, linking financial activity to its origin (Law No. 31 of 1999, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001; Law No. 8 of 2010; Law No. 1 of 2023).

Managing these risks requires more than legal compliance; it depends on effective governance, strong internal controls, and organisational discipline. These risks may also intersect with corporate responsibility to respect human rights, particularly where misconduct contributes to adverse impacts on workers, communities, or other stakeholders. In this context, companies rely on internal systems and external expertise — including audit, tax, forensic, and regulatory support — to identify and manage exposure.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Italy

PisanoLaw — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Public prosecutors are responsible for the investigation and prosecution of all criminal offences, including white-collar crime offences, of both individuals and companies. They are assisted by the police. Public prosecutors are not part of the government but are professional magistrates, such as court judges, and their powers of investigation are extensive (see Question 7, below).

Italy has implemented the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 679/2016, which entered into force on 25 May 2018. However, the public prosecutors’ powers of evidence taking are extensive and are not limited by privacy or data protection regulations.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Japan

Nozomi Sogo Attorneys at Law — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

White-collar crime enforcement in Japan is shaped by a highly codified statutory landscape, a prosecutor-led criminal process, and an investigative culture in which documentary records, voluntary cooperation and confession-centric dynamics often play an outsized role in fact-finding. Corporate misconduct is most commonly pursued through general offences under the Penal Code — such as fraud, embezzlement and breach of trust — supplemented by sector-specific economic statutes and parallel administrative regimes. Unlike jurisdictions with a general doctrine of corporate criminal liability, entity-level exposure in Japan typically depends on express “dual-liability” provisions, while regulators retain substantial tools of administrative enforcement.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Romania

Bibicu Law — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Romania’s white-collar crime legal framework has undergone significant development over the past 25 years, in connection with several judicial reforms and Romania’s accession processes to NATO and the European Union. For example, Romania was among the first countries in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Southeastern Europe (SEE) region to introduce criminal liability for legal entities, such as companies, more than 20 years ago. Other recent developments include the establishment of specialised anti-corruption and anti-organised crime prosecutorial offices (the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) and the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT)) and the strengthening of the National Integrity Agency (ANI). High-profile prosecutions of politicians, public officials, business executives and companies have brought Romania international attention as a jurisdiction serious about tackling white-collar crime. For example, the European Commission’s first Anti-Corruption Progress Report, more than 10 years ago, recognised and praised Romania’s efforts and progress in this area.

All of these changes are being supplemented by increased international judicial cooperation and cross-border cases triggered either locally or by the application of international anti-corruption laws, such as the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the UK Bribery Act, France Sapin II or other foreign laws with extraterritorial applicability.

From a pure domestic law perspective, white-collar criminal law in Romania is primarily governed by specialised legislation, such as the Romanian Criminal Code (RCC), specialised anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Romania’s substantive white-collar crime law is largely harmonised with EU standards and international conventions, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption or the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Recent developments in the areas of whistleblowing, international sanctions and criminalising breaches thereof as well as the new AML rules and the new EU Directive on combating corruption, have increased the level of complexity and the importance of effective compliance systems, objective internal investigations and addressing other risks while avoiding sanctions.

Enforcement has been robust and has gradually evolved, with prosecutors securing significant convictions annually, including against senior officials, private sector individuals and companies. The recent progress of Romania in its accession course to the OECD has also brought several enhancements, such as specific offences related to tackling corruption involving foreign officials and increased sanctions for legal entities, such as companies in certain instances.

Companies and individuals must navigate a legal and regulatory environment that is technically sophisticated and where case progression and enforcement can depend on several factors, as in other EU civil law jurisdictions. Cross-border cases are also on the rise, and their more particular elements and complexities should be considered from the outset, especially where companies operating in several jurisdictions are involved.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Serbia

ŠunjkaLaw — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Data protection is primarily regulated by the Law on Personal Data Protection, which is largely harmonised with the EU General Data Protection Regulation. The law sets out the principles for lawful processing of personal data, the rights of data subjects and the obligations of controllers and processors.

Personal data may be processed only on a valid legal basis, such as consent, the performance of a contract, compliance with a legal obligation, the protection of vital interests, the performance of a task in the public interest or the legitimate interests of the controller, provided that these interests do not override the rights and freedoms of the data subject. The law also establishes rules on transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, storage limitation and security of processing.

These rules are particularly relevant in the context of internal investigations, whistleblowing procedures and employee monitoring. Special care is required when processing special categories of personal data or when transferring data outside Serbia.

Non-compliance may lead to administrative measures and misdemeanour liability and may also affect the admissibility of evidence obtained during internal investigations.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: South Africa

Primerio International — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

South Africa uses a hybrid legal framework for white-collar crime, blending common law offences like fraud and theft with statutory offences in terms of, for example, the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, and the Financial Intelligence Centre Act. These statutes criminalise corruption, money laundering and racketeering, while the Companies Act strengthens corporate governance and accountability. Enforcement involves the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (“the Hawks”), the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) with its civil recovery powers. Since 2018, the combating of corruption and complex economic crimes has been identified as a national priority. This has been reinforced through reform initiatives and capacity-building within enforcement agencies.

White-collar crime in South Africa intensified during the era of “state capture”, a systematic scheme in which a network of individuals and groups weakened public institutions, procurement processes and law enforcement to redirect substantial state resources for private and corrupt gain. The resulting accumulation of corruption proceeds, and the erosions of the country’s anti-money laundering frameworks, contributed to South Africa being placed on the “Grey List” of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in February 2023. In response to these deficiencies and the findings of the Zondo Commission (a judge-led inquiry into alleged “state capture”, corruption and fraud), South Africa implemented key regulatory reforms, including the General Laws Amendment Act. This new legislation introduced rigorous new transparency and beneficial-ownership reporting requirements and the establishment of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) as a permanent unit within the NPA in an effort to prosecute high-profile, complex corruption cases.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: Switzerland

LALIVE — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Switzerland’s position as a leading financial and commercial hub ensures its reputation for global prominence — but also makes it inherently attractive to sophisticated forms of white-collar crime. Although its fundamental statutory framework has remained stable, with specific adjustments to align with international standards, enforcement practice, cross‑border co-operation and case law continually evolve in the face of increasingly complex misconduct. This means that Swiss authorities and businesses face an ongoing task navigating investigations that are often international in scope, as well as procedurally demanding. For practitioners engaging with the Swiss market, an understanding of the current dynamics — and expected future developments — is indispensable.

White-collar Crime Law Guide: United States

Sher Tremonte — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

The United States has one of the most extensive and complex white-collar criminal enforcement regimes in the world. Federal and state governments share overlapping jurisdiction over financial crimes, with the federal government playing the dominant role in investigating and prosecuting large-scale fraud, bribery, money laundering, and securities offenses. The system is characterized by broad criminal statutes, aggressive enforcement agencies, significant penalties — including potentially lengthy prison sentences — with an increasing emphasis on corporate compliance and voluntary self-disclosure.

The enforcement landscape is in a period of transition. In 2025 and 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) undertook a sweeping recalibration of its white-collar enforcement priorities, issuing new guidelines for FCPA enforcement, revising its corporate enforcement policies, and establishing a new National Fraud Enforcement Division. At the same time, federal white-collar prosecution rates have fallen to historic lows, even as reported financial crime losses continue to rise. This chapter provides a practical overview of the current framework in the United States as of mid-2026.

Law Over Borders Comparative Guides:Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide

2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

This third edition provides practical guidance on protecting brands against counterfeiting and grey market activities across key jurisdictions worldwide. Covering criminal and civil enforcement, border measures and cross-border strategies, it examines legislative developments and enforcement trends affecting rights holders. Industry experts explore the sophistication of counterfeit operations and challenges posed by online platforms and marketplaces.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Editor Introduction

Lipkus Law — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Brazil

Aoki, Ferreira, Mattioli & Yamashita Propriedade Intelectual — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Intellectual property rights are widely protected in Brazil. Recognizing the importance of “creations of the human mind”, the Brazilian Constitution treats intellectual property rights as a fundamental right, and therefore the rights of creators and innovators cannot be eliminated from the Federal Constitution.

As in most countries, in Brazil, intellectual property is divided into two branches: industrial property and copyright. There are two major laws that regulate industrial property rights and copyright, as well as a number of specific laws on related subjects. For the purposes of this guide, the relevant national substantive legislation is the following:

Law No. 9.279/1996 (“Industrial Property Law” (IPL)).
Law No. 9.609/1998 (“Software Law”).
Law No. 9.610/1998 (“Copyright Law”).

Brazil is a member of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property, as well as the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and has also implemented the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Hence, intellectual property holders can expect to find a well-structured legal framework for the protection of intellectual property rights in Brazil.

In order to guarantee exclusivity over intellectual creations and innovations, the laws provide for criminal and civil remedies, including provisional remedies intended to cease any counterfeiting immediately. Additionally, there are border enforcement measures and administrative procedures that can be utilized by intellectual property owners.

Even though there have been changes to Brazilian intellectual property legislation in view of the COVID-19 pandemic (for example, as to the patent term and the compulsory licensing of patents), criminal prosecution and civil enforcement regimes have not been altered significantly over the past few years.

Brazilian legislation is constantly evolving, and there are many bills being discussed in Congress, but there are no imminent changes to current federal legislation that might have a major impact on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the short term.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Canada

Lipkus Law — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

The following legal framework can assist in fighting counterfeits in Canada:

Trademarks Act (RSC 1985, c T-13).
Copyright Act (RSC 1985, c C-42, as amended).
Criminal Code (RSC 1985, c C-46).
Consumer Product Safety Act (RSC 2010, c 21).
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (RSC 1985, c C-38).
Competition Act (RSC 1985, c C-34).

Product counterfeiting typically involves a violation of trademark rights or copyright. The Combating Counterfeit Products Act (S.C. 2014, c 32) amended the Trademarks Act to expand the rights conferred by registration to include the right to preclude others from manufacturing, possessing, importing, exporting or attempting to export any goods, labels or packaging for the purpose of their sale or distribution if:

they are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark registered for such goods;
the owner of that registered trademark has not consented to have the goods, labels or packaging bear the trademark; and
the sale or distribution of the goods would be contrary to the Trademarks Act.

Additionally, in 2019, significant changes were implemented to the Trademarks Act dealing with trademark eligibility, examination procedure, ratification of the implementation of the Madrid Protocol and alignment of Canada’s Trademark regime with that of the United States and European Union.

In addition to registered trademarks, common law rights can be acquired through use of the mark in association with goods and services in Canada. As goodwill attaches to the mark, rights owners are able to assert claims against others who use the mark by bringing an action for passing off.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: El Salvador

Eproint — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Legislation for protecting and enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights/counterfeit goods in El Salvador includes:

the Criminal Code;
the Intellectual Property Law; and
General Administrative Provision DACG No. DGA 01-2025.

The legal framework was updated with the entry into force of the Intellectual Property Law in February 2025. In addition, the Customs Provision on border measures was updated in January 2025.

Furthermore, in 2026, El Salvador updated the tariff reduction schedules applicable to several free trade agreements, aligning the customs tariff structure with the current stages of trade liberalization, which may also have an indirect impact on customs control and enforcement activities.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Canada - Market Insights

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Mexico - Market Insights

Arochi & Lindner — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: United Arab Emirates - Market Insights

United Trademark & Patent Services — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Uruguay - Market Insights

Cervieri Monsuárez — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Germany

Alpspitz IP — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

There is national legislation and EU-wide legislation as a basis for enforcement against counterfeiting. The national legislation is broadly based on EU directives and considers international treaties to which Germany is a contracting party.

The most important legislation applying in Germany for anti-counterfeiting are:

the German Trademark Act;
the EU Trademark Regulation (2017/1001);
the German Design Act;
the EU Design Regulation (2024/2822);
the Patent Act;
the Utility Model Act;
the Copyright and Related Rights Act;
the Act Against Unfair Competition;
the Trade Secrets Act; and
the EU Customs Enforcement Regulation (608/2013).

For slavish imitations not protected by the specialised IP legislation, the German Act Against Unfair Competition provides complementary protection, but requires additional unfair acts (e.g. an avoidable deception of origin).

Recent changes to the Trademark Act in 2026 concern the protection of geographical indications extending the protection to craft and industrial geographical indications, which is also reflected in rather recent EU Regulation 2023/2411, and corresponding adaptions to the registers managed by EUIPO and the German Patent and Trademark Office, respectively. No changes to anti-counterfeiting relevant legislation are anticipated.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Greece

Malamis & Associates — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Relevant legislation assisting in protecting and enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights in Greece are the laws on trademarks (Law 4679/2020), patents (Law 1733/1987), industrial designs (Law 2417/1996), copyright and related rights (Law 2121/1993) as currently in force, which include provisions for the enforcement of the relative IP rights. The Trademark Law and Copyright Law also include provisions for the criminal prosecution of trademark and copyright counterfeiting, whereas patent and design counterfeiting do not constitute criminal offences in Greece.

Relevant EU-wide provisions are also directly applicable, such as:

The EU Enforcement Directive 98/71/EP of 13 October 1998, which is transposed in the Greek IP laws; but for any issues not transposed, the Enforcement Directive is directly applicable.
The EU Customs Regulation 608/2013 regulating the grant and enforcement of Applications for Action (AFA) by Greek Customs; the Regulation applies for both EU-wide grants of AFAs issued by any EU Customs based on EU IP rights as well as for national grants for AFAs, also based on Greek IP rights.
Geographical indications are protected by the relevant EU legislation (new Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, as well as traditional specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms for agricultural products, amending Regulations (EU) No. 1308/2013, (EU) 2019/787 and (EU) 2019/1753 and repealing Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012) that is directly applicable since 13 May 2024.

Additionally, a unique and very important tool is the existing specific legislation for IP enforcement on an administrative basis (comprising Laws 4177/2013 and 4712/2020, as currently in force). This legislation enables market controls as well as the seizure and destruction of counterfeit products by a simplified procedure by administrative actions that may be carried out by a number of enforcement authorities with parallel competencies.

Important legislative changes in IP provisions took place in 2020 with the new Trademarks Law (Law 4679/2020) and the law governing market controls and administrative seizures of counterfeits (Law 4712/2020). These provisions have undergone some changes since their introduction, mostly regarding the procedure of enforcement and seizure of IP rights based on administrative decisions by the competent authorities. Additionally, in 2024 and 2025 amendments in the Greek Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code came into force, aimed at achieving faster and more equitable justice. The execution of penalties on sentenced individuals has become stricter, both for misdemeanours and felonies, meaning that penalties are more effective in dissuading counterfeiters, especially repeat offenders.

Recent new legislation in respect of the control mechanisms, administrative measures and penalties in respect of Geographical Indications for agricultural products has been issued.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Guatemala

IDEAS IPS — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Intellectual property (IP) rights are protected in Guatemala by the Constitution of the Republic, the Industrial Property Law (Decree 57-2000), the Copyright Law (Decree 33-98), the Criminal Code (Decree 17-73), and diverse international treaties signed and ratified by Guatemala, such as the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) and the free trade agreement signed by Central America, the United States and the European Union. These treaties have produced amendments to the local laws. The Constitution of the Republic establishes that copyright and patent rights are a constitutional right, as well as the right of commerce. The Industrial Property Law and the Copyright Law establish the rights and procedures that may enforce the laws for anyone with an IP asset, and the Criminal Code regulates which actions constitute a felony in terms of the violation of industrial property rights and copyright. These laws have not received any modification in recent years, and no amendments have been proposed to these laws specifically regarding intellectual property matters. There is a desire to create specialized courts for better resolutions and smoother procedures.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: India

Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

India has a well-developed and enforcement-oriented intellectual property (IP) protection and anti-counterfeiting framework that combines civil, criminal, and border control measures.

Such protection is governed through several statutes, including, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“TM Act”), the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”), the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”), the Customs Act, 1962 (“Customs Act”), the IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2017 (“Customs IPR Rules”), the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules”), as well as general criminal law provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly Indian Penal Code) relating to cheating and fraud.

Together, these laws allow brand owners to pursue injunctions, damages, criminal prosecution, police raids, and customs seizures.

In the past few years, specialised IP benches have been constituted in certain high courts, bringing greater subject-matter expertise and expedited resolution of complex intellectual property disputes, thereby strengthening IP enforcement. Stringent safeguards have been introduced through reforms to the intermediary liability framework and strengthened judicial measures, including structured platform takedown procedures as well as court-ordered blocking orders and dynamic injunctions.

As regards major anticipated changes, India’s Law Commission proposed a draft of the Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024, in its 289th report. This bill, once implemented, would provide statutory protection for confidential business information beyond the current contractual and equitable framework.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Israel

Gilat, Bareket & Co. of the Reinhold Cohn Group — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

As brand protection is an ongoing effort and enforcement measures are taken routinely, practical approaches that reduce costs and increase results can enable rights owners to pursue these measures diligently and effectively. In this chapter, we will introduce the different enforcement measures available in Israel, and provide practical tips.

Relevant legislation

The laws governing anti-counterfeiting are:

Trademark Ordinance (New Version), 5732-1972.
Commercial Wrongs Law, 5759-1999.
Customs Ordinance (New Version).
Merchandise Marks Ordinance 1929, amended.
Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981.
Unjust Enrichment Law, 5739-1979.
Design Law, 5777-2017 (the former Patents and Designs Ordinance still governs designs filed before the new law came into force).

There are some laws which are not part of the core legislation of the intellectual property field, but are still useful in dealing with counterfeit products, for example:

Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981, enacted to protect consumers from deception.
The Pharmacists Ordinance (New Version) 5741-1981, and the Pharmacist Regulations (Medical Preparations) 5746-1986, both of which regulate the manufacturing, marketing, prescribing, importation, and registration of medicinal products.
The Standards Act, 5713-1953, which authorizes the Israeli Standards Institute to establish binding standards, and ensure an adequate level of product quality.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Mexico

Arochi & Lindner — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

The Mexican Constitution provides the basis for the framework of laws that exist in Mexico to protect innovation, creation, commerce and trade. The laws that are used to enforce intellectual property (IP) rights and anti-counterfeiting in Mexico are the Federal Law for Industrial Property Protection, the Federal Copyright Law, the Federal Criminal Code, the Federal Civil Code, the Federal Law of Administrative Procedure, the Federal Law of Contentious Administrative Procedure, Customs Law, the Federal Civil Procedure Law and the National Code of Criminal Proceedings, as well as a number of regulations.

In 2020, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement was implemented in Mexico. The Agreement features an important IP chapter which includes a series of international duties related to IP rights protection among the parties. The Agreement’s implementation included the new Federal Law for Industrial Property Protection and relevant amendments to the Federal Copyright Law and the Federal Criminal Code.

Although not so recent, in June 2016 the Mexican criminal system changed from an inquisitorial to an accusatory system. However, we still see processes managed through the old rules. The applicable rules to the proceedings are the ones in force at the time that the process was initiated. This means that if the complaint was filed when the old system was in force, it will continue under these rules but if the complaint was filed once the National Criminal Proceeding Code came into force, this will be the applicable law no matter whether the alleged offense took place when the old rules were still in force.

Finally, regulatory disposition applied to labelling also impacted IP in 2021.

New regulations for the Federal Law of Industrial Property Protection must be issued by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property for a proper implementation of the new law.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Netherlands

Spiegeler International Attorneys-at-Law & Mediators — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

In the Netherlands, IP rights are protected by a combination of national law, Benelux-level law, and EU law. Dutch law consists of the following relevant regulations:

Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BVIE). Governs trademarks and designs for the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg). Rights are obtained via registration at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP/BBIE).
Dutch Patent Act (Rijksoctrooiwet). Protects inventions. Patents must be applied for and grant exclusive rights to prevent others from making or selling the invention.
Copyright Act (Auteurswet). Protects literary, artistic, and scientific works automatically upon creation.
Trade Secrets Protection Act (Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen). Implements EU Directive on trade secrets, protecting undisclosed business information.
Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. Customs enforces intellectual property rights at the EU’s external borders in accordance with European legislation. They intercept suspected counterfeit goods (infringements of trademarks, designs, and copyrights).
Civil and criminal enforcement in Dutch law. IP rights are primarily enforced via civil law procedures, including injunctions and damages, but criminal law applies in serious cases (large-scale counterfeiting, threats to public health, organised crime).

The Dutch Copyright Act has recently been amended, primarily through the Act Strengthening the Position of Authors and Performers regarding contracts (Wet versterking auteurscontractenrecht), which entered into force on 1 January 2026. This reform significantly strengthens the contractual and enforcement position of authors and performers.

In November 2024, the Council of the EU approved the adoption of the Design Legislative Reform package. The final texts were published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 November 2024. The EU Regulation 2024/2822 and Directive 2024/2823 will enter into force on the 20th day following publication. The relevant texts are: 

Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2246/2002.
Directive (EU) 2024/2823 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the legal protection of designs (recast).

Following their entry into force, the amendments to the Regulation will apply in two phases. The first phase, applicable from 1 May 2025, will primarily involve terminology updates (such as the Community design now being called the European Union design). Most of the substantive amendments will come in the second phase, applicable from 1 July 2026. The Directive gives EU Member States 36 months from the entry into force (until 9 December 2027 at the latest, see Article 36 of the Directive) to transpose these amendments into their national legislation.

The Dutch government wants to radically reform the Dutch patent system. Whereas entrepreneurs can currently obtain a patent without any substantive assessment, this will be replaced by a mandatory assessment process. All applications will soon be checked for novelty and inventiveness. The government hopes this will reduce legal uncertainty and strengthen the climate for innovation.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Pakistan

United Trademark & Patent Services — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

The Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, is the most recent statute to assist in enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights. It was enacted primarily to create a central umbrella organization called the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO). Upon its establishment, IPO Pakistan took over the administrative control of various existing Intellectual Property departments, including the Trade Marks Registry, the Patents and Designs Department, and the Copyright Office. Previously, these departments were functioning under separate government ministries which hampered the implementation of a coherent intellectual property policy across all departments.

Under SRO 170(I) of 2017, an exercise of the Customs Act of 1969, an amendment was made to the Customs Rules, 2001. A new Chapter entitled “CHAPTER XXVIII” ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS was added, which allows the Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) (ENFORCEMENT) to act on the application of a rights holder when they suspect a customs shipment of carrying infringing goods. The rights holder must submit a bank guarantee along with their application.

The relevant legislation in Pakistan relating to protection and enforcement of various IP rights is as follows:

Trademark

The Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 (as amended by Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2023).
Trade Marks Rules, 2004.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Criminal).
Customs Act, 1969.
Drugs Act, 1976 (for drugs/pharmaceuticals only).
The Competition Act of 2010.

Copyright

The Copyright Ordinance, 1962 as amended by Copyright Ordinance, 2000 is the main statute on copyrights.
Copyright Rules, 1967.
The International Copyright Order, 1968.
Customs Act, 1969.

Patents and Designs

The Patents Ordinance, 2000 and Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000 deal with patents and designs respectively.
Patents and Designs Rules, 1933.
Registered Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits Ordinance, 2000.
The Customs Act, 1969.

Geographical indications

Geographical Indications (Registration and Protection) Act, 2020.
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2020.

Recently, there have been amendments in trade mark law through promulgation of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2023. The new law integrates international registration of trade marks under the Madrid Protocol, enabling a trademark applicant to designate Pakistan among other countries under a single application.

There have been several recent developments in Pakistan’s IP legal framework, notably between 2020–2025. These changes focus on modernization, international alignment and improved enforcement.

Pakistan is expected to make further improvements to its Intellectual Property framework by modernizing outdated laws, in particular to address digital content and online infringement while also promulgating rules for the implementation of the Madrid Protocol.

We believe that future changes are likely to focus on stronger enforcement mechanisms and clearer rules for emerging areas like e-commerce and new technologies.

Overall, the direction is more towards effective protection, stricter penalties and close alignment with international standards, although many of these changes are still in progress.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: United Kingdom

Freeths — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

The United Kingdom’s legislative framework is well equipped to address counterfeits. However, public resources can be stretched. Therefore, much responsibility rests with rights holders to act for themselves. In February 2022, the UK Government set out its ambitious five-year plan to tackle intellectual property (IP) crime, with a focus on enhancing coordination, strengthening intelligence-led enforcement, and improving engagement between government, enforcement bodies and industry. Since then, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has assumed a more central and active role in delivery, developing its intelligence and coordination functions, supporting cross-agency operations with Trading Standards, police and Border Force, as well as working closely with specialist units such as the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. While the substantive legal framework remains relatively unchanged, the practical landscape for enforcement in the UK continues to evolve in a more coordinated direction, although some commentators might question how effective this is.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: United States

Epstein Drangel — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

The US has a wide range of federal and state laws and regulations available to intellectual property (IP) owners. The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., was enacted in 1946, and today defines US federal trademark protection and registration rules, among other things. Unlike patents and copyrights, which are governed exclusively by federal law (although invoked by IP rights holders less frequently), individual states have also passed their own laws and regulations pertaining to trademark protection and registration. The Lanham Act provides IP owners with a wide array of enforcement claims to pursue, namely:

trademark infringement;
counterfeiting;
federal unfair competition (including false advertising and false association);
dilution; and
cybersquatting

While there have been considerable changes to the Lanham Act aimed at bolstering trademark owners’ rights and enforcement mechanisms, the most recent changes came with the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA), which went into effect on December 18, 2021. The TMA gave US federal trademark applicants and registrants new tools to clear the federal register of unused trademarks, reduce the number of fraudulent trademark registrations, and notably for this treatise, codified the evidentiary burden for injunctive relief in trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims to allow for a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a showing of infringement or likelihood of success on the merits.

US Congress has continued to grapple with introducing legislation to protect consumers from harmful products, particularly those sold online. For example, on June 27, 2023, the INFORM Act went into effect, which requires online marketplaces to collect identifying information like government IDs and tax IDs from “high-volume” third parties that sell on their platforms, defined as those who make more than 200 sales amounting to USD 5,000 or more in a year.

More recently, in 2024, US Congress reintroduced a bill containing a version of the SHOP SAFE Act (SSA), which would amend the Lanham Act to expressly establish contributory trademark infringement liability for e-commerce platforms for sales of counterfeit products that pose a risk to consumer health and safety unless the platforms implement certain best practices, such as:

verifying (through government ID or other reliable documentation) the identity, principal place of business and contact information of the third-party sellers on the platforms;
conspicuously displaying the verified place of business, contact information, and identity of third-party sellers, as well as the country of origin and manufacture of the goods, and the location from which the goods will be shipped;
terminating accounts of third-party sellers who have offered or advertised counterfeit goods on more than three occasions;
requiring sellers to contractually agree not to sell or promote counterfeit goods; and
requiring sellers to contractually consent to the jurisdiction of United States courts with respect to claims related to the sellers’ participation on the platform.

These further amendments to the Lanham Act, if enacted, will potentially make platforms contributorily liable and increase obligations to vet their sellers more substantially, which hopefully will curtail online counterfeiting to some degree. Moreover, requiring foreign sellers from countries that are known for substantial counterfeiting activities, such as China, to submit to the jurisdiction of US courts could deter them from engaging in unlawful conduct, give trademark owners better recourse and provide a more efficient means of service of process (potentially email, messaging and publication) rather than the lengthy and costly requirements of the Hague Convention.

While the INFORM Act and SSA have similar requirements, the purpose is slightly different, with the INFORM Act focused on promoting product safety for consumers and the SSA focused on thwarting the distribution of counterfeits on the platforms. Neither Act creates criminal penalties: instead, both impose civil ones.

Anti-counterfeiting Law Guide: Uruguay

Cervieri Monsuárez — 2026-09-18UTC03:00+00:00

Uruguay has a solid legal framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. At the constitutional level, the protection of intellectual work is expressly recognized, guaranteeing the rights of authors, inventors, and creators.

In the field of trademarks, Law No. 17,011 (“Trademark Law”) grants the owner of a registered trademark the exclusive right to use it and the authority to prevent third parties from using identical or confusingly similar signs without authorization. This regime allows for enforcement through both civil and criminal actions in cases of infringement.

In particular, Articles 81 to 83 define criminal offenses related to the counterfeiting and commercialization of infringing products, establishing penalties for those involved in the importation, distribution, or sale of counterfeit goods.

In the customs sphere, Uruguay provides specific border control mechanisms that are essential in the fight against piracy. The National Customs Directorate may act ex officio or at the request of the trademark owner, within the framework of risk analysis, by detaining goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, whether in importation or in transit. In such cases, the rights holder is given the opportunity to confirm the potential infringement and initiate the corresponding actions, including the filing of criminal complaints to ensure the definitive seizure of the goods and their subsequent destruction.

Within the framework of Article 84 of Law No. 17,011, as amended by Law No. 19,355, key tools have been consolidated for confirming infringement and determining the final disposition of counterfeit goods. In particular, the Public Prosecutor’s Office recognizes the validity of technical reports prepared by trademark owners themselves as evidence to establish the falsity of products. At the same time, judges are empowered to order the destruction or donation of such goods once their infringing nature has been verified, without the need to wait for a final judgment.

In practice, although the Documentology and Intellectual Property Laboratory of the National Directorate of Forensic Police remains the official body responsible for conducting expert examinations, authorities have adopted a flexible approach, increasingly accepting private technical reports, generally supported by comparative analyses and certified documentation. When such reports are issued abroad, they must comply with apostille formalities to be valid in Uruguay.

Based on this regulatory and practical framework, a more efficient and sustainable approach to managing seized goods has recently been developed. In particular, the implementation of sustainable destruction processes has been consolidated through initiatives such as “Entre Manos” and “Score Green,” which enable not only the definitive destruction of counterfeit products but also their environmentally responsible treatment through recycling and waste recovery schemes. This model represents a significant evolution compared to traditional destruction methods, aligning intellectual property enforcement actions with international sustainability standards.

Finally, although there are currently no major legislative reforms underway, there is a clear trend toward strengthening control and enforcement mechanisms, particularly in relation to e-commerce, small shipments, and new methods of counterfeiting and distribution. In this context, there has been an increase in the commercialization of so-called “dupes,” which, while not necessarily reproducing identical signs, seek to create an association with well-known brands by imitating distinctive elements of their trade dress, such as packaging, colors, shapes, designs, or the overall appearance of the product.

These practices may fall under trademark infringement, unfair competition, or the undue exploitation of another party’s reputation, even in the absence of literal reproduction of the trademark. In response to this phenomenon, the scope of available legal actions has, in practice, been expanded, extending intellectual property protection strategies beyond traditional counterfeiting cases to also cover these new forms of infringement.

IBA Daily News, Thursday 6 November 2025

2025-11-06UTC11:10+00:00

Global institutions push back on Trump’s rule of law assault

IBA Daily News, Wednesday 5 November 2025

2025-11-05UTC10:45+00:00

Trump presents ‘intolerable risk’ to US democracy

IBA Daily News, Tuesday 4 November 2025

2025-11-04UTC10:13+00:00

AI takes over from talent attraction as profession’s top priority

IBA Daily News, Monday 3 November 2025

2025-11-03UTC09:25+00:00

IBA Toronto 2025 opens with fervent defence of the rule of law.

IBA Daily News, Thursday 19 September 2024

2024-09-19UTC04:18+00:00

‘The legal profession needs to embrace AI’