EU restrictive measures: Entry into force in Belgium of the criminalisation of EU restrictive measures violations

The Belgian legislation has entered into force on 1 September 2026 and is the transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/1226 on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of EU restrictive measures (“Directive (EU) 2024/1226”) adopted by the EU in 2024.

Belgium’s transposition legislation is particularly relevant for businesses with a Belgian nexus. Notably, holding funds in Belgium on behalf of or to the benefit of a designated person or entity may be sufficient to establish such a nexus, as the Belgian legislation specifically covers funds that a designated person owns, holds or controls in Belgium. 

The conducts violating EU restrictive measures include: 

• making funds or economic resources available to designated persons;

• failing to freeze assets;

• enabling prohibited transactions;

• breaching sectoral restrictions; and

• circumventing restrictive measures notably by concealing frozen assets,  providing false or misleading information on their beneficial ownership or failing by a designated person to comply with reporting obligations.

Violation or circumvention of restrictive measures may give rise to the following penalties:

• administrative sanctions: administrative fines ranging from EUR 10,000 to EUR 25,000,000 for legal entities and from EUR 250 to EUR 5,000,000 for individuals, depending in particular on the duration or severity of the circumventions or violations, the offender’s financial capacity, the benefits derived, the harm suffered by third parties, or the degree of cooperation with the authorities. The rules explicitly extend to members of a legal entity’s governing bodies; or

• criminal penalties, including:

  • a prison sentence of 3 to 5 years, or a treatment under deprivation of liberty of 2 to 4 years for individuals;

  • a fine ranging from EUR 15,000 to EUR 150,000,000 for legal entities, depending on the nature and severity of the offence and the individual and financial circumstances of the legal entity concerned;

  • the forfeiture of property used or intended to be used to commit offences, even where the property does not belong to the convicted person.

The administrative and criminal regimes are mutually exclusive. Competent officers are empowered to investigate and record any circumvention of, or infringement upon restrictive measures. Where the competent authority identifies a conduct that may give rise to criminal penalties, it must notify the public prosecutor who retains discretion on possible prosecution. Where the public prosecutor decides not to pursue criminal charges, administrative proceedings are automatically triggered. Moreover, public authorities that identify an infringement or circumvention must inform the competent authority.

The scope of administrative sanctions is broader than that of criminal penalties: criminal offences are defined in a closed list, whereas administrative sanctions cover any infringement of restrictive measures or of other obligations imposed under those measures.

The law also provides for the possibility of entering into a plea bargain (transaction pénale), under which a person can settle certain criminal proceedings by paying a sum of money and complying with agreed conditions, avoiding a full criminal trial.

Liability of directors and legal persons

Under the Belgian transposition legislation, administrative sanctions explicitly target members of legal entity’s governing bodies, thereby establishing a direct and personal administrative liability of directors that is distinct from the liability of the legal entity itself. While the criminal provisions do not single out directors as a separate category, they remain liable as natural persons (individuals) in their capacity as perpetrators or accomplice of infringements or circumvention committed by the legal entity.

Late Directive Transposition in Belgium

Belgium's legislation was adopted 14 months after the deadline of 20 May 2025 defined in the Directive, which had urged the Commission to initiate in March 2026 a formal proceeding against Belgium– together with Bulgaria and Slovenia also late – for its failure to transpose Directive 2024/1226.

Austria, France, and Spain received similar reasoned opinions in June 2026 and remain, to our knowledge, in the process of finalising their own transposition.

The EU Commission’s proceeding against failing states confirms that the EU institutions are treating the criminalisation of restrictive measures violations as an enforcement priority.

This Directive forms part of the EU’s expanding restrictive measures regime and aims to facilitate investigation and prosecution, close enforcement gaps between Member States, and ensure effective, proportionate, and dissuasive criminal penalties across the EU.

Recommendations

Businesses operating in the EU and engaging in transactions with a Belgian nexus should review whether existing restrictive measures controls are sufficient in light of the Directive and Belgian legislation’s criminalisation requirements and the Commission’s active infringement enforcement.

Sources: Directive - EU - 2024/1226 - FR - EUR-Lex; Banque de données Justel; Commission takes action to ensure complete and timely transposition of EU directives; March infringements package: key decisions; June infringements package: key decisions.

For more information, please contact Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be.