Antitrust & White‑collar Enforcement in Greece 2026: a Practical Guide for Boards, Directors and Compliance Officers

White-collar crime in Greece has entered a new enforcement era. Heightened activity by the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC), the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and the Special Secretariat for Financial and Economic Crime (SDOE) throughout 2025 and into 2026 has made criminal exposure a boardroom‑level concern for companies operating in the Greek market. This guide delivers the practical checklists, decision frameworks and compliance blueprints that boards, directors and in‑house counsel need to reduce risk and respond effectively when an investigation arrives.

Executive Summary: 6‑Point Checklist for Boards

Before reading the full guide, every board member and compliance officer should internalise the following immediate actions. These six steps form the minimum viable response when a company faces, or suspects it may face, a white‑collar or antitrust criminal investigation in Greece.

1. Investigate internally. Commission a scoping review within 24 hours to determine the nature, scope and severity of the potential exposure.
2. Preserve all evidence. Issue an immediate litigation‑hold notice covering electronic documents, communications, financial records and physical files.
3. Instruct specialist counsel. Engage external criminal defence and competition counsel experienced in Greek proceedings, do not rely solely on general corporate advisers.
4. Freeze suspicious activity. Halt any conduct that could be construed as ongoing participation in a cartel, corrupt payment or fraudulent scheme.
5. Notify internal stakeholders. Alert the compliance committee, board chair, D&O insurer and, where applicable, parent‑company legal.
6. Evaluate cooperation. Assess whether leniency, self‑reporting or voluntary disclosure is strategically advantageous before authorities force the issue.

Why 2026 Matters: Enforcement Trends and Who Is Watching

Greece’s enforcement landscape has shifted materially over the past two years. Several concurrent developments have accelerated white‑collar crime investigations and antitrust criminal prosecutions across the country, making corporate compliance Greece’s most urgent governance priority.

The Hellenic Competition Commission has intensified its cartel detection work, deploying digital forensic tools and deepening its cooperation with the European Commission’s Directorate‑General for Competition. EPPO, which began operations in 2021, has steadily expanded its Greek caseload, focusing on EU‑funds fraud, public procurement manipulation and cross‑border VAT schemes. Meanwhile, the Hellenic FIU has processed a rising volume of suspicious‑transaction reports, and SDOE has executed high‑profile raids targeting financial crime in Greece across sectors ranging from energy trading to construction.

The enforcement trajectory can be summarised as follows:

Industry observers expect this momentum to continue. Companies that have not updated their compliance frameworks since 2023 face a meaningful gap between their internal controls and the standard regulators now demand.

Antitrust Enforcement in Greece: Civil vs Criminal, Are Cartel Offences Criminal?

A question that boards frequently ask is whether antitrust and cartel offences carry criminal consequences in Greece. The answer is yes, and understanding the dual‑track enforcement architecture is essential for any company with market exposure in the country.

Legal Basis for Antitrust Criminalisation

Greek competition law is anchored in Law 3959/2011, which grants the HCC broad administrative enforcement powers including the ability to impose fines of up to ten per cent of a company’s total annual turnover. Administrative proceedings before the HCC run in parallel with, and independently of, the criminal justice system. The Greek Penal Code contains specific provisions criminalising conduct that restricts competition, particularly agreements to fix prices, allocate markets or rig bids. These criminal provisions mean that individuals involved in cartel conduct can face prosecution by the public prosecutor’s office, entirely separate from the HCC’s administrative case.

The practical consequence is dual exposure: a company may face a multimillion‑euro HCC fine and its directors or managers may simultaneously face criminal charges, imprisonment and personal fines. The two proceedings use different evidentiary standards and procedural rules, which complicates defence strategy considerably.

Typical Offences and Procedural Route

The most common antitrust criminal conduct in Greece includes horizontal price‑fixing, market allocation among competitors, bid‑rigging in public procurement and coordinated output restrictions. When the HCC identifies potential criminal conduct during an investigation, it may refer the matter to the public prosecutor. Alternatively, criminal investigations can be initiated independently, for example, following a complaint, whistleblower report or referral from another authority such as SDOE.

Cartel Leniency and Cooperation in Greece: A Practical Decision Guide

For companies that discover internal cartel participation, the leniency framework administered by the Hellenic Competition Commission offers a critical, but time‑sensitive, path to reduced sanctions. Understanding cartel leniency in Greece is essential before making any disclosure decision.

How Leniency Works in Greece

The HCC operates a leniency programme modelled on the European Commission framework. The first undertaking to approach the HCC with evidence of a cartel in which it participated can receive full immunity from administrative fines. Subsequent applicants may receive reductions of up to fifty per cent, depending on the timing and value of the evidence provided. The programme is governed by the HCC’s published leniency guidelines and requires applicants to provide continuous, complete and genuine cooperation throughout the investigation.

Critically, HCC leniency addresses only administrative fines. It does not automatically shield individuals from criminal prosecution. This means a company that secures full administrative immunity may still see its directors prosecuted under the Penal Code. Coordinating the leniency application with criminal defence strategy is therefore non‑negotiable.

Evidence Preservation and Legal Privilege Limits

Greek law provides limited attorney‑client privilege compared to common‑law jurisdictions. In‑house counsel communications may not enjoy the same protection as external legal advice in all circumstances. Before collecting, reviewing or producing documents internally, companies should obtain clear guidance from external criminal counsel on what is privileged, what is not, and what risks arise from voluntary disclosure of borderline materials.

An immediate litigation hold must cover all physical and electronic records. Instruct IT to suspend automatic deletion schedules, preserve server backups and restrict access to relevant custodians’ email accounts and devices.

Decision Framework: Self‑Reporting, Cooperation and Legal Risks

The decision to self‑report or seek leniency involves balancing several factors. The following framework provides a structured approach:

Bribery, Financial Crime and Anti‑Corruption Investigations in Greece

Beyond antitrust, white-collar crime in Greece encompasses a broad range of bribery offences, financial crime and corruption‑related conduct that can expose companies and individuals to severe criminal penalties.

Bribery Offences: Criminal Elements and Investigation Triggers

Greek criminal law prohibits both active bribery (offering or providing an undue advantage to a public official) and passive bribery (a public official soliciting or accepting such advantage). The Penal Code distinguishes between bribery of domestic officials and bribery involving foreign or international officials, with penalties including imprisonment. Key triggers for anti-corruption investigations in Greece include whistleblower complaints, suspicious‑transaction reports from financial institutions, audit findings and referrals from EU institutions.

Companies should pay particular attention to interactions with public procurement authorities, licensing bodies and entities distributing EU structural or recovery funds, all areas where enforcement has intensified in 2026.

FIU Reporting Obligations and Asset Tracing

The Hellenic Financial Intelligence Unit operates under the Anti‑Money Laundering Authority and receives suspicious‑transaction reports (STRs) from obliged entities including banks, accountants, auditors and lawyers. When an STR triggers an investigation, the FIU can freeze assets, request bank records and refer matters to the public prosecutor. Companies that are obliged entities must maintain robust internal reporting mechanisms, train staff on red‑flag indicators and file STRs without delay when thresholds are met.

Financial crime in Greece increasingly involves asset‑tracing across borders. The FIU cooperates with Egmont Group counterparts and, for EU‑budget offences, coordinates with EPPO.

Cross‑Border Issues and EPPO Involvement

EPPO’s operational competence covers crimes affecting the financial interests of the European Union, including fraud involving EU funds, cross‑border VAT fraud, money laundering of proceeds from such offences and corruption connected to EU expenditure. Greece is a participating member state, meaning EPPO’s European Delegated Prosecutors can investigate and prosecute directly within the Greek legal system. For companies receiving EU funding or participating in EU‑funded projects, EPPO oversight adds a distinct layer of criminal risk that domestic compliance programmes must address.

Compliance teams should build an investigative response checklist specifically for EPPO scenarios:

• Identify EU‑funded contracts and subcontracts. Map all company activity touching EU budget lines.
• Audit procurement documentation. Verify bid integrity, subcontractor relationships and cost declarations.
• Prepare for EPPO dawn raids. Train reception and management staff on rights and obligations during unannounced inspections.
• Coordinate with domestic counsel. Ensure criminal defence counsel understands EPPO procedural rules, which differ from standard Greek criminal procedure in certain respects.

Director and Officer Criminal Liability in Greece, What Boards Must Know

Director criminal liability in Greece is a topic that demands every board member’s attention. Unlike purely administrative sanctions that target the company, Greek criminal law holds individuals personally accountable for corporate wrongdoing in defined circumstances.

Statutory Pathways to Director Liability

Under the Greek Penal Code, directors, managing directors and other officers can be prosecuted for offences committed in the course of the company’s business where they had knowledge of, participated in or failed to prevent the unlawful conduct despite a duty to do so. Specific provisions in competition, tax, environmental and financial‑crime legislation extend criminal liability to individuals who authorised, directed or knowingly tolerated the offending conduct. The doctrine of personal criminal responsibility means that corporate structures do not shield individual decision‑makers.

Defences and Corporate Indemnity Limits

Available defences include demonstrating lack of knowledge, absence of decision‑making authority over the relevant conduct, reliance on professional advice and the existence of adequate compliance systems that the individual actively promoted and monitored. However, Greek courts have shown scepticism toward “paper‑only” compliance programmes that exist in policy documents but are not implemented in practice. Corporate indemnification of directors for criminal fines or penalties is generally not enforceable under Greek law, though D&O insurance may cover defence costs subject to policy terms.

Practical Governance Steps to Limit Exposure

• Document delegation clearly. Ensure board minutes record which directors are responsible for compliance oversight and which operational decisions are delegated to management.
• Maintain an active escalation protocol. Require management to escalate compliance concerns to the board within defined timeframes, and record the board’s response.
• Review D&O insurance annually. Confirm that coverage extends to antitrust and white‑collar investigations, including defence costs and regulatory proceedings.
• Attend compliance training personally. Director participation in training sessions creates an evidence trail of engagement and awareness.

Immediate Response Playbook for White‑Collar Crime Investigations in Greece

When a company learns it is under investigation, or reasonably suspects it may be, speed and structure determine the outcome. This response playbook provides a step‑by‑step framework calibrated to Greek procedural realities.

First 48 Hours: Evidence Preservation, Counsel and Internal Notice

1. Issue a litigation‑hold notice. Circulate a written instruction to all relevant employees, IT administrators and records managers requiring immediate preservation of all documents, emails, messaging‑app communications and financial records. Suspend automatic‑deletion policies.
2. Instruct external criminal counsel. Engage a specialist Greek criminal defence lawyer with experience in antitrust, corruption or financial‑crime proceedings as appropriate. Do not attempt to manage the response through general corporate counsel alone.
3. Notify the board compliance committee. Provide a confidential factual summary, scope of suspected conduct, authorities involved, known employees implicated. Use secure communication channels.
4. Restrict internal communications about the investigation. Instruct implicated individuals not to discuss the matter with colleagues, delete documents or contact counterparts at other companies.
5. Secure physical premises. If a dawn raid is anticipated, brief reception staff on procedures, cooperate with authorities, request credentials, note items seized and contact counsel immediately.

First 7 Days: Forensic Review, Data Collection and Interviews

1. Commission a forensic data review. Engage digital forensics experts to image and preserve electronic devices of key custodians. Maintain chain‑of‑custody documentation.
2. Map the factual chronology. Build a preliminary timeline of relevant events, transactions and communications. Identify documentary gaps.
3. Conduct preliminary interviews. Interview key witnesses under legal privilege (through external counsel) to establish facts. Do not coach or direct witness accounts.
4. Assess privilege exposure. Review all collected documents for privilege status before any disclosure to authorities. Greek privilege rules require careful handling, consult counsel on each category of document.
5. Evaluate leniency or cooperation options. If antitrust conduct is involved, assess the viability and timing of an HCC leniency application. If bribery or financial crime, evaluate voluntary disclosure to prosecutors.

30/90‑Day Remediation Plan

1. Days 1–30: Containment. Finalise the internal factual investigation. Suspend implicated employees where legally permissible. Implement interim controls to prevent recurrence. Brief the full board under privilege.
2. Days 30–60: Strategic decision. Decide on cooperation, leniency or defence strategy based on the completed factual review. File leniency applications if appropriate. Engage regulatory counsel for parallel administrative proceedings.
3. Days 60–90: Remediation. Overhaul compliance policies and controls addressing the specific failures identified. Retrain affected business units. Report remediation progress to the board and, if cooperating, to the relevant authority.

Sample board notification language: “The compliance committee has received information suggesting potential [antitrust/corruption/financial crime] exposure in [business unit/jurisdiction]. External counsel has been instructed. A litigation hold is in effect. A scoping review is underway and a full report to the board is expected within [7/14] days. Directors are reminded of confidentiality obligations.”

Building a Corporate Compliance Programme That Reduces Criminal Risk in Greece

A well‑designed and actively implemented compliance programme does more than reduce the likelihood of violations, it provides tangible evidence that directors and the company took reasonable steps to prevent offending, which is relevant both to prosecution decisions and sentencing. Corporate compliance in Greece must address antitrust, anti‑bribery and anti‑money‑laundering risks as a minimum.

Policies and Controls

• Antitrust policy. Prohibit price discussions with competitors, bid coordination, market allocation and information exchanges. Include worked examples relevant to the company’s sector.
• Anti‑bribery and gifts policy. Set monetary thresholds for gifts and hospitality, require pre‑approval for interactions with public officials and mandate due diligence on intermediaries and agents.
• AML/KYC procedures. Implement customer and counterparty due diligence, ongoing monitoring and STR‑filing protocols consistent with FIU guidance.

Monitoring, Audits and Corporate Investigations

• Annual compliance audit. Schedule internal or external audits of high‑risk business units, procurement, sales, government relations, and document findings and remedial actions.
• Whistleblower channel. Maintain an anonymous, accessible reporting mechanism. Greek whistleblower protection law requires companies to investigate reports and protect reporters from retaliation.
• KPI tracking. Monitor metrics such as number of compliance training completions, STRs filed, internal investigations opened and closed, and audit findings remediated within target timeframes.

Training and Board Reporting

Conduct annual training for all employees in risk‑exposed roles and biannual refresher sessions for the board. Training records, including attendance sheets, materials covered and test results, should be retained for a minimum of five years. The compliance officer should present a quarterly dashboard to the board covering investigation activity, policy updates, regulatory developments and remediation status.

Comparison Table: Penalties and Reporting Obligations by Entity Type

Practical Annexes and Resources

The following authoritative resources should be bookmarked by every compliance officer and general counsel responsible for operating a business in Greece:

• Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC). Official enforcement decisions, leniency guidelines and sector studies, epant.gr.
• Hellenic Financial Intelligence Unit / Anti‑Money Laundering Authority. STR filing guidance, obliged‑entity lists and compliance circulars, fiu.aml-authority.gov.gr.
• Government Gazette (Εφημερίδα της Κυβερνήσεως). Full text of all enacted legislation, including Penal Code amendments and competition law statutes, et.gr.
• Ministry of Justice (Hellenic Republic). Information on criminal courts, prosecution policy and EPPO liaison arrangements, ministryofjustice.gr.
• European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Annual reports, case statistics and guidance on EPPO procedures for participating member states, eppo.europa.eu.
• OECD Anti‑Corruption and Public Integrity resources. Country reviews, recommendations and peer‑evaluation reports for Greece, oecd.org.
• Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE) / SDOE. Financial and economic crime enforcement updates and taxpayer compliance guidance, aade.gr.

Companies facing white-collar crime exposure in Greece should also ensure they have reviewed the latest corporate and property law changes in Greece and understand how regulatory developments affect their operations. Where employees or directors require background verification, the police clearance process in Greece provides relevant procedural guidance.

The enforcement trends of 2026 send a clear message: white-collar crime in Greece is being pursued with greater resources, sharper tools and stronger cross‑border coordination than at any point in the country’s modern legal history. Boards that invest now in robust compliance programmes, maintain crisis‑ready response playbooks and engage experienced counsel proactively will be significantly better positioned than those forced to react after an investigation has already begun.

Sources

1. Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC / Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού)
2. Hellenic Financial Intelligence Unit / Anti‑Money Laundering Authority
3. National Printing Office, Government Gazette (Εφημερίδα της Κυβερνήσεως)
4. Ministry of Justice (Hellenic Republic)
5. European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)
6. OECD, Anti‑Corruption and Public Integrity
7. Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE) / SDOE