PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: Bárbara Marinho e Pinto, João Diogo Melo, Lua Mota Santos and Amanda Bueno Almeida, Rogério Alves & Associados
of a crime – or that constitute its proceeds, price or reward – may be seized, including assets held by third parties, subject to judicial validation where the police have acted on grounds of urgency. In parallel, supervisory authorities such as the Bank of Portugal and the Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM) are vested, within their sanc - tioning proceedings, with broad powers of inspection, information gathering, and the seizure or freezing of assets and documents related to infringements in the financial sector. Within the scope of investigative powers granted by the Public Prosecution Service, criminal police author - ities are empowered to question suspects and wit - nesses. However, where a suspect has been detained, he or she must be brought before a judge for an initial judicial interrogation, during which statements are giv - en in the presence of a judge, with the participation of both defence counsel and the Prosecutor. 2.4 Use of Technology and Data Portuguese enforcement and supervisory authorities increasingly rely on data driven tools in financial crime matters. In the AML/CTF space, obliged entities are required to deploy IT systems capable of risk scor - ing clients, monitoring transactions and automatically flagging unusual or suspicious activity, which in turn feeds into the Judiciary Police’s FIU and prosecuto - rial work. The National AML Strategy explicitly calls for supervi - sors and the FIU to use risk analysis models, regulato - ry technology (regtech) tools and the goAML platform to enhance detection and investigation. In the virtual assets space, the Bank of Portugal expects obliged entities to rely on information recorded in distributed ledger networks as part of their risk assessments. More broadly, criminal enforcement relies on large, centralised datasets – such as passenger name records and bank account registers – which are accessed and searched electronically under specific statutes and the dedicated law on law enforcement data protection.
The use of these technologies is constrained by a lay - ered framework of data protection and fundamental rights rules. For financial regulators and private enti - ties, the General Data Protection Regulation ( Regula- mento Geral sobre a Proteção de Dados – RGPD) and Law 58/2019 apply; for law enforcement authorities, EU Directive No 2016/680 is implemented by Law 59/2019, which, among other things, prohibits deci - sions based solely on automated processing (includ - ing profiling) that adversely affect individuals, absent a specific legal basis and human review. 2.5 Internal Investigations and Co-Operation Internal investigations now play a central role in the prevention and enforcement of financial crime in Portugal, particularly within the AML framework and whistle-blowing mechanisms. In practice, they consist of structured fact-finding processes aimed at analys - ing suspicious transactions, deciding on disclosures to authorities and identifying control failures, and are often conducted under the direction of legal counsel for defence and strategic purposes. However, such investigations are significantly con - strained by legal privilege, data protection and employment law. Legal professional secrecy may cover a substantial part of the investigative activity, while data protection and labour legislation impose strict limits on the collection and use of data, particu - larly through surveillance mechanisms. It is therefore essential to structure investigations on clear legal grounds, ensuring respect for employees’ privacy and maintaining a clear separation between privileged and potentially disclosable material. Finally, co-operation with authorities may have a meaningful impact on both criminal and regulatory lia - bility. In certain cases, active co-operation, remedia - tion and voluntary disclosure may lead to mitigation or even exemption from penalties, or to more corrective rather than punitive regulatory responses. Neverthe - less, such benefits are not automatic and depend on the transparency, timeliness and effectiveness of the measures adopted following the internal investigation.
138 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook