PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: Bárbara Marinho e Pinto, Ana Reis Mota, Lua Mota Santos and Jéssica Dinis Bento, Rogério Alves & Associados
criminal investigations and prosecutions before the criminal courts based on the criminal offence of “violation of restrictive measures” set out in Law No 97/2017. 2.2.2 Breaching Sanctions Under the republished Law No 97/2017, as amended by Law No 72/2025, a deliberate breach of UN or EU restrictive measures – for example by making funds or economic resources available to a designated person, failing to freeze assets, violating travel bans or enter - ing into prohibited legal relationships – constitutes the criminal offence of “violation of restrictive measures”. For individuals, this offence is punishable by imprison - ment from one to five years, rising to five to eight years where military or dual‑use items are involved, while negligent breaches are punishable with imprisonment from six months to two years and six months. Legal persons can be held criminally liable under the general corporate liability regime and face turn - over‑based fines of up to 1% or, for more serious conduct, up to 5% of worldwide turnover, or up to EUR8 million/EUR40 million, where turnover cannot be established, with these maxima halved in cases of negligence. The law also provides for aggravation where offences are committed by public officials or in the context of criminal organisations, as well as special mitigation where the offender co‑operates in establishing the truth, and it classifies violations of restrictive meas - ures as predicate offences for money laundering and as serious crimes for the purposes of enhanced inves - Sanctions‑related conduct by financial and certain non‑financial intermediaries is primarily enforced through the administrative sanctioning powers of sec - toral supervisors under the AML/CTF regime, which requires “obliged entities” to implement screening, monitoring and internal controls to give effect to asset‑freezing and other restrictive measures. tigative and confiscation tools. 2.2.3 Civil Enforcement Action Breaches of these organisational duties – including failures connected to the implementation of sanc -
tions – may give rise to administrative offences and fines, corrective measures and other supervisory interventions. However, publicly available information on enforcement specifically framed as administra - tive penalties for breaches of restrictive measures (as opposed to broader AML or sectoral compliance fail - ures) remains limited, and supervisory practice tends to be reflected in non‑public decisions and remedial programmes rather than in reported case law. 2.2.4 Criminal Enforcement Action In recent years, criminal enforcement has focused on financial flows linked to EU sanctions regimes, particularly those targeting Russia and Iran. In a 24 May 2023 decision, the Lisbon Court of Appeal con - firmed that facilitating deposits above EUR100,000 for certain Russian nationals without residence permits may amount to the crime of “violation of restrictive measures” under Law No 97/2017 when read together with Article 5‑B of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 and stressed that the EU regulation creates direct obliga - tions for private parties without the need for additional national implementing acts. These appellate decisions illustrate a growing willing - ness by the criminal courts to rely on Article 28 Law 97/2017 alongside EU regulations to pursue sanc - tions-related misconduct, often in tandem with money laundering and related financial offences. 2.2.5 Mitigation Portuguese law allows for both general and specif - ic mechanisms to attenuate penalties for sanctions breaches. Article 29‑B of Law No 97/2017 provides for special mitigation of the penalty where the offender actively co-operates in establishing the truth before the close of the first instance trial, by reference to the general rules on mitigation in the Penal Code. Courts also have considerable discretion within the wide ranges of imprisonment and turnover-based fines laid down in Articles 28 and 29 to calibrate sanctions according to the gravity of the conduct, the degree of fault and the preventive needs of the case. In practice, early internal detection and remediation, voluntary disclosure to competent authorities, robust sanctions and AML compliance frameworks and full
230 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook