CZECH REPUBLIC Law and Practice Contributed by: Jan Kohout and Illia Antonov, PRK Partners
offences. In some cases of export restriction, the Customs Administration is largely involved. The Pub - lic Prosecutor’s Office is responsible for prosecution, whilst the final determination of guilt and sentencing is reserved exclusively for the Czech criminal courts. 2.2.2 Breaching Sanctions Under the Czech Criminal Code, breaching inter - national sanctions is a criminal offence both when committed intentionally or with gross negligence. The severity of the penalty depends on the scale, the nature of the sanctioned items, and the consequences of the conduct. Individuals Potential penalties include imprisonment for up to eight years for the most severe aggravated offences or disqualification (prohibition of professional activities). In parallel, the court can seize all assets or gains gen - erated by the offender in connection with the breach. Legal Entities Companies can also be held criminally liable if the offence was committed in their interest or within the scope of their activities by management or employ - ees. If found guilty, a court may impose one or more of the following corporate penalties: • Dissolution of the legal entity; • Forfeiture of property; • Pecuniary Penalty reaching a maximum of CZK1.46 billion; • Forfeiture of assets or goods used in or acquired through the breach; • Prohibition on specific business activities for one to twenty years; • Prohibition of participation in public procurement for one to twenty years; • Prohibition of receiving grants and subsidies; and • Publication of the judgment in the media at the entity’s expense. 2.2.3 Civil Enforcement Action Although the respective state bodies have the duty to publish decisions on administrative offences of sanc - tions breach on their websites, there are no particular
decisions published by the FAU so far. Though the FAU includes a chapter on international and national sanctions regulation in its annual reports, no spe - cific figures or proceedings are mentioned; rather, the chapter describes a general approach, trends and goals. It should be noted that, in recent years, the FAU’s focus has been primarily on mapping and freezing assets subject to sanctions, rather than on enforcement action under personal or sectoral sanc - tions regimes. Administrative proceedings are not public before the decision is final and binding. There are several pend - ing administrative proceedings related to breaches of sanctions, but their outcome cannot be predicted and is subject to appeal and possible court review. Scope of administrative authorities’ competence There is a landmark decision of the Supreme Admin - istrative Court of the Czech Republic published in October 2025 on frozen assets in connection with the sanctioned ultimate beneficial owner stating that: • the administrative authority is not empowered to review the reasons for the listing (or continued list - ing) of persons subject to sanctions; and • when assessing whether specific assets indeed belong to a sanctioned person, the administrative authority takes into account the circumstances of the sanctions imposed as well as the broader con - text of known practices used to circumvent them. Indirect listed UBO as a reason for subsidy denial An internationally relevant court decision was adopted by the Municipal Court in Prague in September 2024 interpreting the indirect control of a listed person in a case related to receiving state subsidies. The court confirmed an administrative decision on denial of sub - sidies to a company of Strabag Group in the specific case, referencing to a share indirectly owned by Mr Deripaska, regardless of the amount of his indirect share and mitigation measures taken by Strabag Group in this regard. 2.2.4 Criminal Enforcement Action Only a limited number of court decisions relating to sanctions violations have been handed down thus far. A significant proportion of cases remain at the
87 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook