1. Introduction
Belgian criminal enforcement increasingly targets the proceeds of crime. As reported in L’Echo on 20 May 2026, funds seized and transferred to the Central Office for Seizure and Confiscation reached EUR 148.3 million in 2025, a 34% increase compared to 2024. The Brussels prosecutor’s office aims to seize EUR 1 billion by 2030.
This shift also echoes international criticism. In its December 2025 mutual evaluation of Belgium, the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) found that persistent resource shortages hamper money laundering prosecutions, that cases are prioritized based on profitability rather than complexity, and that confiscation results do not match Belgium’s risk profile. In March 2025, the OECD Working Group on Bribery noted that only three foreign bribery cases have come to an end since 2013, with no company sanctioned.
The bill establishing a financial prosecutor’s office as a financial crime section within the Federal Prosecutor’s Office (the “Bill”), is part of this agenda. Introduced at the Parliament on 11 May 2026 by members of the federal majority, its explanatory memorandum notes that Belgian justice concentrates on arresting offenders and dismantling networks rather than on detecting, rapidly freezing, and confiscating criminal proceeds. The Bill prioritizes the latter.
With the financial dimension of crime now high on the agenda, companies, and financial institutions in particular, can expect closer scrutiny, more information requests and more frequent seizures. This article reviews what the Bill would change and the concerns it has raised.
2. What the Bill Would Change
The Bill would create a financial section (the “Financial Section”) within the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. It would be staffed by ten federal magistrates exclusively dedicated to serious financial, economic and tax offenses, organized social fraud and public and private bribery. Ten prosecutors and ten tax officials would support this section. Local prosecutors would have to inform the Financial Section, of these cases. The Federal Prosecutor, on its proposal, would decide whether to take over a case, with no right to appeal.
Specialization would extend to the courts: one specialized investigating judge per court of appeal area (two in Brussels and Liège), to whom the Federal Prosecutor must refer these cases, and financial chambers at first instance and on appeal, with four additional judges in Antwerp and Brussels.
The Bill does not, however, amend the rules on seizure and confiscation. Its contribution to the stated objective would be organizational: dedicated staff that cannot be redeployed, tax and legal expertise, and early information on relevant cases.
3. Concerns Raised by the Advisory Bodies
Although the Bill is still at an early stage in Parliament, the High Council of Justice and the Legislation Section of the Council of State have already reviewed it. Their opinions identify weaknesses in the proposal and suggest where revisions may be needed.
In its opinion of 29 June 2026, the High Council of Justice welcomes the focus on confiscation but describes a “prosecutor’s office within the prosecutor’s office”, a broad and vague remit and staffing figures not based on any needs analysis. Its main objection concerns the rest of the criminal justice system: no additional capacity of the pre-trial courts, including the Brussels indictment chamber, which hears requests to lift seizures in federal preliminary investigations, few new trial judges, and a risk of diverting scarce specialized investigators.
In its opinion 79.421/16 of 15 July 2026, the Council of State criticizes the description of the Financial Section as “independent”: its head, a financial deputy federal prosecutor, would receive the same delegated authority as any other section head and would remain subordinate to the Federal Prosecutor. The Council of State identifies overlaps with existing federal competences and with the tax and European Public Prosecutor investigating judges. It also warns that the Federal Prosecutor could, in some districts, have no investigating judge to refer a case to. Finally, it questions the inclusion of every bribery case, however minor, and recommends that the Bill be re-examined.
In our view, this bears directly on the Bill’s objective. Seized assets pass to the State only when the trial court orders confiscation, often years later. In the meantime, challenges to seizures in federal preliminary investigations must be brought before a Brussels indictment chamber, yet the Bill does not provide additional capacity for this chamber. More seizures without more judges would delay judicial review of those seizures, even further than is already the case today, which raises due process concerns. The evaluation clause, based in particular on convictions and the amounts seized and confiscated, should be read accordingly: as the Council of State observes regarding convictions, acquitting the innocent serves the public interest just as much as convicting the guilty.
4. Conclusion
At the time of writing, the Bill has not been adopted and remains under examination at the Parliament, where amendments have been tabled. It confirms a clear shift in enforcement priorities towards criminal proceeds, already visible in practice. Whether the proposed framework will effectively serve this purpose will depend on how the concerns raised by the advisory opinions are addressed and on how the resources are allocated to the whole criminal justice system.
To discuss what the Bill could mean for your activities or business, our White Collar Crime team is here to assist. Do not hesitate to contact the authors of this article, Charles-Édouard Lambert, Benoît Thomas, Antoine Mésot or Marius Jacqz.
***
This newsletter does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Please consult with a legal counsel of your choice before taking any action based on the information provided.