The adoption of Directive (EU) 2024/1226 of 24 April 2024 represents a major step in strengthening the European Union’s sanctions regime. The Directive seeks to harmonise, across the Member States, the definition of criminal offences and penalties applicable to violations of Union restrictive measures, commonly referred to as “EU sanctions”. Although it was adopted against the backdrop of strengthened sanctions against Russia, its scope extends to all Union restrictive measures.

by Thierry BONTINCK and Telma BONNENFANT

What Directive (EU) 2024/1226 provides

The Directive requires Member States to criminalise a range of conduct undermining the effectiveness of EU sanctions. Such conduct includes, in particular, making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned person or entity; failing to freeze assets where such an obligation applies; carrying out transactions or activities prohibited under sanctions regulations; importing, exporting, selling or transporting goods subject to restrictions; providing prohibited services; engaging in circumvention designed to frustrate the effects of sanctions; concealing frozen assets; and providing false information concerning their beneficial ownership.

The Directive also requires legal persons to be held liable where offences are committed for their benefit by persons holding a leading position within them or result from a lack of internal supervision or control. It further requires effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, which may include substantial fines, exclusion from public procurement procedures or, in the most serious cases, judicial winding-up of the legal person.

The deadline for transposition was 20 May 2025.

Transposition in Belgium

Belgium adopted the Law of 15 July 2026 transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1226. The Law was published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 28 July 2026 and its main provisions entered into force on 1 September 2026.

The reform amends several existing instruments, including the Law of 13 May 2003 concerning the implementation of restrictive measures adopted by the European Union and the Decree-Law of 6 October 1944 concerning controls on transfers of goods and assets, as specified in the Law of 15 July 2026.

It is important to note, however, that Belgium did not make use of the optional EUR 10,000 threshold provided for by the Directive and opted for a uniform maximum term of imprisonment of up to five years for the principal offences relating to sanctions. It has also established a system under which penalties applicable to legal persons can be particularly substantial.

Belgium has furthermore opted for a system combining administrative and criminal penalties.

As regards the former, fines range from EUR 10,000 to EUR 25,000,000 for legal persons and from EUR 250 to EUR 5,000,000 for natural persons. Their amount is determined by reference, inter alia, to the duration or seriousness of the circumvention or infringement, the offender’s financial capacity, the benefits derived from the offence, the damage caused to third parties and the degree of cooperation with the authorities.

As regards criminal penalties, natural persons may face imprisonment for a term of three to five years, or another custodial measure for a term of two to four years. Legal persons may be subject to fines ranging from EUR 15,000 to EUR 150,000,000, depending on the nature and seriousness of the offence and the personal and financial circumstances of the legal person concerned. Property used or intended to be used to commit an offence may also be confiscated, even where such property does not belong to the convicted person.

The situation in France

The situation in France is less clear. The rules currently in force do not provide the level of detail required by Directive (EU) 2024/1226, and not all of the specific forms of conduct identified by the Directive are expressly covered by existing French criminal law.

A first step was taken in 2025 with Decree No 2025-470 of 28 May 2025, which transposed Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2024/1226 by designating the Conseil d’orientation de la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme (COLB) as the body responsible for coordinating the authorities responsible for sanctions with law-enforcement authorities.

However, in the absence of national transposing legislation notified to the Commission following a letter of formal notice issued pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 258 TFEU, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on 4 June 2026 (INFR(2025)0221), calling on France to transpose the Directive.

A legislative proposal (No 2544) was tabled before the French National Assembly on 3 March 2026 by Member of Parliament Vincent Caure. It was subsequently referred to the Committee on Constitutional Laws, Legislation and General Administration of the Republic (Commission des lois), but there have been no further developments to date. In the absence of an adequate response within the prescribed period, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failure to fulfil obligations under EU law.

Are lawyers concerned?

Recital 18 of the Directive expressly refers to “legal professionals” and states that they should be subject to the Directive, including applicable reporting obligations, when providing legal, financial or trade services in the context of their professional activities.

Recital 12 also identifies legal advisory services among the non-financial services that may be subject to sectoral restrictive measures. The provision of legal services prohibited under an EU sanctions regulation may therefore constitute a criminal offence.

Importantly, however, Article 3(4) provides that nothing in the Directive is to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on legal professionals to report information received from, or obtained on, one of their clients in the course of ascertaining that client’s legal position; defending or representing that client in judicial proceedings; or providing advice concerning the institution or avoidance of such proceedings.

Recital 18 nevertheless makes clear that this protection does not apply where the legal professional intentionally takes part in the violation of restrictive measures, where legal advice is provided for the purposes of such a violation, or where the legal professional knows that the client is seeking legal advice for that purpose.