The second quarter of 2026 was eventful in the field of criminal law, with significant legislative developments and a number of important judgments by the Senate of the Supreme Court. Two issues in particular came to the forefront: strengthening the protection of victims under criminal law and the interaction between criminal proceedings and other types of proceedings. Both themes run through the quarter’s key developments, legislative changes and most significant court decisions.
What is happening: developments in investigative authorities’ activities
In the second quarter of the year, the activities of investigative authorities continued to be dominated by the same two areas that characterised the first quarter: integrity in public administration and economic crime. At the same time, law enforcement authorities are increasingly focusing on issues that attract significant public attention, ranging from the dissemination of disinformation in the digital environment to potential breaches of personal data protection rules.
In the area of public officials’ liability, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office announced the completion of a criminal investigation into fraud involving Valkas Municipality. The criminal proceedings concerned the fraudulent acquisition of EU investment funds and abuse of office. Between 2020 and 2023, more than EUR 693,000 in EU project funding was allegedly obtained by fraudulent means. Three individuals, including the chair of the municipal council, have been charged.
In the field of economic crime, investigative authorities referred several fraud cases to court during the quarter, including cases involving offers of renovation services and fraud committed by an organised group using mobile communication applications while impersonating representatives of public authorities and banks. Cases involving sanctions violations also remain relevant: during the quarter, a court approved an agreement imposing a fine in a case where a company’s management board member had attempted to export goods falling within a restricted category to the Russian Federation.
Another notable trend is the increasing focus of investigative authorities on protecting the information environment. During the quarter, the State Police initiated criminal proceedings concerning the dissemination of false information on social media, as well as separate criminal proceedings concerning potential unlawful processing of personal data. This indicates that, as technology develops, criminal law risks in these areas are also becoming increasingly tangible.
Overall, developments in the second quarter confirm that the priorities of investigative authorities remain broadly unchanged. Their attention continues to focus on potential offences by high-ranking public officials and financial crime, while also extending to the protection of public security and the information environment.
What is coming: legislative developments
Amendments to the Law on Operational Activities
The amendments were developed in response to the Senate’s judgment of 23 December 2025 in the so-called Builders’ Cartel case, in which the Senate found that the Law on Operational Activities did not regulate with sufficient clarity the disclosure of information obtained through operational activities for the purpose of proving infringements of competition law. Until now, the law did not specify the circumstances in which such information could be transferred to other authorities for purposes other than those for which it was originally obtained.
The amendments supplement Section 24 of the Law on Operational Activities by providing that information concerning a person obtained during operational activities may be transferred to other authorities for purposes other than those originally envisaged if the transfer is necessary to protect other significant state or public interests and if the content and scope of the information transferred do not result in a disproportionate interference with the person’s fundamental rights. For operational activities conducted by special means, the law also introduces an additional documentation requirement: the authority to which the information was transferred, the grounds for the transfer, its date and the scope of the information must be recorded.
The legislator has specifically emphasised that cartel agreements are inherently secret and that recordings of conversations obtained through operational activities are often the only effective means of proving them. Through the amendments, the legislator has sought to balance the interests of the state with the protection of fundamental rights by introducing requirements of proportionality and documentation.
Amendments to the Law on Compensation for Damage Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Administrative Offence Proceedings
The amendments are intended to improve the framework governing compensation for damage caused by unjustified or unlawful actions of the state in criminal or administrative offence proceedings.
The most significant change concerns the rights of owners of seized property. In future, a legal basis for claiming compensation may arise not only from a final decision in criminal proceedings, but also from a final decision lifting a seizure of property where the grounds for the seizure have ceased to exist. This means that, in certain cases, it will no longer be necessary to wait until the entire criminal proceedings have been concluded.
The starting point for the time limit for claiming compensation has also been clarified: the six-month period begins when the person receives notification that the legal basis for claiming compensation has arisen. The amendments do not apply retroactively: applications received by 31 May 2026 are to be examined under the previous procedure.
Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law – protection of bona fide acquirers
Amendments to Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Law entered into force on 21 April 2026 – exceptionally quickly, even by Latvian legislative standards. The Saeima adopted the amendments under an urgent procedure after the Senate published its judgment in case SKK-198/2026 (discussed in greater detail below), concerning the return of an apartment to its original owner at the expense of a family that had acquired it in good faith.
In SKK-198/2026, the Senate clearly stated that, under the legal framework then in force, a victim’s right to recover property lost as a result of a criminal offence took precedence, while the interests of a bona fide acquirer were to be protected through civil proceedings. Courts could not use teleological reduction to mitigate a regulatory solution deliberately chosen by the legislator. As a result, the family concerned, which included minor children, lost its only home while remaining liable under its mortgage obligations.
Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Law has consequently been supplemented with an exception allowing criminally acquired immovable property to remain in the ownership of a bona fide acquirer where returning the property to the victim would not achieve a fair resolution of the criminal-law relationship and the acquirer’s title has been registered in a public register.
What happened: key case law
SKK-198/2026 (13 April 2026) – bona fide acquirer vs victim’s rights
SKK-198/2026 was arguably the quarter’s most high-profile judgment. The Senate examined a case in which the accused, acting as an authorised representative of a limited liability company (SIA), entered into a real estate purchase agreement with himself, registered the property in his own name, failed to pay the principal and subsequently sold the property to third parties. The appellate court ordered the property to be returned to the victim company, leaving the bona fide acquirers without their home.
The Senate upheld the judgment and set out several important principles. In cases of misappropriation where an authorised representative enters into a transaction with himself and registers the property in his own name, the criminally acquired property is the immovable property itself. If the authorised representative subsequently transfers the property to a third party and retains the purchase price, the purchase price constitutes criminally acquired property. The Senate also clearly established that, for the purposes of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the “lawful possessor” is the person who possessed the property before the criminal offence, rather than a third party who subsequently acquired it.
The Senate further held that courts may not use teleological reduction to alter a regulatory solution deliberately chosen by the legislator. Where the priority of the victim’s interests is clearly established by law, a court may not decline to apply that rule on the basis of subjective considerations of fairness. The interests of a bona fide acquirer must instead be protected through civil proceedings.
The Senate also addressed another noteworthy aspect of the case: the fact that 100% of the share capital of the victim company was owned by a Russian Federation citizen did not affect the application of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Returning property in criminal proceedings does not constitute a new transfer transaction within the meaning of the Law on Restrictions on Transactions Threatening National Security.
Note: in response to this judgment, the Saeima amended Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Law under an urgent procedure (effective from 21 April 2026), expanding the protection afforded to bona fide acquirers of immovable property. The Senate’s conclusions concerning the previous wording of Section 360 therefore no longer fully correspond to the legal framework currently in force.
SKK-17/2026 (17 March 2026) – coercive measures and the rights of legal persons
In case SKK-17/2026, the Senate examined the application of a coercive measure to a legal person in connection with a case involving VAT fraud and money laundering. The appellate court imposed a financial penalty of EUR 35,000 on the legal person.
The Senate explained that, in proceedings concerning the application of coercive measures to a legal person, the circumstances to be proved extend beyond the substance of the charges brought against the natural person. It is also necessary to establish the natural person’s position within the legal person’s organisational structure, the legal person’s actual conduct, the nature and consequences of the relevant acts, as well as the legal person’s size, type of business and financial position. A coercive measure may be imposed only where there is a sufficient link between the legal person, the criminal offence and the natural person who committed it.
The Senate also made an important finding concerning offences committed in the interests of a legal person: the fact that a natural person subsequently used the proceeds for their own purposes does not, in itself, exclude the legal person’s liability. The Senate emphasised that the acts and intent of a legal person are attributable to and derive from the acts of the relevant natural person.
As regards the requirement of a reasonable time, the Senate held that the fundamental principles of criminal procedure, including the right to have proceedings completed within a reasonable time, also apply to legal persons. In the case at hand, the proceedings against the legal person had lasted more than ten years. The Senate found this to constitute a breach of the reasonable-time requirement and reduced the financial penalty from EUR 35,000 to EUR 31,200.
SKK-29/2026 (10 June 2026) – scope of the charges and the accused’s right to participate in appeal proceedings
In case SKK-29/2026, several individuals were charged with thefts, attempted thefts and damage to property committed by an organised group. Following an earlier Senate decision, part of the case was remitted to the appellate court for reconsideration. Among other things, the appellate court convicted one of the accused of an offence with which that person had not been charged and heard the case in the absence of another accused. The Senate set aside substantial parts of the judgment and remitted the case for a new hearing.
The Senate reiterated that, under Section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a court may not find a person guilty of an offence in respect of which no pre-trial proceedings have been conducted against that person and with which that person has not been charged. If the prosecutor has not brought the relevant charge, finding the person guilty constitutes a substantial procedural violation.
The Senate further emphasised that an accused person in whose favour an appellate judgment has been set aside and the case remitted for reconsideration is among the persons who must be summoned to the new hearing, even if that person did not personally lodge an appeal. Hearing the case without summoning that person and reassessing their guilt in absentia violates the right to defence.
Notably, the Senate also recognised its power to go beyond the scope of the cassation appeal. Having identified a procedural violation that also affected the position of other accused persons, it set aside the judgment not only in relation to the accused whose rights had been directly infringed, but also in relation to the others.
At the same time, the Senate considered the duration of the proceedings. Where criminal proceedings are prolonged because procedural errors made by the courts themselves have to be corrected, that delay cannot be attributed to the accused. In such circumstances, the court must consider the compensatory mechanisms provided for in Section 49¹ of the Criminal Law.
Criminal proceedings and other proceedings: boundaries and interaction
Several judgments delivered during the quarter concern the boundaries between criminal and administrative proceedings. In one judgment, the Senate expanded the circumstances in which a person may apply to the administrative courts; in another, it clearly delineated when issues that must be resolved in criminal proceedings cannot be transferred to another type of proceedings.
SKA-397/2026 (31 March 2026) – an attorney’s right to request information and the boundaries of administrative proceedings
In case SKA-397/2026, an attorney-at-law submitted a request to the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) seeking information as to whether, and on what legal basis, a prosecutor had reviewed materials from an operational activities case during the trial of a criminal case. KNAB provided a partial response. The Administrative District Court terminated the proceedings, finding that the dispute was criminal-procedural in nature and that the information constituted a state secret.
The Senate set aside that decision and established several important principles.
First, the fact that information is requested for the purposes of a criminal case does not, in itself, make the request a criminal-procedural act. A request for information is an independent legal act giving rise to a public-law relationship with the relevant authority and is therefore subject to review by the administrative courts. The category of the underlying case – whether criminal, civil or otherwise – does not determine the legal nature of the request for information.
Second, information identifying the persons who have reviewed operational activities materials and the legal basis on which they did so does not automatically constitute a state secret. The Senate rejected the District Court’s approach on a straightforward basis: the attorney had not requested access to the contents of the operational activities file, but merely information about who had reviewed those materials. Section 5 of the Law on Operational Activities primarily concerns complaints regarding the conduct of operational activities themselves, rather than the right to obtain information concerning an authority’s actions.
Third, even where classified information is concerned, a person is not entirely deprived of the right to submit an information request. The applicable legislation provides a specific procedure for considering such requests.
The case is significant for legal practice because it confirms that requesting information is an independent legal instrument that cannot simply be “absorbed” into criminal proceedings.
SKA-208/2026 (5 May 2026) – compensation for unlawful tree felling: which proceedings apply?
In case SKA-208/2026, a person felled trees without authorisation on their property in a protected area of Jūrmala. Criminal proceedings were initiated under Section 109(2) of the Criminal Law. The municipality claimed compensation for pecuniary damage in the criminal proceedings. At the same time, the person applied to the administrative court seeking the issuance of a separate administrative act concerning the calculation of damages. The administrative court refused to accept the application.
The Senate confirmed that where criminal proceedings have been initiated in connection with unauthorised tree felling and the victim has already claimed compensation for damage in those criminal proceedings, the issue of compensation must be determined within the criminal proceedings themselves. A parallel request for the issuance of an administrative act is not permissible.
The Senate referred to Section 50(2) of the Forest Law: holding a person criminally liable does not release that person from the obligation to compensate for damage, and in such circumstances compensation forms part of the final resolution of the criminal-law relationship.
In a separate case (SKA-589/2026, 28 April 2026), the Senate considered the completion of a customs procedure in relation to physical evidence in a criminal case. The Senate confirmed that the enforcement of decisions adopted in criminal proceedings is supervised by the first-instance court of general jurisdiction, rather than by the administrative court, and that the principle of res judicata precludes renewed litigation of matters that have already been finally adjudicated.
Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union
During the quarter, a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the collection of biometric data in criminal proceedings also became relevant to the field of criminal law, clarifying the proportionality requirements under Directive (EU) 2016/680.
C-371/24 Comdribus (19 March 2026) – collection of biometric data in criminal proceedings and the criterion of strict necessity
In Case C-371/24, an individual was prosecuted for refusing to consent to fingerprinting and photography during an investigation connected with demonstrations in Paris. Although the individual was subsequently acquitted of the offences initially under investigation, they were convicted for refusing to provide biometric data. The French appellate court asked the CJEU to clarify the requirements of Directive (EU) 2016/680 governing the collection of such data.
The CJEU held that fingerprints and photographs constitute specially protected biometric data and may therefore be collected only where the competent authority has demonstrated, in the circumstances of the individual case, that their collection is strictly necessary for the purposes of the investigation. The mere fact that a person is a suspect does not establish such necessity.
The assessment must be individualised, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offence, the person’s profile and any previous convictions. The systematic collection of biometric data from all suspects is incompatible with the Directive.
The CJEU further emphasised that a decision to collect such data must be adequately reasoned so that the person concerned can effectively exercise their rights. A person may be penalised for refusing to cooperate even if they are subsequently not convicted of the underlying offence; the decisive question is whether, at the time the biometric data were requested, their collection satisfied the criterion of strict necessity.
