Greece 2026: Intellectual‑property Crimes, What Businesses and Rights‑holders Must Know

The landscape of intellectual property crimes in Greece shifted decisively in early 2026 when Law 5271/2026 came into force, expanding the scope of criminal liability for trademark, copyright and artwork‑related infringements. For brand owners, in‑house counsel, compliance officers and directors operating in or exporting to the Greek market, the new rules create material personal and corporate exposure that did not exist twelve months ago. This guide serves as a combined defence and compliance playbook: it maps every criminalised act, sets out the penalties now in play, explains how enforcement agencies investigate, and provides a step‑by‑step tactical framework for both preventing prosecution and mounting an effective defence.

Background: IP Criminal Offences in Greece, Legal Framework, Statutes and Agencies

What Is an Intellectual Property Crime?

An intellectual property crime is any act that infringes a protected right, a patent, trademark, copyright, design or related right, and that the legislature has classified as a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, a fine, or both. Unlike civil infringement, which results in damages awards and injunctions between private parties, criminal enforcement involves the public prosecutor, police investigators and the courts imposing sanctions on behalf of the state. In Greece, IP criminal offences have historically been treated seriously, and the 2026 reforms have broadened their reach considerably.

Key Statutes Governing Intellectual Property Crimes in Greece

Greece’s criminal IP framework rests on several intersecting pieces of legislation. Law 2121/1993 remains the foundational copyright statute, establishing both civil remedies and criminal sanctions for unauthorised reproduction, distribution and communication to the public of protected works. The Greek Penal Code supplements this with general fraud and forgery provisions that prosecutors have long applied to counterfeit‑goods cases. Law 4072/2012 (as amended) governs trademarks, including criminal penalties for the use of identical or confusingly similar marks in the course of trade.

The most significant addition is Law 5271/2026, published in the Government Gazette on 5 March 2026. This legislation introduced dedicated criminal offences targeting the sale, distribution and online facilitation of infringing artworks, cultural goods and branded products at commercial scale. It also strengthened the procedural toolkit available to investigators and prosecutors, including new preservation orders for digital evidence.

Enforcement Actors: Who Investigates and Prosecutes?

Several agencies share responsibility for criminal enforcement of IP rights in Greece. The Hellenic Police Financial and Economic Crime Unit (SDOE) handles investigations into large‑scale counterfeiting and piracy. The Inter‑Agency Market Control Coordination Body (DIMEA), established under Law 4712/2020, coordinates anti‑counterfeit operations across police, customs and market‑surveillance authorities. At the border, the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE), Greece’s customs authority, has the power to detain and seize goods suspected of infringing IP rights before they enter the domestic market. Any of these bodies may refer matters to the public prosecutor, who decides whether to bring criminal charges. Rights‑holders can also file criminal complaints directly with the prosecutor’s office.

2026 Changes: What the New Laws and Regulations Do, Intellectual Property Crimes in Greece After Law 5271/2026

Summary of Law 5271/2026

Law 5271/2026 represents the most substantial expansion of IP criminal offences in Greece in over a decade. Its key provisions include the creation of specific criminal offences for the commercial exploitation of infringing artworks and cultural property, acts that previously fell into regulatory grey areas. The law also criminalises the deliberate, large‑scale distribution of counterfeit goods through online marketplaces, closing a gap that defence counsel had exploited in earlier prosecutions. Penalties for repeat offenders and organised networks have been increased, and new provisions allow courts to order the forfeiture of profits derived from infringing activity, not merely the seizure of infringing goods themselves.

Implementing Regulations and Administrative Tools

In the months following the adoption of Law 5271/2026, implementing ministerial decisions and agency guidelines have clarified the operational detail. DIMEA has published updated coordination protocols, and AADE has expanded its internal guidance on the detention and destruction of suspected counterfeit imports. Industry observers expect these implementing measures to streamline the enforcement pipeline significantly, reducing the time between a customs seizure and the initiation of criminal proceedings.

Interplay with EU Obligations

Greece’s 2026 reforms do not exist in a vacuum. They align with the EU’s longstanding IP Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) and the Customs Regulation on IPR enforcement (EU 608/2013). By tightening domestic criminal sanctions, the Greek legislature has addressed criticisms, notably from the European Commission and the U.S. Trade Representative, that enforcement in Greece lagged behind peer EU member states. The practical effect for businesses is that Greece now operates one of the stricter criminal IP regimes in Southern Europe.

Timeline of Key Legislative and Enforcement Dates

What Acts Are Now Criminalised, Breakdown by Right

Copyright Crimes

Under the combined framework of Law 2121/1993 and the 2026 amendments, the following acts constitute criminal offences when committed without the rights‑holder’s authorisation and for commercial gain: reproduction of protected works in any medium; distribution, including making available via the internet; public performance or communication to the public; and circumvention of technological protection measures. The 2026 changes place particular emphasis on upload and distribution through digital platforms, a reflection of the growing importance of online piracy. A copyright crime in Greece now carries heightened penalties where the infringement is systematic, involves organised networks, or targets works of significant cultural value.

Trademark Criminal Offences

A trademark criminal offence in Greece arises where a person uses, in the course of trade, a sign identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark on goods or services for which the mark is protected. The 2026 reforms specifically target the commercial‑scale manufacture, storage, importation and sale of counterfeit branded goods. Prosecutors no longer need to prove that the defendant personally affixed the infringing mark, participation in any link of the supply chain, including wholesale distribution and warehousing, is now sufficient for criminal liability. Online sellers and marketplace operators face exposure where they knowingly facilitate the sale of counterfeit products.

Artworks and Cultural Heritage Protections

Law 5271/2026 introduced a new category of IP criminal offence specific to artworks and cultural goods. The sale, export or distribution of unauthorised reproductions of protected artworks, including paintings, sculptures and limited‑edition prints, is now a standalone criminal offence where the act is committed for profit. This provision is designed to address the growing market in forged or misattributed artworks and cultural artefacts.

Penalties for IP Infringement in Greece: Confiscation, Fines and Secondary Sanctions

The penalties for IP infringement in Greece are structured across a range of severity depending on the nature of the offence, the scale of the infringing activity and whether the defendant is a repeat offender. The following table summarises the principal sanctions.

Corporate Versus Individual Liability, Directors’ Exposure

Greek criminal law does not yet impose direct corporate criminal liability in the way common‑law jurisdictions do. Instead, prosecution focuses on the natural persons who directed, authorised or knowingly tolerated the infringing conduct. In practice, this means that directors, managing directors and compliance officers face personal criminal exposure for IP offences committed by or through the company they oversee. Administrative penalties, including substantial fines and operating‑licence revocations, can be imposed on the corporate entity itself under DIMEA’s regulatory powers.

Investigation and Criminal Enforcement Process for IP Offences in 2026

How Investigations Start

IP criminal investigations in Greece typically originate in one of three ways. First, a rights‑holder files a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor, supported by evidence of the infringing activity. Second, customs (AADE) detains a consignment of suspected counterfeit goods at the border and refers the matter for investigation. Third, DIMEA or SDOE initiates a proactive operation, often targeting open‑air markets, warehousing districts, or online platforms flagged by industry associations.

Investigative Powers

Investigators have broad powers under the amended framework. These include search and seizure of premises, goods and digital devices; the issuing of preservation orders requiring internet service providers and platform operators to retain data; and the authority to request bank‑account records and financial‑transaction data to trace the proceeds of infringing activity. Under the 2026 changes, digital forensics has become a standard component of IP investigations, particularly where the alleged infringement involves online distribution.

The First 72 Hours, Checklist for Counsel

When a business or individual becomes aware of an IP criminal investigation, the first 72 hours are critical. Defence counsel should take the following immediate steps:

• Preserve all records. Issue a litigation‑hold notice to prevent the destruction of potentially relevant documents, electronic files and communications.
• Identify privilege boundaries. Separate legal‑advice communications from business records before any documents are handed over to investigators.
• Instruct a criminal specialist. IP criminal defence requires distinct expertise from civil IP litigation, ensure counsel has experience with Greek criminal procedure.
• Engage with the prosecutor early. In appropriate cases, early voluntary cooperation can influence charging decisions and demonstrate good faith.
• Brief the board. Ensure directors are aware of personal liability risks and agree on a coordinated response.

Defending IP Charges in Greece: Tactical Playbook for Counsel and Directors

Pre‑Charge Representation

The most effective defence strategy begins before charges are filed. During the preliminary investigation stage, experienced counsel can engage with the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence, challenge the sufficiency of the complaint, and argue that the conduct does not meet the statutory thresholds for criminal liability. In many cases, the distinction between civil infringement and criminal conduct turns on whether the defendant acted with intent and at commercial scale, both elements that can be contested at the pre‑charge stage.

Challenging Evidence

Defence strategies for IP charges in Greece frequently focus on evidential challenges. Key lines of attack include questioning the chain of custody for physical goods seized during raids; challenging the reliability of digital‑forensic evidence where proper acquisition protocols were not followed; and contesting the rights‑holder’s evidence of ownership or validity of the underlying IP right. Where the prosecution relies on expert evidence, for example, to establish that goods are counterfeit, the defence may instruct its own experts to contest the findings.

Substantive Defences and Mitigation

Several substantive defences may be available depending on the facts. These include demonstrating that the defendant held a good‑faith belief that the goods were genuine (innocent infringement); establishing that the use falls within a statutory exception or limitation (such as fair use for criticism, parody or education under Law 2121/1993); and proving that the scale of the activity fell below the thresholds required for criminal, as opposed to civil, liability. Cooperation with authorities, voluntary cessation of the infringing activity and corrective measures (such as product recalls) can serve as powerful mitigating factors at sentencing.

Directors and Corporate Vicarious Liability

Directors facing personal prosecution in connection with corporate IP offences should take specific tactical steps. These include demonstrating that they had no personal knowledge of or involvement in the infringing activity; pointing to the existence and implementation of a corporate compliance programme; and showing that they took reasonable steps to prevent the infringement once it came to their attention. Early legal representation is essential, a director who cooperates and demonstrates corrective action is in a materially stronger position than one who fails to engage.

Mitigation Letter, Key Elements

• Chronology of events showing the defendant’s response upon becoming aware of the infringement
• Compliance programme documentation, board minutes, training records, audit reports
• Corrective measures taken, product recalls, supply‑chain terminations, takedown requests
• Voluntary cooperation, evidence provided to investigators, engagement with rights‑holders
• Character and professional standing, absence of prior offences, industry reputation

Corporate IP Compliance in Greece: Step‑by‑Step Risk Mitigation Checklist

Governance

Effective corporate IP compliance in Greece starts at board level. Directors should ensure that the company has a documented IP policy, that board minutes reflect regular review of IP risks, and that a named compliance officer is responsible for monitoring adherence. The existence of a functioning compliance programme is the single most important factor in reducing the risk of criminal prosecution, and the most persuasive mitigating factor if prosecution does occur.

Operational Controls

Day‑to‑day operations must incorporate practical safeguards. Supply‑chain audits should verify that all goods sourced, manufactured or distributed by the company are genuine and properly licensed. Takedown procedures should be in place for any online channels. Customs recordation, filing IP rights with AADE so that customs officers can identify and detain infringing imports, is an underused but highly effective tool available to rights‑holders.

Contracts, Training and Customs Interface

Commercial contracts should include IP warranties and indemnities, requiring suppliers and distributors to confirm that goods do not infringe third‑party rights. Staff training, particularly for procurement, marketing and e‑commerce teams, should cover the criminal consequences of IP infringement and the company’s reporting procedures. Companies that import goods into Greece should maintain a direct relationship with AADE’s IPR unit.

The 12‑Point Compliance Checklist

1. Appoint a board‑level IP compliance officer with documented terms of reference
2. Adopt a written IP compliance policy approved by the board
3. Conduct an annual IP risk assessment covering all product lines and distribution channels
4. Audit the supply chain, verify the authenticity and licensing of all goods handled
5. Record all registered IP rights with Greek customs (AADE) for border enforcement
6. Implement takedown procedures for infringing content on company‑controlled online platforms
7. Include IP warranties and indemnity clauses in all supplier and distributor agreements
8. Train procurement, marketing and e‑commerce staff on IP criminal risks at least annually
9. Establish a confidential reporting channel for suspected infringements
10. Maintain a log of all IP‑related incidents, complaints and corrective actions
11. Engage criminal defence counsel on retainer to ensure access within the first 72 hours of any investigation
12. Review and update the compliance programme annually in light of legislative and enforcement developments

Practical Annexes: Sample Documents, Timelines and Decision Points

When to Instruct Criminal Counsel, Decision Tree

• Receipt of a criminal complaint or summons → instruct immediately; do not wait for formal charges
• Notification of a customs seizure (AADE) → instruct within 24 hours; deadlines for contesting seizures are short
• DIMEA inspection or market raid → instruct on the day of the inspection; ensure legal privilege is asserted over any documents reviewed
• Internal discovery of potential infringement → instruct counsel before self‑reporting; obtain advice on privilege, disclosure obligations and strategic timing
• Director or officer personally named → instruct personal criminal counsel separately from company counsel to avoid conflicts of interest

Typical Timeline of a Greek IP Criminal Case

• Day 0: Complaint filed or goods seized at customs
• Days 1–10: Preliminary investigation; prosecutor reviews evidence; search warrants may be issued
• Weeks 2–8: Investigative phase, witness statements, expert reports, digital‑forensic analysis
• Months 2–6: Prosecutor decides whether to file charges or archive the case
• Months 6–18: Trial before the criminal court (single‑member or three‑member misdemeanour court depending on severity)
• Post‑trial: Appeals (within statutory deadlines); enforcement of ancillary orders (forfeiture, destruction)

Conclusion: Protecting Your Business From Intellectual Property Crimes in Greece

The 2026 reforms mark a turning point for intellectual property crimes in Greece. Law 5271/2026 and its implementing measures have closed enforcement gaps, broadened the range of criminalised conduct, and given investigators more powerful tools. For businesses, the message is clear: compliance is no longer optional, and the personal exposure of directors and officers is real. Companies that import, manufacture, distribute or sell goods in Greece, whether physical products or digital content, should review their IP compliance programmes now, record their rights with customs, and ensure they have access to experienced criminal defence counsel. For those already facing investigation or prosecution, early and specialist legal advice remains the single most important step.

The tactical guidance and checklists in this article provide a starting framework, but each case turns on its own facts. For a detailed assessment of your position, consult a qualified Greek criminal and IP practitioner. For further detail on enforcing trademark rights through civil and customs channels, see our guide on how to enforce trademark rights in Greece (2026). Businesses establishing operations in Greece may also benefit from our overview of how to start a business in Greece as a foreigner.

Sources

1. Bernitsas Law, Recent developments in intellectual property legislation regarding Law 5271/2026
2. International Trade Administration (U.S. trade.gov), Greece: Protecting Intellectual Property
3. Legal 500, Greece: Intellectual Property
4. Lexology, Year in review: intellectual property in Greece
5. AADE (Greek Customs), IPR / Customs enforcement guidance
6. IPrights.gr, Greek IP case law and practitioner commentary
7. WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization