16 February 2026
CHD ¦ Bill 8486: The Criminal Procedure Reforms Behind Luxembourg's FATF Follow-Up
Luxembourg speeds up financial investigations and narrows the suspended-sentence reflex
Bill 8486 is best known for turning Article 506-1 of the Criminal Code into an all-crimes money laundering offence, covered in our articles on the draft and on the adopted law. Its second article matters as much in practice. It changes three provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in response to the FATF’s 2023 mutual evaluation of Luxembourg: the simplified investigation known as the mini-instruction, the charging of fugitives and of companies that ignore a summons, and the duty to give special reasons for refusing a suspended sentence. The Chamber of Deputies adopted the bill on 20 November 2025 with 40 votes in favour, 12 abstentions and 8 against, and the Council of State waived the second constitutional vote on 2 December 2025.
The FATF findings behind the changes
The FATF published its mutual evaluation report on Luxembourg on 27 September 2023. Technical compliance was rated compliant or largely compliant for 39 of the 40 Recommendations, and the overall ratings placed the country in regular follow-up, with a follow-up report due in June 2026. Two results concerned the criminal justice chain directly. Immediate Outcome 7 on money laundering investigations, prosecutions and sanctions and Immediate Outcome 8 on confiscation were both rated moderate.
The government drew three points from the recommended actions. Luxembourg should run more parallel money laundering investigations for all higher-risk predicate offences, prioritise cases involving corporate legal structures, professional money launderers and real estate, and make its sanctions more dissuasive, since many sentences are suspended. The FATF also noted that between 2017 and 2022 the authorities conducted 12 money laundering investigations related to corruption and bribery arising from foreign predicate offences, and received about 60 mutual legal assistance requests on laundering linked to corruption. Given that the national risk assessment treats corruption as one of the main threats, the FATF found the number of such cases low.
A broader mini-instruction under Article 24-1
Article 24-1 allows the State Prosecutor to ask an investigating judge to order searches, seizures, witness hearings or expert reports without opening a judicial investigation. The mechanism is modelled on the Belgian Franchimont law of 12 March 1998. Until now it covered a single measure, and a second request was subject to a three-month rule that was read in contradictory ways.
The reform allows several measures in one request and removes the three-month period, so a second request is possible as soon as the investigating judge has returned the file. Beyond all misdemeanours, the procedure now also covers Article 193 on the intent element of forgery, active and passive bribery and trading in influence under Articles 246, 247 and 249 to 252, extortion under Article 470(1) in so far as it refers to Article 468, and false accounts under Articles 1500-8 and 1500-9 of the Companies Law. Articles 245 and 248 were removed from the draft list because, as misdemeanours, they were already covered.
The aim is to give prosecutors easier access to the financial data of suspects and to run laundering investigations in parallel with the predicate offence. A judicial investigation brings a formal charge and a settlement stage before the council chamber; the mini-instruction avoids both. The investigating judge still has to authorise each coercive measure and can decide to continue the investigation himself, and Article 24-2 allows any person with a legitimate interest to seek annulment of the measures.
The fair-trial objection
The government’s draft added a rule that anyone who failed to attend the questioning required before trial would be treated as having been questioned. The Superior Court of Justice warned that this made no distinction between a person who deliberately hides and one who has a legitimate reason or cannot be reached. The Council of State issued a formal objection under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, citing case law that fair-trial guarantees apply from the preliminary stage onwards.
The final text follows the Court’s proposal. Where a report of non-appearance records that questioning was impossible within six months after the investigating judge returned the file, the person may still be summoned to trial or referred by the council chamber.
Charging fugitives and absent companies
Under Article 102, a person subject to an arrest warrant who cannot be found is now considered charged once a report of unsuccessful searches has been drawn up. The old procedure required notice at the person’s last address and a report signed in the presence of the two nearest neighbours, which did not work when the address was unknown or the person had never lived in Luxembourg.
A new paragraph covers legal persons. A summons is served at the registered office, and if the company does not appear, the magistrate’s report of non-appearance counts as a charge. The government relied on a 2022 order of the Luxembourg council chamber concerning companies that had deliberately avoided questioning. The Luxembourg district court described the practical stakes: a company that never appeared could not be charged or sent to trial, and without a judgment, assets seized in Luxembourg could not be confiscated. The Superior Court wanted the text to require a deliberate intention to evade justice and raised questions about service abroad. The Council of State considered that service at the registered office protects the rights of the defence, and the substance was adopted as proposed.
Suspended sentences and the duty to give reasons
Article 195-1 required special reasons whenever a court imposed an unsuspended prison sentence, in correctional and criminal cases alike. It was commonly understood as giving first offenders a near-automatic suspended sentence. The new wording keeps the duty only for correctional prison sentences of less than two years, and not for repeat offenders. The government also linked the change to the coalition agreement’s commitment on sexual and domestic violence.
The Council of State called this a major change of paradigm and pointed to an inconsistency: short sentences still need special reasons, longer and more serious ones do not. The Bar opposed the change for the same reason. The Justice Committee kept the text, and the representatives it heard agreed that the choice is one of criminal policy for the legislature.
What the Bar and the Public Prosecutor General warned about
The Bar of Luxembourg opposed the wider mini-instruction. People targeted by it have no access to the file during the investigation, have no remedy if a request for exculpatory measures is refused, lose the filtering role of the council chamber and sometimes receive the file only days before the hearing. The Bar feared that the investigating judge would become a judge who merely authorises the prosecutor’s measures, and it pointed to the safeguards in Belgian law and to a ruling of the Belgian Constitutional Court.
The Public Prosecutor General supported the reform but cautioned that procedure alone will not bring complex economic and financial cases to trial within a reasonable time. Much of the delay comes from a lack of investigators in the Judicial Police and from the time international assistance takes, and when cases reach court many years after the facts, suspended sentences are hard to avoid whatever the wording of Article 195-1.
A motion on access to the file
On the day of the vote, the Chamber adopted a motion tabled by Laurent Mosar. It asks the government to analyse the current rules on the defence’s access to the file at the different stages of criminal proceedings and to present, by the end of 2026, a bill strengthening those rights.
What it means for financial crime cases
Banks, fund administrators and other professionals should expect more requests to come through the prosecutor-led procedure, in several steps and in corruption, forgery and false-accounts cases that previously required a judicial investigation. Companies that ignore a summons, including foreign companies, can be charged and tried, which removes an obstacle to confiscating assets seized in Luxembourg. The reform was prepared with the FATF follow-up report due in June 2026 in mind.
Dive deeper
EU Sanctions Helpdesk
The EU Sanctions Helpdesk platform supports European operators in complying with European Union restrictive measures (also known as sanctions) imposed worldwide.
Aimed primarily at Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), the Helpdesk offers resources and personalised help to companies performing sanctions due diligence checks.