Criminal Proceedings Now Harsher And More Efficient

A new law will speed up criminal investigations, including into financial and economic crime, and removes automatic suspension of sentences for first-time offenders.

The Luxembourg Parliament has just voted through a law¹ whose purpose is to make criminal proceedings more efficient. Although the overriding purpose of the legislation is to respond to FATF requirements (4th evaluation cycle, 2023) and make money-laundering investigations focused on high-risk underlying offences more effective, the new legislation applies to all criminal offences, including economic and financial crime.

The "mini-investigation" with big ambitions

Broadly speaking, the authorities have two procedural routes available to them when conducting an investigation, whether they are acting on their own initiative or following a complaint. One is the "preliminary police investigation" (enquête préliminaire), undertaken by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Parquet) and the criminal police (police judiciaire). The other is a "judicial investigation" (information judiciaire), carried out by an investigating judge (juge d'instruction).

A preliminary police investigation is less formal and comprises fewer procedural stages – consequently, it is generally faster and more efficient. However, the Public Prosecutor's Office does not have the same investigatory powers as an investigating judge, particularly regarding measures that infringe civil liberties. It does not even have the power to search and seize, other than in expedited police investigations (flagrance). The investigating judge, the guardian of civil liberties, by contrast has significant powers to order investigative measures (e.g. search, phone tapping, surveillance, infiltration) and take preventive steps (e.g. pre-trial detention, seizure), at the cost of a more burdensome and generally longer procedure.

The challenge is how to blend the best of these two worlds without compromising our fundamental freedoms. The option of a "simplified investigation" (instruction simplifiée), known in practice as the "mini-investigation" (mini-instruction), was introduced in 2006 in order to "remedy the huge workload of Investigation Offices". Without relinquishing the investigation, the Public Prosecutor's Office may ask an investigating judge to order certain investigative measures.

However, as this concerns the limitation of powers, the lawmakers proceeded cautiously. At the time, money laundering was exceptionally excluded from the range of offences that could give rise to a mini-investigation, only to be added in 2010. Above all, however, recourse to the mini-investigation was restricted to avoid it being used systematically. After the matter was returned to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the latter could not submit a fresh request (réquisitoire) for another three months, and each request was limited to one single investigative measure.

The investigating judge may also decide to pursue the investigation, although this only happens on an exceptional basis.

The new law targets these limitations in order to speed up the process. The three-month period is removed, and a fresh request may be made as soon as the matter returns to the Public Prosecutor's Office, with no limit on the number of requests. In addition, multiple investigative measures may be requested at the same time. The only remaining prohibition is on seeking new measures while the previous application is still in progress.

According to the Parliamentary materials (travaux parlementaires), the goal is to "facilitate recourse to the mini-investigation procedure", and "increase parallel investigations into money laundering".

Nonetheless, mini-investigations continue to be restricted to the most traditional measures: search, seizure, hearing witnesses and expert reports. For other types of investigative measure, a true judicial investigation must still be opened, as is also the case for most serious offences (with the notable exception of certain economic crimes, such as forgery and bribery).

Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor's Office will retain control of the investigation and will only involve the investigating judge to order certain coercive measures.

This is just one measure among several others aiming to make our criminal justice system more effective. In particular, departments within the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Investigation Office (Cabinet d'instruction) dedicated to economic crime were formalised in 2024, and the number of staff allocated to these areas was substantially increased (the number of public prosecutors focused on economic crime has risen by 125%). These measures are set within the context of partially implemented and forthcoming initiatives to strengthen staff numbers generally in both the criminal police and the judicial authorities.

With the double impact of procedural simplification and increased staff numbers, investigations and prosecutions relating to economic crime are expected to intensify.

Suspension of sentences is not automatic

Alongside these measures, the new law introduces greater severity as regards sanctions. Politics has only a limited influence in this area, partly to preserve judicial independence, but primarily because it is very difficult to fix in advance a punishment that must be adapted on a case-by-case basis in view of the severity of the facts and the identity of the perpetrator (personalisation of punishments). For this reason, the law simply sets a range within which the court must stay, and that range is often very wide. Furthermore, the court has numerous legal means at its disposal to adjust these punishments, notably including suspending the sentence. Suspension may be full or partial, and ordinary or under probation. Where it is granted, the prison sentence is not executed – at least not immediately – but is instead a sword of Damocles intended to deter reoffending.

For many years, suspension was not automatic and was considered a special privilege which had to be merited. However, in 2018, with the introduction of Article 195-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, suspension became an automatic right for first-time offenders unless the court specifically reasoned otherwise. The motivation for introducing this measure was to encourage "greater use of alternative sentences to immediate imprisonment".

Seven years on, Luxembourg has changed its tune. The new law echoes the FATF's observations, which criticised the fact that numerous convictions are accompanied by a suspended sentence which would not have sufficient deterrent effect. It also responds to a political desire for severity, particularly regarding sexual violence.

This embodies the eternal tension between, on the one side, the desire for harsh and effective deterrence and punishment, and, on the other side, efforts to reintegrate offenders into society and seek alternatives to imprisonment.

The balance has just tipped in favour of greater severity, which is a true paradigm shift. Article 195-1 referred to above now states as follows: "In criminal matters, the court may only impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years without suspension after giving specific grounds for choosing this measure. However, the requirement to give specific grounds does not apply where the person is classed as a repeat offender."

The judges of the District Court (Tribunal d'arrondissement) have welcomed this measure "which puts an end to the erroneous idea of automatic suspension for all first-time offenders". We have come full circle: suspension must be merited.

However, it remains to be seen whether this legislation will actually change judicial practice. Does a court's decision on whether to grant a suspension really depend on the obligation to write a few sentences of reasoning?

Footnote

1. Law of 12 December 2025 amending: 1. the Criminal Code and 2. the Criminal Procedure Code voted through at first reading by Parliament in its session of 20 November 2025, exempted from the second constitutional vote and published in Mémorial A n°556/2025.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.