Tax Evasion and Non-Payment of Debts to the Greek State – Complete FAQ Guide

The criminal offence of non-payment of debts to the Greek State is regulated by Article 25 of Law 1882/1990 and is one of the most frequently encountered offences in Greek courts. Any debt to the State may form part of the debt table (πίνακας χρεών) that ultimately underpins the charge: debts from assigned rents, State-guaranteed loans, public contracts, tax liabilities, and more. The statutory provision reads: «1. Any person who fails to pay debts certified by the Tax Administration as owed to the State […] for a period exceeding four (4) months, shall be punished with imprisonment: a) of at least one (1) year, where the total debt exceeds €100,000; b) of at least three (3) years, where the total debt exceeds €200,000» (Art. 25 par. 1, Law 1882/1990).
Further reading: Non-payment of State debts: Law 5090/2024

Under Article 25 paragraph 5: «The granting of instalment payment facilities […] suspends criminal prosecution for the duration of the arrangement, provided the debtor complies with its terms, and ultimately eliminates criminal liability upon full payment. Execution of any sentenced penalty is also deferred or interrupted, and ultimately extinguished upon full settlement». Beyond instalment arrangements, prosecution may also be suspended under the Out-of-Court Debt Settlement Mechanism (Law 4738/2020), which provides that from the filing of the application «criminal prosecution for the offences of Article 25 of Law 1882/1990 […] in relation to the debts sought to be restructured» is suspended (Art. 18, Law 4738/2020).
Further reading: Non-payment of State debts: Law 5090/2024

The new Tax Procedure Code (Law 5104/2024), specifically Article 79, establishes three main categories of criminal tax conduct: i) income and real estate tax evasion (Art. 79 par. 1a) — primarily through failure to file or filing of an inaccurate return; ii) VAT and withholding tax evasion (Art. 79 par. 1b); and iii) tax evasion through fictitious, forged or falsified tax documents (Art. 79 par. 5). As to the thresholds: the offence is a misdemeanour (πλημμέλημα) where income tax exceeds €100,000 per fiscal year, VAT exceeds €50,000, or the value of fictitious documents exceeds €75,000. It becomes a felony (κακούργημα) — carrying 5–15 years’ imprisonment — when these amounts exceed €150,000, €100,000 and €200,000 respectively.
Further reading: Defence arguments in tax evasion cases (Art. 79 TPC)

Under Article 469 of the new Penal Code: «The debt application and debt table […] shall not include or calculate […] debts arising from the offences defined in Article 79 of the Tax Procedure Code, together with any related surcharges, interest and other charges». However, the Supreme Court Plenary (ΟλΑΠ 1/2023) held that this exclusion applies only where the tax evasion amounts exceed the criminal thresholds (>€100,000 income tax, >€50,000 VAT per fiscal year). In a recent case, the Athens Three-Member Court of Appeal issued an acquittal for a client facing a debt of €5,000,000: after applying Art. 469 and deducting the tax evasion amounts, the remaining alleged debt fell below the €100,000 threshold, rendering the conduct non-criminal.
Further reading: Acquittal for non-payment of €5 million in State debts

A recent acquittal by the Athens Single-Member Misdemeanour Court dismissed charges of non-payment of debts of approximately €400,000: the Court held that VAT amounts (Art. 79 par. 1(b) Tax Procedure Code) must be excluded from the debt table, regardless of the amount. A subsequent acquittal by the same court in a case involving approximately €3,500,000 in alleged debts established that not only the underlying tax amounts, but also the related administrative fines (such as ΚΒΣ penalties for fictitious tax documents), must be excluded — irrespective of the amount. In both cases, once the exclusion was applied, the remaining debt fell below the €100,000 criminal threshold, leading to full acquittal.
Further reading: Acquittal for non-payment of ~€400,000 in State debts (VAT)

An acquittal by the Athens Single-Member Misdemeanour Court in a case involving approximately €3,500,000 in alleged debts established that, following the introduction of Art. 469 of the new Penal Code, not only the underlying tax evasion amounts (Art. 79 Tax Procedure Code) but also the related administrative fines must be excluded from the debt table — regardless of amount. In the specific case, most entries related to «fines imposed following the issuance of alleged fictitious tax documents (described therein as: ΚΒΣ fine, i.e. a fine under the Books and Records Code)». After deducting these entries, the remaining debts fell below the criminal threshold — and the defendant was acquitted.
Further reading: Exclusion of ΚΒΣ fines of €3,500,000 from the debt table

The most significant offences in this category — non-payment of State debts (Art. 25, Law 1882/1990) and tax evasion (Art. 79 Tax Procedure Code) — are encountered daily in Greek courts, with the accused typically being the directors or representatives of debtor legal entities. Article 25 par. 2 of Law 1882/1990 provides that criminal liability attaches to: «a) For Greek sociétés anonymes (ΑΕ): the chairmen of the board, managing or authorised directors, administrators, general managers, directors, or any person entrusted with the management or administration […]; b) For general or limited partnerships (ΟΕ/ΕΕ): the general partners and managers; c) For limited liability companies (ΕΠΕ): the managers, and in their absence, each partner jointly or severally» (Art. 25 par. 2, Law 1882/1990).
Further reading: Criminal liability of company directors and managers

According to established case law, formal possession of the title of legal representative is not in itself sufficient to establish criminal liability — it must be proved that the accused substantively participated in the management or administration of the company. Under Article 178 par. 2 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, the burden of proof never falls on the accused; it rests exclusively with the Prosecutor. In practice, the defence may invoke: a) that other persons exercised actual management and took decisions; b) that the accused had no access to bank transactions or accounting books; c) that representation was assumed at an age or under circumstances making substantive involvement impossible. Crucial evidentiary tools include witness testimony, documents showing who actually decided, and any prior acquittals of the same defendant in connection with the same company — which courts are obliged to take into account.
Further reading: Criminal liability of company directors and managers

Article 57 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure provides: «1. If a person has been irrevocably convicted or acquitted, or if criminal prosecution against them has been discontinued, no new prosecution may be brought against them for the same act, even if it is given a different characterisation». In practice, this issue arises when a defendant accused of tax evasion has already been subjected to administrative sanctions that are, in substance, criminal in nature. The relevant authority is ECtHR, Kapetanios and Others v. Greece (30.4.2015), which held: «The criminal nature of a proceeding depends on the degree of severity of the penalty at risk […] and not on the severity of the penalty ultimately imposed». Accordingly, where an administrative fine is criminal in nature, a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same facts may violate the ne bis in idem principle.
Further reading: Defence arguments in tax evasion cases

Supreme Court ruling ΑΠ 100/2019 reversed a second-instance conviction that had rejected the defendant’s plea of nominal-only involvement in the company: «The appellate court erred […] in dismissing the accused’s argument — going to the subjective element of intent — that he was only a nominal legal representative of the debtor company, being merely an employee thereof with no actual involvement in its management, without taking into account the five prior acquittals submitted by the defence and read into the record». Along the same lines, ΑΠ 1568/2018 acquitted a nominal manager of a limited liability company: «It was not proved beyond doubt that the accused participated substantively, rather than merely nominally, in the company’s management […] given the defence witness testimony that the accused was occupied with his university studies and had never collaborated with the actual management».
Further reading: Criminal liability of company directors and managers

The concept of ‘income’, as an element of the actus reus of the tax evasion offence, requires income that has actually and demonstrably entered the taxpayer’s patrimony. Legislative presumptions of income may operate in tax and administrative proceedings, but not before a criminal court, where the presumption of innocence applies in its full scope. A telling example: correct extrapolative income assessment established a final figure of €77,597, compared to the €336,717 stated in the indictment — an amount falling below the €100,000 criminal threshold, resulting in acquittal of a defendant who had faced a felony charge. Moreover, amounts attributed to alleged fictitious invoices cannot be added to the presumed income, as they correspond to non-existent transactions (Thessaloniki Three-Member Court 11249/2016).
Further reading: Tax evasion and extrapolative income assessment

A ruling by the Athens Misdemeanour Court acquitted our client on charges of accepting fictitious tax documents during the 2014 fiscal year. The Court upheld the argument that the administrative resolution of the dispute — through full payment of all assessed taxes and administrative fines — eliminated criminal liability. The reasoning was grounded in Article 24 par. 2 of Law 2523/1997: «Where a comprehensive administrative or judicial settlement of all tax liabilities has been reached, or where the dispute has been fully resolved administratively by any other means, the criminal provisions of this law shall not apply». This provision was never explicitly repealed upon the introduction of the Tax Procedure Code — an interpretation confirmed by Supreme Court ruling ΑΠ 743/2020.
Further reading: Discontinuation of prosecution for fictitious invoice acceptance