No major law reforms occurred, but notable developments included enhanced privilege protection and expanded powers for the Financial Intelligence Unit. The transportation and financial sectors were key enforcement targets, while consumer protection and environmental crime also saw increased focus. 

Cross-border enforcement intensified, highlighted by the first EPPO-led conviction and ongoing sanctions coordination. Looking ahead, ESG obligations, sanctions compliance, anti-money laundering, and anti-corruption measures will continue to be areas of interest for in-house legal teams. Internal investigations must balance transparency, data governance, and whistle-blower protection, as technology and regulatory scrutiny continue to evolve.

Enforcement overview 

Dutch enforcement risk for corporates modestly increased in 2025, driven by more cross-border coordination and a continued rise in reporting volumes.

Dutch authorities intensified cooperation with foreign counterparts inside and outside the EU, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), and multinational initiatives, which means facts, financial intelligence, and case files move across borders earlier and easier. This has amplified exposure in multi-jurisdiction matters, particularly in anti-bribery and anti-corruption (ABAC), anti-money laundering (AML), tax, and sanctions cases. Unusual transaction reports and whistleblowing numbers are up, which also increases the likelihood of inquiries for corporates.

The Dutch Public Prosecution Office (DPPO) is prioritizing pace and certainty in its enforcement. We see slimmer, more targeted indictments and broader use of so-called penalty orders (strafbeschikkingen), including in complex corporate cases, as an alternative to both trials and large public settlements. These penalty orders comprise an out-of-court resolution that establishes that a criminal offense was committed. In parallel, the DPPO’s guidance on self-disclosure and cooperation (Aanwijzing zelfmelden, medewerking en zelfonderzoek) has created a clearer, but still discretionary, framework which highlights the importance of early strategizing for suspected corporates. During 2025, no high-profile cases were published using the new guidance.

Although enforcement against legal entities and their factual directors remains a priority, the DPPO seems to focus on cleaning out the existing docket, with seemingly fewer new investigations started against large corporates and financial institutions.

Finally, in November 2025, the Dutch parliament adopted an act that would preclude the Dutch Minister of Justice and Security from directing the criminal authorities in investigating or prosecuting individual cases. Although this authority was not or only extremely rarely used in practice, parliament wanted to eliminate political interference from the criminal justice process.

Guidance on self-reporting and cooperation 

The DPPO’s instruction on self‑reporting and cooperation (Aanwijzing zelfmelden, medewerking en zelfonderzoek), published in late 2024, entered into force on January 1, 2025. The guidance sets out the conditions for self-reporting, and what is expected in terms of cooperation. The guidance also sets out the expectations regarding internal investigations. A company can receive a maximum discount of 50% on applicable fines, being 25% for each of self-reporting and cooperation. This guidance also holds a presumption that the company can resolve the matter out of court (through a settlement, penalty order, plea bargain (procesafspraken), or otherwise).

New guidance on filtering for privileged material 

The DPPO issued guidance on the protection of privilege in criminal investigations (Aanwijzing waarborgen professioneel verschoningsrecht). The guidance stipulates that, in cases where it can reasonably be suspected that data from privileged professionals is present in the data being examined, a filtering of this data must be carried out. This filtering must be performed by an (independent) examining magistrate, unless the DPPO can itself carry out the filtering in an automated manner. In practice, this filtering of potentially privileged data under the supervision of the examining magistrate can delay the investigation and extend procedural timelines.

Increased transaction suspension powers to combat organized crime 

An act on combating organized crime (Wet versterking strafrechtelijke aanpak ondermijnende criminaliteit II) was adopted in October of 2025. The act seeks to strengthen the criminal law response to undermining crime by expanding the powers of the Dutch Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) within the framework of the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing Act. The act authorizes the FIU, upon indications of money laundering or terrorist financing, to request the temporary suspension of a financial transaction.

Internal investigations 

The DPPO’s new guidance on self-reporting and cooperation (Aanwijzing zelfmelden, medewerking en zelfonderzoek) sets expectations for internal investigations. Among others, companies should preserve data promptly, set a focused and proportionate scope, and maintain a verifiable source log throughout the investigation. In order to obtain a fine reduction, a company should be transparent about the nature and scope of the investigation, disclose source materials, present accurate and well sourced findings, and give periodic updates on the progress of the investigation. They should also avoid selective disclosures and overly broad claims of privilege. The guidance provides a level of flexibility to tailor the internal investigation to the particular situation.

This guidance, along with guidance from the Dutch Bar, further emphasizes that counsel should adhere to its professional rules, including the need to clarify at the outset whether counsel is acting as an independent investigator or as defense counsel, to safeguard independence, privilege, and reliability. Over the last few years, a specific set of rules has emerged for independent investigations in case law and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.

The Whistleblowers Protection Act has resulted in an increase of reports. The House of Whistleblowers has an advisory and support function for whistleblowers and can investigate reports of retaliation. The House has issued guidance on internal investigations. This guidance is not mandatory and seems to be geared towards the protection of whistleblowers. As a result, the model investigations protocol may not be suitable in practice.

Finally, technology trends increasingly matter in relation to internal investigations and are helpful in reducing costs and timing. Considerations in the use of technology include: use AI only with appropriate governance (clear purpose, data minimization, human validation, and audit trails) and expand data collection beyond email to include chats and collaboration platforms, supported by robust legal holds, disciplined retention, and validated search and analytics.

Sectors targeted 

The Dutch government continues to prioritize combating corruption, fraud, tax fraud/evasion, and environmental crime.

The Dutch government aims to strengthen its fight against corruption by increasing support for prosecuting and investigative bodies, as well as the courts.

Sectors targeted have included:

• logistics, since criminals can use it for smuggling narcotics
• the financial sector, e.g., the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) wants to increase enforcement in the sectors covering asset management, financial services, and investment funds. A trend among the Dutch financial regulators is the increased use of informal enforcement measures, rather than enforcement actions such as fines or orders
• consumers generally—the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) wants to increase enforcement against deceptive online sales practices and companies that abuse their users’ dependence on their software or platform. Additionally, the ACM targeted misleading sustainability claims.

Key developments expected in 2026 include revised whistleblower legislation that could expand the mandate of the House of Whistleblowers to include enforcement. Another expected development is the implementation of the European Confiscation Directive which establishes minimum rules for tracing, freezing, and confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime even if a suspect has not been convicted.

Cross-border enforcement 

Sanctions are expected to remain a priority in the Netherlands for enforcement in 2026, although actual enforcement so far appears to have been limited. The appointed Dutch Sanctions Envoy engages in regular coordination with counterparts from all EU member states in Brussels to exchange lessons learned and align approaches, complemented by the EU Sanctions. In parallel, Dutch authorities continue operational cooperation with EU and international partners to detect and disrupt circumvention, including coordinated outreach to third countries to discuss strategies and address gaps in enforcement.

In May 2025, the Rotterdam District Court delivered the Netherlands’ first conviction in a case brought by the EPPO, following a cross-border investigation into a carousel VAT fraud scheme spanning multiple EU jurisdictions, including Germany and Hungary. Although this judgment fell in 2025, it set the expectation for 2026: more EPPO-led, multistate financial crime investigations and enforcement, with possible early cross-border intelligence flows increasing exposure for corporates.

The DPPO and Dutch tax authorities have focused on combating dividend stripping, concluding two long-running cases against major banks in 2025 through out-of-court resolutions.

Predictions for 2026 and beyond 

Although the Netherlands is forming a new government, we would not expect the new government to break with previous policy. We expect an increase in investigations focusing on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) obligations.

ESG obligations are likely to become more stringent and enforcement of environmental obligations in the Netherlands is on the rise, with the authorities ramping up their enforcement priorities. With the CSRD/CSDDD-omnibus packages, it remains to be seen whether this will have a significant impact on enforcement. The focus on enforcing environmental laws and regulations is expected to remain.

We continue to see an increase in sanctions-related investigations, albeit focused mostly on smaller businesses. The previous government continued its investment in investigation capabilities for sanctions-related investigations. Consequently, we expect in-house legal teams at businesses regularly dealing with international sanctions to remain focused on sanctions compliance.

In an effort to combat drugs-related crime, the Dutch legislator is expected to introduce further measures to combat corruption at local government agencies and other (semi) public bodies. These measures will also impact the more general anti-bribery and anti-corruption framework in the Netherlands, and may be used in cross-border international corruption cases too. Meanwhile, we still expect harmonization of the ABAC framework across the EU, driven by new directives. Once adopted, in-house legal teams should adapt their compliance programs to meet stricter regulations and avoid severe penalties.

Follow-on litigation, activism, and private enforcement will likely rise, driven by increased regulatory scrutiny and public awareness. Investigative journalism remains an important force in revealing (alleged) shortcomings in corporate compliance programs. Legal teams will be well advised to be proactive in managing these risks, ensuring robust compliance and risk management strategies are in place to mitigate potential legal challenges.

Looking past 2026, in-house legal and investigations teams face a more complex and multi-faceted enforcement landscape. Expect broader duties across value chains, a focus on bribery and corruption from a lobbying and “influence peddling” perspective, prescriptive AI and cyber obligations, and a modernized Dutch sanctions regime with dual administrative and criminal enforcement. Internal investigations will continue to be scrutinized, with the rise in whistle-blower reports adding a layer of complexity requiring tailor-made approaches to navigate governance.

Further down the line, the new Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure introduces mandatory judicial review of large settlements and formalizes plea bargaining instruments. Penalty stakes rise with revenue-based fines using ultimate parent turnover. We expect enforcement focus to intensify on sanctions circumvention, AML and tax (including dividend stripping), environmental crime and greenwashing, and AI-enabled fraud. Management boards will be judged on both culture and the real-world effectiveness of compliance.  This article is part of the A&O Shearman Cross-border white-collar crime and investigations review 2026. A & O Sherman