In the ten weeks leading up to the entry into force of the new Belgian Criminal Code (hereinafter the “NCC”) on 1 September 2026, we will publish a series of weekly articles addressing key developments relevant to corporate criminal law. In this second article, we examine the modernisation of the offences of forgery and fraud introduced by the new Criminal Code.
1. Forgery in documents and other durable media (Art. 451 NCC)
The new Belgian Criminal Code significantly modernises the offence of forgery.
The legislator abolishes the distinction between traditional forgery in documents (Art. 193 CC) and computer forgery (Art. 210bis CC) by merging both offences into a single offence, namely “forgery in documents and other durable media” (Art. 451 NCC). As a result, no distinction is made anymore based on the medium used. Although the legislator could have adopted a similar approach for fraud and computer fraud, no such reform has been implemented for those offences.
Under the new provision, it is required that there is a document or another durable medium. According to the preparatory works, such a medium must be “durable”, meaning that it must ensure the lasting character of the information and its accessibility over time. The legislator clarifies that films, audio recordings and audiovisual recordings on magnetic media fall within the scope of the offence. CD-ROMs, emails and USB drives are also covered, whereas a webpage would not qualify, as it does not meet the durability requirement given that it can easily be modified. The scope of the offence thus appears to be both broadened and restricted compared to the current regime.
The durable medium must also relate to a “legally relevant fact”. This implies that it must have legal significance. According to the preparatory works of the new Criminal Code, documents or files that merely record facts capable of producing legal effects meet this requirement.
According to the traditional case law of the Belgian Court of Cassation, a document must also be capable, to some extent, of serving as evidence, so that the authorities or private individuals who take cognisance of it or to whom it is presented may be convinced of the truthfulness of the deed or legal fact recorded in those documents. Similarly, Art. 451 NCC requires that the document or medium “must be capable of having evidential value”. It suffices that the document can, to some extent, serve as evidence of the idea expressed therein.
The offence still requires fraudulent intent. However, the requirement of “possible prejudice” is abolished, as the legislator considers this inherent to the intent to cause harm.
In addition, a number of specific forgery offences relating to outdated types of documents (such as telegrams) are abolished.
The use of forged documents or other durable media with fraudulent intent or with intent to cause harm also constitutes a criminal offence (Art. 451, § 2 NCC).
Both the offence of forgery itself and the offence of using forged documents or other durable media are punishable by a level 3 sanction, corresponding to a maximum term of imprisonment of five years.
2. Fraud (Art. 479 NCC)
The offence of fraud had already undergone a similar modernisation in 2023. The legislator did not opt to merge the classic offence of fraud with the offence of computer fraud, but rather to align their respective scopes of application.
Since then, general fraud requires the pursuit of an “unlawful economic advantage”, as was already the case for computer fraud (Art. 504quater CC). This broadened scope of application is also retained in the new Criminal Code. The traditional requirement for the offence of fraud, namely the handover of a movable good, has thereby been definitively abandoned. It is sufficient that the offender intends to obtain an unlawful economic advantage. An actual handover of property or the actual acquisition of the unlawful advantage is therefore no longer required.
What remains essential is that the offender uses fraudulent means, namely by using false names or false capacities, or by employing fraudulent manoeuvres. However, in the new Criminal Code, the legislator has simplified the objective pursued by the fraudulent means used. Under the former Criminal Code, this was still expressed in a lengthy, archaic formula. Article 479 NCC now provides, much more concisely, that the offender must have used the fraudulent means “to deceitfully gain another person’s trust”.
Both offences are punishable by a level 3 sanction, which entails a maximum term of imprisonment of five years.