The IBA 28th Annual Transnational Crime Conference

Jean-Luc Putz
Arendt & Medernach, Luxembourg City
jean-luc.putz@arendt.com

The annual IBA Transnational Crime Conference has once again proven why it remains one of the highlights of the business crime calendar. This year’s edition, held from 13 to 15 May 2026 at the iconic Hotel Grande Bretagne in Athens, just steps away from the Greek Parliament, was a great success. With nearly 250 participants it was the largest Transnational Crime Conference ever.

Athens was not originally on the official list of conference destinations, which makes the achievement of the organisers all the more impressive. Not only did they manage to bring the conference to one of Europe’s most historic capitals, but they also somehow succeeded in arranging flawless spring weather to match.

The conference began on Wednesday evening with a welcome cocktail at the Attic Urban Rooftop, following an experimental ‘newcomers’ welcome’ event that was designed to help first-time participants connect before the main programme. With the Acropolis illuminated in the background and the Athens skyline stretching out below, it was difficult to imagine a better setting to kick off three days of discussions on transnational crime, enforcement, investigations and compliance.

Attendees at the welcome reception (before sunset), Athens, 13 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

After the welcome reception, most participants found their way to a very typical Greek restaurant: broken plates, bouzouki players, Greek salad, sausages, souvlaki, tzatziki, fried calamari and, inevitably, many other things that had spent some time in the deep fryer.

Attendees at a local Greek restaurant, Athens, 13 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

Thursday morning saw the conference move swiftly from rooftop conversations to serious business, with the programme kicking off promptly at 0900.

The start of the conference

Our conference chairs, Filippo Ferri and Sabine ten Doesschate, opened proceedings with a warm welcome and enthusiasm, while engaging in a courageous (if occasionally approximate) attempt at pronouncing the names of the Greek host firms.

Welcome speech: Sabine ten Doesschate trying to pronounce Greek names after Filippo Ferri managed to pronounce her name, Athens, 14 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

The keynote address was delivered by Efstratios Papathanassopoulos from the Supreme Court of Greece (Areios Pagos), on ‘The historical significance and the role of Pro-Eurojust in shaping modern judicial cooperation in the European Union’. It was a fitting way to open a conference dedicated to cross-border enforcement and transnational crime, reminding participants how dramatically judicial cooperation in Europe has evolved over recent decades.

This was followed by welcome remarks from Amir Singh Pasrich on behalf of the IBA, who quickly brought a lighter touch to the morning. Noting the breakdown of registered participants by country, he concluded that there must be significantly more crime in the UK and Switzerland than in India. He also warmly encouraged everyone to attend the upcoming IBA Annual Conference in Copenhagen, described, quite rightly, as ‘the Olympics of lawyers’, while noting the oft-repeated claim that the Danish capital may have more bicycles than inhabitants.

The first panel session

We then moved directly into the first panel: ‘Gift vs bribe: the ultimate fight’. This fight was led by Kateryna Gupalo and Riccardo Lucev. The panellists discussed different approaches to regulating gifts within companies and recommended the adoption of a very strict approach to gifts.

Is the giving of €6,500 for business-related travel too much? Especially, if it takes place shortly before the decision needs to be taken on an important contract?

Ilias Anagnostopoulos reminded us that he had attended the very first IBA conference on criminal law in the 1990s. On a lighter note, he considered that, in any event, being offered a business class flight should not necessarily be regarded as excessive, given the current quality of economy class.

Someone in the audience asked whether it would be a bribe if a Rolex and a gold bar had been offered instead.

Panel one involved Kateryna Gupalo, Riccardo Lucev, Ilias Anagnostopoulos, Theodora Christodoulou, Jason Linder, Ben Ticehurst and Violeta Zeppa-Priedīte, Athens, 14 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

The second panel session

Panel two focused on ‘The use of AI in criminal investigations and defence’. It started with a demonstration of artificial intelligence (AI), showing a group selfie taken on the a ferry the previous day, with dolphins added to the picture. AI clearly has many useful use cases.

The discussion included contributions from university researchers and market insights from Harvey AI. What will our jobs as lawyers look like next year? Are clients more advanced than we are? Will AI replace young lawyers?

Then came the inevitable use of Mentimeter to gather feedback from the participants in the room: 200-plus phones scanning a quick response (QR) code, while their owners desperately searched for Wi-Fi passwords or a decent mobile signal.

Almost nobody replied that they did not use AI at all, or that they had tried it but decided not to adopt it. Among the remaining participants, approximately half of the audience said that they used AI from time to time, while the other half used it on a regular basis.

The audience poll also offered statistics on what we primarily use AI for. The answers included legal research, drafting, document review and summarisation, data analysis and investigations. Another live poll showed that AI is generally not perceived as a threat, although participants remain sceptical about potential hallucinations and confidentiality issues. Interestingly, the main perceived threat appeared not to be confidentiality, but hallucinations.

Of course, we discussed the numerous references to cases that do not exist, as well as the continuing importance of social skills.

One speaker offered the most lawyerly answer possible: AI will definitely change our profession,  subject, of course, to further analysis on exactly how. Another panellist stated: ‘The people who don’t know how to use it may have problems’. Someone in the audience wondered whether AI was ultimately just another statistical tool.

We were then thrown back in time when a slide appeared with the quote: ‘Economy of time, to this all economy ultimately reduces itself’. It was then revealed that the quote came from Karl Marx (Grundrisse, 1857–1858).

Other subjects included the possible correction of current income levels of lawyers and how to deal with clients’ use of AI.

Panel two involved Diana Czugler, Isadora Fingermann, Andrew George, Daniel Koffmann, Natalia Lioupi, Manavendra Mishra and Athina Sachoulidou, Athens, 14 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

The third panel session

After the lunch break, panel three, chaired by Cristián Francos, addressed the topic ‘Transnational enforcement in a fragmented world: cooperation, competition or compromised?’

The speaker from the US reported difficulties in retaining people faced by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is now focusing more on national security and drug trafficking than on economic crime.

The speaker from France reported on the use of an increasing number of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), more than 90 since the relevant law entered into force. France also reported an increase in prosecutions against companies and directors, perhaps filling a gap left by the US. It was the tenth anniversary of the French Sapin II law, which introduced DPAs (known in France as convention judiciaire d'intérêt public or CJIPs). The panellist also noted the rise in self-disclosures, which are contrary to French legal culture and would previously have been almost inconceivable.

The speaker from the UK reported on developments at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). I must have been answering urgent emails at that point, as my conference notes become rather silent here.

The speaker from the United Arab Emirates also reported increased enforcement, including extradition, especially in relation to money laundering.

The speaker from Switzerland reported that no reduction has occurred in regard to Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA)-related enforcement. Switzerland has no DPA regime and no leniency programme. Self-reporting can only lead to a reduced fine. A DPA regime could be introduced in the future, although some scepticism remains. This would change the entire dynamic of corporate prosecution and could lead to more self-reporting.

Panel three involved Cristián Francos, Nick Braganza, Christopher Houssemayne du Boulay, Jonathan Lopez, Astrid Mignon Colombet and Simone Nadelhofer, Athens, 14 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

The final panel sessions

The final panels of the day were organised as breakout sessions:

• ‘How to prepare a trial: a comparative approach’, chaired by Laura Perkins; and
• ‘Overburdened justice systems and curtailment of defendants’ rights’, co-chaired by Katarzyna Randzio-Sajkowska and Stefanie Schott.

Unfortunately, I could not split myself in two, so I only attended one of the panels. During the session on an overburdened justice system, the speaker from France recalled the problems caused by an understaffed justice system, with the country having the lowest per capita investment in judges and is one of the countries with the lowest numbers of judges and prosecutors per inhabitant.

The speaker from India reminded us that it has 24 official languages. AI is widely used to facilitate procedures. There is no separation between police officers and prosecutors. Many people in custody are waiting for trial. Indeed, the majority of detained persons are in that situation. But everyone wants to go to court and litigate. Pressure on judges in India is high, and service conditions could certainly be improved.

The US panellist wondered whether there were solutions. Should resources be increased, or should the inflow of cases be reduced? And how can inflow be reduced? One possible answer is decriminalisation. Plea bargaining also raises questions about the role of the victim in the process. Should the victim have the right to oppose a plea bargain?

Other discussions concerned jury trials. India is also trying to implement online courts.

Breakout session one involved Laura Perkins, Massimo Chiasera, Filippo Ferri, Kenan Furlong, Felix Ka-ho Ng, George Pyromallis and Sabine ten Doesschate, Athens, 14 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

Breakout session two involved Katarzyna Randzio-Sajkowska, Stefanie Schott, Miranda Ching, Stephen Demanovich, William Julié and Chirag Naik, Athens, 14 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

The buses were waiting for us at 1830 for a traffic-jammed trip to the sea. We spent a wonderful evening at a beautiful venue called Island Residence: great cocktails, great dinner and a great dance floor (YMCA included).

Attendees enjoying some relaxed evening drinks at Island Residence, Athens, 14 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

The WhatsApp group contained obvious evidence, which will not be disclosed, proving that some attendees continued the Athens experience.

Day two

Getting up the next morning may have been easier for some than others. The first topic of the day was ‘Will the rest of the world fear the European Public Prosecutor’s Office?’, co-chaired by Emmanuel Moyne and Juan Palomino Segura.

Panel one, day two involved Emmanuel Moyne, Juan Palomino Segura, Anke Feenstra, Andrés O'Farrell and Alex Swan, Athens, 15 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

Finally, Lukasz Lasek and Helena Prieto González chaired the last panel on the collateral use of evidence.

Panel two, day two involved Lukasz Lasek, Helena Prieto González, Anden Chow, Stéphane de Navacelle, Alexandros-Ioannis Kargopoulos and Jessica Parker, Athens, 15 May 2026. Courtesy of Jean-Luc Putz.

Some left, some met for a padel game and some stayed in Athens for the weekend. But everyone promised to attend next year’s conference.