On 7 September 2026 Montenegro published a new act on the confiscation of proceeds acquired through criminal activity. It entered into force the next day, replacing the 2015 statute and its two amendments, and it transposes the European directive on freezing and confiscating instrumentalities and proceeds of crime.
Three features of it belong in any conversation about buying, lending against or inheriting a Montenegrin asset — and none of them are obvious from the title.
It defines property to include crypto-assets by name. It reaches family members and third parties who knew, could have known, or were obliged to know. And the procedure under one of its limbs runs independently of the criminal case, so that an acquittal does not end it.
This page sets out what the act reaches and, equally, what it returns — because the return provisions are the part a legitimate owner needs.
Sources, checked on 20 September 2026: Zakon o oduzimanju imovinske koristi stečene kriminalnom aktivnošću, "Sl. list CG" 131/2026, registarski broj 2255, published 7 September 2026, shown as in force; the text was read from the Official Gazette's own page images (31 pages). Article 96 brings it into force the day after publication — 8 September 2026 — with no deferred application date. Article 95 repeals the earlier act at "Sl. list CG" 58/15, 47/19 and 54/24. Article 94 requires secondary legislation within 60 days, with the old act's secondary legislation applying meanwhile so far as it is not contrary to the new one. The act's footnote records transposition of Directive 2014/42/EU. ⚠️ Note a discrepancy in the source itself: the proclamation and the Gazette's register entry read kriminalnom djelatnošću, while the act's own heading reads kriminalnom aktivnošću. This page states Montenegrin law and is general information, not advice on any investigation.
Extended confiscation: the catalogue is wider than "organised crime"
Article 2(1) allows proceeds to be taken from the perpetrator of a criminal offence where there is reasonable suspicion that they were acquired through criminal activity and the perpetrator does not make it probable that their origin is lawful — extended confiscation — provided the perpetrator has been finally convicted of an offence in a twelve-item catalogue.
That catalogue is not confined to organised crime. It includes, among others:
- offences against property — Articles 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 244a, 249, 250, 251, 252 and 253b of the Criminal Code;
- offences against payment operations and business operations;
- offences against the environment and spatial planning;
- and, as a residual limb, any other intentional offence punishable by three years' imprisonment or more.
The residual limb is the one that changes the analysis. Extended confiscation is not a special regime for a narrow class of defendant; it attaches to a very large part of the criminal code, and it places on the person concerned the burden of making lawful origin probable.
Confiscation without a conviction
Article 2(2) allows the same result without a conviction, on three cumulative conditions:
- an indictment has been confirmed, or a main hearing scheduled in summary proceedings, for an offence committed within a criminal association or criminal organisation;
- the value is at least €50,000; and
- the court establishes a manifest disproportion between the value of the assets — after deducting taxes and other duties paid — and the holder's lawful income, and the holder has failed to make the origin credible by trustworthy documents.
Article 9 adds the cases where a conviction has become impossible: death, illness, flight, immunity, amnesty, pardon, limitation — where the limitation period is shorter than fifteen years and expired after the criminal proceedings began — or any other permanent obstacle to prosecution. Where the person has died, the procedure runs against the legal successors.
And it is not tied to the criminal case
Article 4 is the structural provision. The procedure consists of a financial inquiry and/or financial investigation and the confiscation itself, and it may be conducted before, during and after criminal proceedings. The Article 2(2) procedure runs and is decided independently of the criminal case, and the act says so in terms:
The conclusion of criminal proceedings, including a judgment acquitting the defendant, a judgment rejecting the charge or a decision discontinuing the proceedings, does not affect the confiscation procedure.
For anyone reasoning from a criminal-law instinct — no conviction, no consequence — that is the sentence to reread.
Crypto is named, and providers can be ordered to produce
Article 3 defines property to include all property rights and digital assets. Digital assets are a digital representation of value that can be traded or transferred digitally and used as a means of exchange or for investment, including crypto-assets. Crypto-assets are a digital representation of value or rights transferable and storable electronically, including electronic money tokens, excluding capital market instruments, deposits, insurance and pension products, and unique and non-fungible crypto-assets.
Article 14(4) and (5) give the investigating judge power to order data not only from credit and financial institutions but from providers of services related to digital and crypto assets. Non-compliance carries a fine of up to €5,000 for the responsible person and up to €50,000 for the institution or crypto service provider.
And Article 22(1)(8) extends the freezing measures to movables including crypto-assets and other digital assets, with the prohibition annotated in the relevant registers.
The obligations that a registered Montenegrin crypto service provider already carries are set out in crypto AML obligations after registration.
Family members and third parties
Article 2(3) reaches the same proceeds in the hands of a legal predecessor, legal successor, family member or third party, where it is established that they knew, could have known, or were obliged to know that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation.
Article 2(4) tells you how that knowledge is shown. Either the transfer was without consideration or at a price manifestly out of line with real value, or the perpetrator continued to exercise de facto control after the transfer.
Article 7 defines the categories. A family member is a spouse or common-law partner, a same-sex life partner, a relative in the direct line to any degree, in the collateral line to the fourth degree, and by affinity to the second degree. A third party is someone who acquired without consideration or at a manifestly inadequate price and who knew, could have known or was obliged to know. A bona fide third party is someone who proves a right that prevents confiscation, or who at the moment of acquiring the right did not know, could not have known and was not obliged to know.
Article 8(5) removes a defence people assume they have: proceeds may be taken from a family member regardless of whether they live in the same household.
Lifetime transfers within a family carry a separate set of consequences in succession and creditor law, set out in gifting Montenegrin property to your children, and the civil clawback route is in asset protection in Montenegro.
Commingling, and substitute assets
Two provisions widen the target.
Article 8(4): where proceeds of criminal activity have been merged with lawfully acquired property, the whole of that property is subject to confiscation up to the estimated value of the proceeds.
Article 2(6): where the proceeds themselves cannot be taken, other property of equivalent value is taken instead.
Article 8(3) sets the evidential threshold for reasonable suspicion: the holder's property stands in manifest disproportion to their lawful income.
Freezing: eight measures, and what they look like on the register
Article 22(1) lists eight interim security measures:
- a prohibition on using immovable property, annotated in the cadastre;
- a prohibition on disposing of immovable property, annotated in the cadastre;
- an order to a credit or financial institution to stop payment;
- a prohibition on disposing of a contractual claim;
- a prohibition on alienating or encumbering shares and stakes, entered in the public records;
- a prohibition on exercising or disposing of rights based on shares, stakes and other securities;
- temporary administration of a company;
- a prohibition on disposing of or using movables, including crypto-assets and other digital assets, annotated in the relevant registers.
Article 22(2) allows a measure over substitute property of equivalent value. Article 23 requires reasonable suspicion plus one of three risks — that the value will decrease, that the proceeds will be used to commit offences, or that use will prevent or substantially hinder confiscation — and, for temporary administration, the additional condition that the holder controls the company through more than 50% of voting rights, directly or indirectly, or through a dominant position.
Article 24 puts the measure in the hands of the court on the prosecutor's proposal, decided by the investigating judge, with appeals to a three-judge panel. In urgent cases the prosecutor may impose it by order — and if no reasoned proposal follows within 8 days, the measure lapses by operation of law.
Article 25 gives the holder and defence counsel 8 days to respond, extendable to 15 for good cause, and expressly confirms the holder's right to be represented by a lawyer throughout, with the court obliged to inform them of it. Article 26 has the investigating judge decide within 3 days. Article 29 allows an appeal within 8 days which does not suspend the measure — and permits proof of origin to be filed with the appeal.
The limits, and what a bona fide third party can do
The act builds in time limits and an exit.
Article 33. A measure lasts at most until the final confiscation decision. If it was imposed during the inquiry stage and an investigation does not begin within 6 months, it lapses ex officio. If it was imposed during the investigation and no indictment becomes final within 2 years, it lapses — and after those two years no new proposal may be made against the same person for the same property. On the application of a bona fide third party who produces documents clearly establishing ownership, the court lifts the measure; a refused application may be renewed after 3 months.
Article 28. The decision is published in the Official Gazette and posted on the court's notice board, and may also be published in a printed outlet. Alongside it, bona fide third parties are invited to join the procedure, and they have the procedural rights of an injured party.
Article 52(1). Confiscation does not affect the rights that third parties hold over that property — the provision creditors and secured lenders read first.
Article 54 suspends competing enforcement: once a measure is imposed, forced tax collection, enforcement, voluntary liquidation and other satisfaction procedures against that property may not be started, and those already started are interrupted, with limitation and statutory time limits interrupted for that period. The exception is an injured party's property claim. Under Article 55, bankruptcy does not affect the act's application, and Montenegro ranks as a secured creditor for an annotated measure and as a separation creditor for property finally confiscated.
What happens if the case fails
Article 76 is the counterweight, and it is unusually direct. Where an interim measure or temporary confiscation was imposed and either the confiscation request is rejected or there is an acquittal or a judgment rejecting the charge, the holder is entitled to restitution and compensation. Return is made within 15 days. A damages claim must be brought within 6 months of service of the final decision. And then:
Montenegro is liable for that compensation.
Article 77 sets out what restitution includes: the fruits and all benefits; where the property was sold, the sale price plus the average interest applied to demand deposits in Montenegro; and, where property was damaged or lost during administration, compensation under the general law of obligations. The competent body must act within 15 days.
Article 73 limits sale before the case ends: immovable property under a Article 22(1)(1) or (2) measure may be sold only with the court's consent, and only where custody and management costs significantly exceed the property's value or where the property is at risk of deterioration; the holder must be informed and heard, and in the second case may themselves request a sale.
Article 74 blocks the obvious abuse in the other direction: confiscated property may not be leased or sold to the holder's spouse or partner, relatives in the direct line to any degree, collateral to the fourth degree or by affinity to the second, to their defence counsel or representative, or to a company in which the holder holds at least 25% or which they control.
Why this belongs in a purchase file
Three practical consequences for an ordinary investor.
- The cadastre will show it. Articles 22(1)(1) and (2) require the prohibition to be annotated on the immovable, and share and stake prohibitions go into the public records. A title check picks this up — provided it is a current check. The registry side is in the company search page.
- "No conviction" is not clearance. Article 4 makes the Article 2(2) procedure independent, and an acquittal does not end it.
- Bona fide status is proved with documents, not assertions. Article 7's definition and Article 33's lifting mechanism both turn on producing instruments that establish the right — and Article 2(4) makes a price out of line with real value an indicator against you. Paying a fair, documented, traceable price is the whole defence.
What this page does not decide
Whether any particular person or asset is under investigation is not something this page can tell you, and nothing here is advice on a pending criminal matter. Nor does it cover the financial inquiry and investigation chapters in detail, the management regime for confiscated assets, the international cooperation provisions, or the secondary legislation due within 60 days of 8 September 2026.
Who we act for
We act for one side and we name it at the start. On this statute we act for a buyer, a lender or a bona fide third party asserting a right over property under a measure — we do not act in the criminal proceedings themselves. Fees are fixed and published, and a first consultation is charged and credited against the engagement if it proceeds.
Before you complete
Send the cadastre extract and the company extract dated today, the chain of title or share transfers for the last five years with prices, and the payment route you intend to use. We come back with a written note: whether any Article 22 annotation is on the asset, whether the price and chain would support bona fide status under Article 7, and what documents you would need to have if Article 33 ever had to be invoked.
