Consequences under penal law of tax regularizations. A legal-conceptual framework

Tax fraud has a significant impact on government revenues. Various approaches can be considered to address this socially undesirable behaviour. Several countries, including Belgium, adopt a less repressive approach towards fraudsters who voluntarily regularise their situation. This thesis aims to typologically map, critically analyse and evaluate the consequences under criminal law of Belgian tax regularisations. Finally, it also offers recommendations for a more appropriate approach. The first, introductory part discusses the sanctions that tax fraudsters and launderers face under Belgian law de lege lata and de lege ferenda and provides a historical overview of the various Belgian tax regularisation options since 2003. In the second part, I examine the actual consequences under criminal law of tax regularisations. This analysis is further subdivided into chapters on successful regularisations, partial regularisations, (partially) ineffective regularisations and failed regularisations. A comparison is also made with similar mechanisms in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. The third part assesses whether the consequences under criminal law of Belgian tax regularisations align with certain international and EU standards, particularly regarding the criminalisation of money laundering, fraud against the EU's financial interests, the ne bis in idem principle ('no double jeopardy') and the nemo tenetur principle ('the right not to incriminate oneself'). This evaluation reveals that certain aspects of the most recent Belgian regularisation legislation raise questions. For instance, the extension of protection from criminal sanctions to persons other than the person submitting the declaration and to accessory offences can be criticised. Secondly, I conclude, following a thorough study of (supra)national case law, that the ne bis in idem principle generally does not apply to formal Belgian tax regularisations. Finally, the requirement to submit a fraud scheme and a concise declaration in the context of a regularisation procedure is not found to be inherently problematic in light of the nemo tenetur principle. In the final part, I formulate several recommendations to improve the Belgian legal framework for tax regularisations in order to achieve greater legal certainty, coherence and, where possible, simplicity. Overall, I advocate for a permanent and legally enshrined regime that is more lenient than classical sanctioning. Ideally, this would be accompanied by the decriminalisation of non-serious tax fraud. Regularisation of such fraud could then be handled through a declaration to the competent tax authorities. For more serious cases, an out-of-court settlement with the public prosecutor is proposed as the preferred method of resolution. I consistently link the new regularisation mechanism(s) with a requirement of spontaneity, a single category of excluded offences (fraud against the financial interests of the EU) and a completeness requirement within the same corrected declaration. For individuals at risk of prosecution for money laundering but who did not commit tax fraud themselves, a complementary mechanism should be introduced. This would allow a spontaneous, sincere and complete declaration to the Public Prosecutor's Office, followed by the surrender of the laundered assets and any resulting financial gains, to result in no penalties being imposed.