Drastic tightening of corporate sanctions: The proposed amendments to section 30 of the OWiG

On May 26, 2026, the Federal Government introduced a bill into the German Bundestag to implement EU Directive 2024/1203 on the criminal law protection of the environment. While the title of the bill suggests that it primarily addresses environmental criminal law, it also contains a significant general amendment to the law governing sanctions against corporations: a fundamental addition to Section 30 of the OWiG (Administrative Offenses Act).

Section 30 of the OWiG is already the central instrument for sanctioning companies for criminal offenses and administrative offenses falling within their sphere of responsibility. The corporate fine provided for therein applies to legal entities and associations of persons, particularly when business-related offenses are committed by executives or were not prevented due to inadequate supervisory measures. The reform applies across a range of offenses; thus, it affects not only environmental matters but also classic white-collar crime scenarios, such as those involving corruption, fraud, or money laundering.

At the heart of the reform of Section 30 of the German Administrative Offenses Act (OWiG) are two elements that, at first glance, appear to represent a significant tightening of the law, but upon closer inspection also lead to greater legal certainty—thereby once again underscoring the importance of an effective compliance organization:

First, the range of fines is being significantly increased. In the future, the maximum fine for intentional offenses will be 40 million euros (previously 10 million) and for negligent offenses 20 million euros (previously 5 million). This generally follows the guidelines set forth in the Environmental Criminal Law Directive (although the Directive would also have allowed for a turnover-based maximum), but it goes well beyond those guidelines. In particular, the Directive prescribes such fine ranges only in relation to certain environmental offenses. 

It should also be emphasized that the maximum of 40 million euros applies only to the so-called “penalty component”; the actual fine may ultimately be (significantly) higher because it is also intended to recoup any benefits derived from the offense. Depending on how high these benefits were, this so-called “recovery component” can, in practice, sometimes exceed the actual fine by a multiple.

A new paragraph 2a is also intended to establish, for the first time, specific criteria for calculating a fine imposed on an association. The amount of the fine will be determined not only by the offense itself and the company’s financial capacity, but also—and explicitly—by organizational factors. The focus is on the allegation against the company as an entity. When viewed in the overall context, this charge may be more serious than the charge (and thus also the amount of the penalty) against the individually responsible person—for example, in a corporate culture where legal violations are tolerated or even implicitly encouraged. 

Conversely, preventive and educational measures (seriously) implemented by the company are intended to have a mitigating effect on the amount of a fine. The provision thus codifies what has largely been developed through administrative practice and case law to date, and ensures that compliance measures—whether taken before or after the offense—must always be taken into account when determining the amount of the fine. The legislative rationale explicitly states: The more seriously a company strives for effective compliance, the lower the fine will be.

Decision-makers at all companies should view the upcoming changes as a wake-up call and an opportunity to critically review their existing compliance organization and address any necessary actions. The crucial importance of credible commitment by senior management to lawful conduct—the “tone from the top”—is essential in this regard. However, to ensure that this translates into daily practice, responsibilities, processes, documentation, monitoring, and escalation must be clearly defined, and potential violations must be investigated and, if necessary, penalized. Such preventive measures, first and foremost, reduce the likelihood of finding oneself in association fine proceedings in the first place. 

However, if relevant legal violations do occur—since even the best compliance system offers no  complete guarantee—the efforts made to date will at least serve to mitigate the fine or even lead to the dismissal of the case. Conversely, this also means: Those who cut corners on their compliance system earlier will end up paying the price when fines are imposed.

The fact that post-incident conduct is explicitly intended to influence the amount of the fine further underscores the crucial importance of conducting an immediate and appropriate investigation into serious allegations of misconduct. According to the legislative rationale, a particularly significant reduction in fines is to be granted above all when companies voluntarily disclose violations (voluntary disclosure) or contribute significantly to clarifying the facts of the case. Furthermore, it is essential to draw the necessary conclusions from the results of such investigations and implement them in order to better prevent similar offenses in the future.

The bill is currently going through the legislative process, and further deliberations as well as possible adjustments to the details are to be expected. However, the fundamental direction of the reform is likely to remain unchanged. Companies should therefore begin preparing now for stricter corporate sanctions laws and the continued importance of a robust compliance system. 

With our comprehensive expertise in developing and optimizing tailored compliance management solutions and conducting special forensic investigations to clarify indications of misconduct, we support you in positioning your business firmly in a persistently dynamic regulatory and risk landscape. Please contact us.