Failing to hand over disposable income to the trustee costs the “fresh start”
The Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the final refusal of discharge of remaining debts to an insolvent debtor who, over the assignment period and the three-year extension granted at his own request, failed to hand over €24,642.03 to the trustee. The court found the three cumulative requirements for refusal met (art. 243(1)(a), via art. 244(2), of the Insolvency Code): breach of the duty to hand over income, gross negligence — the debtor was repeatedly warned — and harm to creditors in the exact amount withheld. Practical note: financial hardship does not exclude gross fault, as it is already factored into the exempt-income threshold, and the extension of the assignment period (art. 242-A) may be granted only once.
Ref.: Lisbon Court of Appeal judgment of 12/05/2026, case no. 3553/16.8T8BRR-G.L1-1, Reporting Judge Isabel Fonseca.
Fraudulent insolvency offence: jurisdiction lies with the court where the inquiry was opened
In a negative conflict of jurisdiction in a fraudulent insolvency case (art. 227 of the Criminal Code), the Porto Court of Appeal held that, where the indictment does not identify the exact place of the asset-stripping acts, the fallback rule of art. 21(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies: jurisdiction lies with the court of the area where notice of the crime was first acquired — that is, where the Public Prosecutor opened the inquiry. Territorial connection is not presumed from the registered office of the companies involved, nor does mere receipt of the certificate forwarded by the commercial court to another prosecutor’s office count. Relevant for directors and creditors in criminal proceedings connected to insolvencies.
Ref.: Porto Court of Appeal summary decision of 20/07/2026, case no. 3028/22.6T9VFR-A.P1, Reporting Judge Paula Guerreiro.
This briefing is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific case, please contact us.