Receiving fictitious invoices in Greece: Key tax risks, sanctions and defenses

Businesses operating in Greece may face significant tax and criminal exposure where the tax authorities challenge invoices as fictitious. Recent legislative developments and case law have reshaped the applicable administrative penalties and clarified the evidence required from both the tax authorities and the recipient of the invoice.

1. When is an invoice considered fictitious?

For Greek tax purposes, an invoice may be treated as fictitious in three main situations: where the underlying transaction never took place; where the transaction did take place but with a person other than the stated issuer; or where the transaction occurred but the value recorded on the invoice exceeds the true value of the transaction.

2. Administrative sanctions: from percentage-based fines to a fixed penalty

Under Law 2523/1997, the receipt of a fictitious tax document triggered an administrative fine equal to twice the value of the document, while the same conduct could also constitute a criminal offence. Law 4174/2013 later maintained an administrative fine for the receipt of fictitious tax documents, but reduced it to 50% of the document value, without removing the corresponding criminal exposure.

A significant change followed with Law 4337/2015, which abolished the specific administrative fine previously provided under Article 55(2) of Law 4174/2013. According to subsequent case law, the receipt of a fictitious tax document became subject to the fixed fine of Article 54(1)(h), in conjunction with Article 54(2)(e), of the Tax Procedure Code, amounting to EUR 2,500 per financial year.

The Council of State has confirmed that, in line with the principle of retroactive application of the more lenient administrative sanction, this newer and more favorable framework may also apply to infringements committed before 1 January 2014, provided that the taxpayer properly raises the relevant ground of appeal. The criminal dimension of the conduct, however, continued to be regulated separately under Article 66(5) of Law 4174/2013.

This development is particularly important in pending disputes, as it may substantially reduce the administrative financial exposure of taxpayers where the conditions for applying the more lenient regime are met.

3. Who bears the burden of proof?

As a rule, the tax authorities bear the burden of proving that an invoice is fictitious. According to settled case law of the Council of State, the authorities may discharge this burden by showing either that the issuer was non-existent for tax purposes, or that the issuer was transactionally non-existent, meaning that, in light of its business capacity and resources, it could not realistically have supplied the goods or services described in the invoice.

4. How can the recipient defend itself?

Once the tax authorities establish the factual basis for this rebuttable presumption, the recipient must produce evidence capable of overturning it. The type of evidence required will depend on the nature of the alleged fictitiousness.

Where the issue concerns the identity of the issuer, the recipient may defend itself by proving that the transaction was genuine and took place with the persons identified in the invoice. Alternatively, the recipient may rely on good faith, provided it can show that it exercised appropriate due diligence and could not reasonably have known that the person with whom it was dealing was not the stated issuer.

By contrast, where the alleged fictitiousness concerns the transaction itself, the decisive question is whether the transaction occurred. In that scenario, good faith is not sufficient on its own, because it cannot substitute for the absence of a real transaction. For businesses facing tax audits or litigation involving fictitious invoices, early collection of documentary evidence, transaction records, payment data and due diligence material remains essential. A proactive defense strategy can be decisive in reducing financial exposure and protecting the company’s position before the tax authorities and the courts.