The provision of accounting services is an activity accompanied by liability that may also extend into the realm of criminal law. As a rule, an accountant is liable for the compliance of their outputs with accounting and tax regulations.

In this text, we would like to highlight the risks that need to be considered and ideally eliminated in this type of business. In accordance with professional literature, we fully agree with the view that unless an accountant demonstrably knows about the falsification of accounting documents, or does not knowingly enter false information into individual boxes of a tax return, etc. (or at least it is not proven that the accountant knew about them), then no criminal prosecution should even be initiated against them.

The accountant is obliged to maintain accounts to the specified extent in accordance with legal regulations, exercising all their professional skills in such a manner as to best meet the statutory requirements and the client's needs. Upon request from the Tax Authority, the accountant is obliged to present all documents and supporting materials relating to the client's accounting agenda.

Conversely, the customer/client of the accountant is obliged to provide the accounting service provider with truthful information necessary for maintaining the accounts.

Thus, while the accountant is responsible for the correct application of the information received from the client, the client is responsible for the truthfulness of the provided information. 

It is not the role of the accountant or tax advisor to verify whether the transactions specified in the accounting documentation actually took place. 

A mere inspection of the accounts certainly does not prove an intentional criminal offense of tax evasion and similar mandatory payments in a situation where the pre-trial proceedings have not yielded any new evidence against the accused that would form a comprehensive chain of evidence, as required, inter alia, by the case law of the Constitutional Court; see the ruling of the Constitutional Court, file ref. no. I.ÚS 3622/10 of 16 June 2011, which states: "Circumstantial evidence leading to the conviction of the accused must form such a comprehensive, continuous, and mutually coherent chain of evidence that, as a result, rules out any doubt about the guilt of the accused and fully convicts them. Fact-finding that does not satisfy this requirement is on contrary to the right to a fair trial under Article 36(1) of the Charter and, in criminal proceedings, may lead to a violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Charter." 

The criminal prosecution of accountants must be evaluated in the context of the specific case, see the recommendations of professional literature, see Lichnovský, Vučka, Křístek: Trestní právo daňové [Criminal Tax Law], 2nd edition, 2023, pp. 70–78: "... in practice, we often encounter the involvement of unsuspecting individuals in tax fraud, whether as suppliers or customers in a fraudulent chain, or as employees directly in the corporation participating in the fraud. If these persons knew nothing about the existence of the tax fraud, they cannot be prosecuted, even if the tax fraud was perpetrated through them (the so-called living instrument). (...) not infrequently, a simplified police logic is applied: 'they worked there, or participated in it, or took instructions from the perpetrator, so they are also guilty even without reliable proof of their own culpability'. This of course is incorrect. (...) Intentional culpability must be proven by law enforcement authorities through evidence. It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all possible pieces of evidence of intentional culpability. Intercepted communication between the perpetrators containing an agreement on tax evasion, (...) the falsification of accounting documents, the knowingly false completion of individual fields of a tax return, and the like, may serve as evidence. This must, of course, be proven for each accused individually. If a suspect does not know about such circumstances, or at least it is not proven that they knew about them, then criminal prosecution should not even be initiated against them."