Beyond the Detective Agency: How Belgium’s New Private Investigations Act Reshapes Corporate Compliance and HR

BRUSSELS — For decades, sweeping private security and investigations legislation across Europe has been viewed as the exclusive domain of licensed detectives, corporate security agencies, and private intelligence firms. However, a major legal paradigm shift in Belgium is upending this traditional view.

On December 16, 2024, Belgium’s new Private Investigations Act (PIA) officially entered into force, superseding the outdated Private Detectives Act of 1991. While the title suggests a statute aimed squarely at the private security sector, the law’s expansive reach extends far beyond commercial detective agencies. Crucially, the PIA brings ordinary business entities, multinational corporations, and internal corporate departments squarely within its regulatory crosshairs.

Any company that conducts workplace investigations in-house—whether looking into allegations of employee fraud, harassment, data theft, or internal misconduct—may now find itself legally classified as operating an “internal investigation service.” Consequently, these businesses face rigorous licensing requirements, strict procedural hurdles, and significant compliance liabilities.

Main Facts: What is the Private Investigations Act and Who Does It Affect?

At its core, the PIA regulates any gathering of information concerning individuals designed to safeguard the legitimate interests of a client or organization amidst actual or potential conflicts.

Under the statute, an activity qualifies as a private investigation if it meets a specific set of cumulative criteria. Broadly speaking, this encompasses any structural fact-finding mission directed at personnel. For instance, when a Belgian employer initiates an internal probe into suspected theft, financial fraud, workplace harassment, or policy violations, it is systematically gathering data on a person of interest.

If this investigative task is organized on a structural basis—meaning it forms part of the explicit or implicit job description of even a single employee—the business is officially operating an “internal investigation service” under the law.

The Multinational Complication

The implications are especially pronounced for multinational corporations operating in Belgium. Under the PIA, investigations conducted by a regional or global group function on behalf of local Belgian affiliates are treated as being executed for the business’s own purposes rather than for third parties.

As a result, internal corporate teams—including compliance officers, internal auditors, corporate security, and Human Resources professionals—who investigate employees based in Belgium must comply with the PIA. This applies even if the central investigation team is physically located outside of Belgium, presenting immediate operational hurdles for cross-border businesses.

Chronology and Legislative Background: From 1991 to the 2024 Reform

Understanding how corporate Belgium arrived at this regulatory junction requires examining the evolution of the country’s private security legal framework.

• 1991: Belgium enacts the original Private Detectives Act. Tailored to an era of traditional, boots-on-the-ground private eye work, the statute focuses almost exclusively on commercial detective agencies, physical surveillance, and external investigators. It pays little attention to the internal compliance and HR mechanisms of modern corporations.
• Early 2020s: As corporate scandals, data privacy demands (following the EU’s GDPR rollout), and complex employment disputes multiply, Belgian lawmakers recognize a regulatory gap. Internal corporate investigations—often wielding sophisticated digital forensics, CCTV analysis, and access-card tracking—operate in a legal gray area with little oversight compared to licensed third-party detectives.
• December 16, 2024: Following legislative review and debate, the modernized Private Investigations Act (PIA) enters into force. The updated law explicitly accounts for the realities of modern corporate governance, bringing internal corporate investigative units under statutory supervision.
• Present Day: Belgian businesses scramble to audit their internal compliance, HR, and whistleblowing protocols to ensure their investigative practices align with the new licensing regime.

Supporting Data and Legal Scope: What is Included and What is Exempt?

Not every conversation, performance review, or fact-finding chat conducted by an employer constitutes a private investigation under the PIA. The law provides specific statutory carve-outs, though their boundaries are notoriously narrow.

Statutory Exemptions

1. Standard HR Reference Checks: Typical background checks performed by HR on job applicants prior to hiring are exempt from the PIA.
2. Investigations Mandated by Law: Fact-finding procedures carried out strictly to fulfill a legal obligation are excluded. This frequently includes formal whistleblowing investigations—provided they fall strictly within the narrow parameters of the Belgian Whistleblowing Act.

The Whistleblowing Trap

In practice, the exemption for whistleblowing investigations is fraught with risk. The scope of the Belgian Whistleblowing Act is relatively narrow. However, many employers establish internal reporting channels and compliance policies that cover a much broader array of concerns than the baseline legislation requires.

Furthermore, workplace investigations initiated via a whistleblowing report frequently expand organically as new facts emerge. Once an investigation drifts beyond what is strictly necessary to discharge a specific legal obligation—or if it touches on matters outside the whistleblower statutory scope—the entire protection vanishes. At that point, full compliance with the PIA, including potential licensing prerequisites, becomes mandatory.

Official Responses and Compliance Challenges: The Licensing Hurdle

The most formidable barrier introduced by the PIA is the mandatory licensing regime. Under the law, private investigation activities—whether conducted by a commercial agency or an internal corporate service—require an official license issued by the Belgian Ministry of the Interior.

The Cross-Border Dilemma

For multinational corporations, securing this license creates a logistical labyrinth:

• Validity: Licenses are granted for a renewable five-year period.
• Residency Restrictions: A license will only be awarded if the members of the investigating team are Belgian nationals or maintain their primary residence within the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland.
• The EEA Exception: For corporate groups based within the EEA, a viable pathway exists. A license for an internal investigation service can be obtained without maintaining a physical operating seat in Belgium, as Belgian authorities will factor in regulatory guarantees and clearances provided by another EEA Member State.
• Non-EEA Operations: For internal investigation functions based outside the EEA (such as US-headquartered global compliance teams directing a probe in a Belgian subsidiary), no such reciprocity exists.

Employers caught in this non-EEA bind must evaluate alternative legal strategies to conduct lawful workplace investigations. Depending on the gravity and nature of the case, businesses may need to formally instruct a licensed external Belgian investigation agency or route the fact-finding process entirely through external legal counsel to preserve legal privilege and statutory compliance.

Implications: The HR Exception and Litigation Risks

Recognizing that barring HR professionals from investigating everyday workplace friction would grind corporate operations to a halt, the legislature carved out a specific, albeit ambiguous, HR Exception.

Navigating the HR Exception

Human Resources professionals who carry out investigative activities on behalf of their own specific employing legal entity concerning that entity’s own employees are exempt from holding an investigator identification card and the associated licensing requirements. However, all other provisions of the PIA remain fully applicable to these HR-led probes.

The PIA neglects to formally define the term “incident investigation.” However, explanatory memorandums associated with the legislation clarify that once misconduct is identified or reasonably suspected, an incident investigation may legitimately include:

• The review and analysis of CCTV camera footage.
• The retrieval and examination of electronic access control and badge-reader data.
• The auditing of electronic locks and digital entry logs.
• Conducting formal or informal interviews with coworkers and witnesses.

Litigation and Evidentiary Fallout

Because the boundaries of the HR exception are undefined in the statutory text, employment law experts anticipate significant legal challenges.
Disgruntled employees—particularly those facing dismissal, disciplinary action, or restructuring—are expected to challenge the validity of internal probes. Defense attorneys will likely argue that an employer’s internal investigation exceeded the narrow limits of the HR exception, demanding that the court exclude the investigation’s findings as inadmissible evidence in subsequent dismissal or labor court proceedings.

Consequently, legal advisors are strongly urging employers to exercise extreme caution. Every internal workplace investigation must be rigorously scrutinized prior to launch to determine whether it fits squarely within the narrow confines of the HR exception or whether it triggers the full, demanding scope of the Belgian Private Investigations Act.

Legal experts note that the implementation of the PIA is an evolving landscape. In subsequent analyses, compliance specialists will examine the intersection of the PIA with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), restricted fields of investigation, mandatory interview protocols, data subject rights, and the severe corporate penalties associated with non-compliance.