C_2020345EN.01001901.xml

P8_TA(2018)0419

Protection of the EU’s financial interests — Recovery of money and assets from third countries in fraud cases

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2018 on protection of the EU’s financial interests — Recovery of money and assets from third countries in fraud cases (2018/2006(INI))

(2020/C 345/04)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to the Eighteenth report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the year 2017,

—	having regard to Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (1),

—	having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (2),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 7 April 2016 on an action plan on VAT: Towards a single EU VAT area — Time to decide (COM(2016)0148),

—	having regard to the Commission report of 3 September 2018 entitled ‘29th Annual Report on the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud — 2017’ (COM(2018)0553) and the accompanying staff working documents (SWD(2018)0381 to 0386),

—	having regard to Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union (3),

—	having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (final report) (5) (CRIM resolution) and its resolution of 25 October 2016 on the fight against corruption and follow-up of the CRIM resolution (6),

—	having regard to the Special Eurobarometer 470 report,

—	having regard to the question to the Commission on fighting customs fraud and protecting EU own resources (O-000066/2018),

—	having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0298/2018),

A.	whereas protection of the EU’s financial interests should be a key element of EU policy aimed at increasing the confidence of citizens by ensuring that their money is used properly and effectively;

B.	whereas the diversity of legal and administrative systems in the Member States presents a challenging environment for combating fraud, in the absence of uniform legislation at European level to combat organised crime;

C.	whereas Article 325(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that ‘Member States shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests’;

whereas Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (7) introduces minimum EU standards on the freezing of property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation and on the confiscation of property in criminal matters;

E.	whereas the Commission proposal of 21 December 2016 for a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders (2016/0412(COD)) introduces standardised means of cooperation among Member States;

F.	whereas none of these instruments can apply to third countries;

G.	whereas Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, and particularly Article 104 thereof, envisages means of cooperation with third countries;

whereas Article 3(4) of the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No 198) states: ‘Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to require that, in respect of a serious offence or offences as defined by national law, an offender demonstrates the origin of alleged proceeds or other property liable to confiscation to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of its domestic law’;

whereas at regional and global level several conventions and mechanisms in relation to confiscation and asset recovery have been developed by the UN and the Council of Europe, namely the United Nations Convention against Corruption of 31 October 2003, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of 15 November 2000, the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 16 May 2005, the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of 8 November 1990; whereas, however, for various reasons these instruments do not always allow an effective and timely recovery of stolen assets;

J.	whereas this issue has been designated by the EU as one of the priorities of the common foreign and security policy; whereas pilot and preparatory projects are being implemented in this regard;

whereas in accordance with Articles 1, 3 and 14 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (8), OLAF has a mandate to investigate everywhere where EU money is spent, including in non-EU countries receiving EU assistance;

L.	whereas in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, OLAF may enter into administrative cooperation arrangements with competent authorities in third countries, following prior coordination with the competent Commission services and the European External Action Service;

Highlights the ongoing problem of EU funds lost owing to cases of fraud involving funds being transferred to third countries;

Stresses the need, for the purposes of prevention, to avoid transfers of funds through financial intermediaries operating in non-transparent and uncooperative jurisdictions;

Highlights with concern that funds from third countries may also be fraudulently transferred to the EU; underlines that the outcome of the EU-funded Preparatory Action for Supporting Arab Spring countries to implement asset recovery carried out by the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) should lead to a permanent and broader EU programme to implement asset recovery;

Stresses the need to link the disbursement of funds to the publication of beneficial ownership data, in order to facilitate the recovery of assets in the event of fraud;

Underlines that the EU has, unfortunately, so far only concluded agreements on mutual legal assistance with a few third countries, such as Japan, Liechtenstein, Norway and the US, despite the fact that it is suspected that funds are also transferred to other jurisdictions; calls on the Commission to encourage efforts to reach agreements with third countries receiving EU funding;

Regrets the fact that many Member States currently have to rely on bilateral agreements and that there is no EU approach to this serious issue; stresses, therefore, the need for a more unified approach;

Calls for the EU to advance with its application for membership of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) as rapidly as possible, and to keep Parliament updated on the matter;

Calls on the Commission to harden its stance in agreements signed with third countries by adding anti-fraud clauses; regrets the fact that there is no data on the amount of EU funds lost annually owing to fraudulent cases linked to money transfer to third countries; calls on the Commission to calculate the amount of EU funds lost;

Invites the Commission to undertake a risk assessment of EU laws that facilitate illegal money transfer outside of the EU, and remove the sensitive points in those laws;

10.

Calls on the Commission to establish a standardised data collection method, which would be identical for all Member States, to enable detection of the transfer of fraudulent assets to third countries, with the aim of creating a central EU database as soon as possible; underlines that such a mechanism already exists to combat money laundering, and that this mechanism could be expanded;

11.

Underlines that the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 16 May 2005 and the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of 8 November 1990 constitute important instruments facilitating cooperation with third countries related to the freezing and recovery of assets; welcomes the successful conclusion of negotiations on the proposal for a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, and notes that its main elements could form a useful basis for cooperation with third countries in the context of international conventions and bilateral agreements to which the EU is party;

12.

Regrets the fact that not all EU Member States have agreed to be part of the EPPO; stresses the importance of the EPPO becoming the key player in any future mechanism for recovery in third countries, and that this requires that it be recognised for this purpose as a competent authority, in with Article 104 of the EPPO Regulation, in existing and future agreements on mutual legal assistance and asset recovery, in particular Council of Europe and UN Conventions;

13.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office.

(1) OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 105.

(4) OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1.

(5) OJ C 208, 10.6.2016, p. 89.

(6) OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 96.

(7) OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 39.

(8) OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1.