Every euro counts ... and so does every second: the EPPO and cross-border cooperation in relation to seizure and freezing in the 22 participating member states

• Autores: Nicholas Franssen
• Localización: Eucrim: the European Criminal Law Associations' fórum, ISSN 1862-6947, Nº. 3, 2022 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Institutional cooperation in the field of the protection of the EU’s financial interests), págs. 206-212
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), operational since 1 June 2021, has not just been established to bring the perpetrators of EU fraud to justice but also to help recover the criminal profits they have acquired in the process. Thus, its raison d’être not only matches the traditional political axiom that crime does not pay but equally serves another goal formulated by European politicians across the board: money spent under the EU budget should not end up in the wrong hands. From a taxpayers’ viewpoint, this understandable ambition has not proved to be self-fulfilling over time, and this is where the EPPO could well take up its role as the ultimate remedy in the EU’s antifraud chain. The risk of major fraud involving EU money particularly came to the fore after adoption of the Recovery and Resilience Facility in 2021, as it encompasses a staggering €800 billion that will undoubtedly attract well-organised fraudsters. By definition, an effective recovery policy requires swift seizure of criminal proceeds at an early stage of the criminal investigation in order for there to be any realistic chance of returning them to the EU budget following a final conviction, which may take time. Swift seizure is particularly challenging in a situation involving several countries, as is usually the case with VAT fraud or other complex fraud schemes. This article examines the possibilities that the EPPO has under Regulation 2017/1939 to undertake cross-border measures relating to seizure and freezing. It concludes that, in the absence of a specific mechanism in the Regulation, some of the issues that may arise in practice could be solved by resorting to existing EU cooperation instruments on seizure and confiscation. However, questions, in particular as to the legal relationship or hierarchy between the Regulation and these other EU instruments will need to be addressed, ideally in the not too distant future and in the context of a fresh look at Art. 31 of the Regulation.