This article analyses the criminal offence of unjustified set-off in Italian tax law, introduced alongside the offence of non-payment of VAT by Legislative Decree No. 74/2000 (Sects. 10-ter and 10-quater) to counter increasingly common forms of tax evasion. It explains set-off as a legal mechanism (vertical vs. horizontal set-off under Sect. 17 of Legislative Decree No. 241/1997) and shows how the abuse of horizontal set-off through non-existent or non-applicable tax credits enables concealed non-payment of taxes, including in VAT carousel fraud schemes. The contribution examines the constitutive elements of the offence: the use of fictitious or ineligible credits via Form F24, failure to pay amounts exceeding €50,000 per tax period, the required mens rea (including contingent intent), the temporal moment of commission, and the position of intermediaries. It further outlines the parallel administrative offence regime, the speciality principle governing the interaction between criminal and administrative sanctions, and the mitigating effects … Read more

This article analyses the complex relationship between administrative and criminal sanctions in Polish law, focusing on tax and social security cases and the constitutional ne bis in idem principle. It centres on the 2011 judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal (P 90/08), which held that the 75% lump-sum tax on undisclosed income under the Personal Income Tax Act is a “special type of tax” rather than a criminal sanction, and thus its cumulative application alongside fiscal-criminal liability under the tax penal code does not violate ne bis in idem. The article reconstructs the Tribunal’s reasoning on the preventive and compensatory nature of such tax measures, contrasts it with dissenting views emphasising excessive repressiveness, and situates the ruling within earlier Constitutional Tribunal case law on VAT “additional tax obligations” and other double-sanction scenarios. It further explores the emergence of an “administrative-criminal law” sphere in which economic sanctions imposed by administrative authorities … Read more

The creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office seems now to be in sight, at least from an EU-constitutional point of view. However, there appear to be two major stumbling blocks, which can be summarised as austerity and complexity. Within the climate of financial austerity in the EU, the Zeitgeist provokes considerations of reduction and economy rather than expansion and creation of new EU institutions on a vertical scale. Finding a politically palatable solution will require not only political will (and/or a sudden event precipitating the need for an EPPO) but will also call for creativity in execution. All the… Read more

I. Introduction The idea of a centralised supranational public prosecutor originates from a revolutionary dream of experts envisaged in the renowned Corpus Juris1 project (1997) and its follow-up study2 (2000). The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provided the legal basis for a possible establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO),3 and the concept since then has gained further support inter alia through the Action Plan of the Stockholm programme and the recently conducted EPPO Study.4 The synergies and effects of academic research and political realism over little more than a decade are readily apparent. The… Read more

Arts. 85, 86, and 88 TFUE opened up a rich debate on the construction of the European criminal law area. What role will OLAF play in the future as regards the possibilities offered by these new legal bases? The question may surprise those who are not familiar with OLAF’s activities. Indeed, OLAF carries out administrative, not criminal investigations.1 Its competences do not cover only offences but, in a wider sense, irregularities adversely affecting the financial interests of the EU.2 Above all, Regulation 1073/99 explicitly states that OLAF’s investigations shall not affect the powers of Member States to initiate criminal proceedings.3… Read more

By law of 27 March 2003, the Central Office for Seizure and Confiscation (COSC) was created in Belgium. The new institution, established within the Office of Public Prosecutors, assists the judicial authorities in criminal matters in the areas of seizure of assets, the implementation of criminal procedure with a view to the confiscation of assets, and the enforcement of final and conclusive sentences and orders involving confiscation of assets.1 One of the forms of assistance consists of the management of all cash, seized in criminal matters all over the country. By law of 20 July 2005, a new provision was… Read more