The article examines how the principle of equality must be safeguarded in proceedings of the forthcoming European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Falletti identifies two main challenges: ensuring equal rights for suspects and ensuring equal handling of cases. Since the EPPO applies both its Regulation and national criminal procedure, differences in procedural safeguards across Member States risk undermining equality, particularly in access to lawyers and defence costs in cross-border cases. On case allocation, fears of forum shopping are addressed by mandatory criteria and oversight by Permanent Chambers, with national courts retaining judicial review. While the system relies heavily on national law and courts, ongoing harmonisation through EU directives and ECJ control should mitigate inequalities. The EPPO’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on practice in balancing European coordination with equal treatment of suspects.

The Italian criminal law system, unlike the systems in many other European countries, allows the defense to carry out defensive investigations on behalf of his/her client. In this contribution, the shortcomings of the recent European legislation on the matter are analyzed, as well as the issue of the validity in Italian criminal proceedings of defensive investigations conducted by the defense council abroad. The admissibility in the criminal case of defensive investigations conducted abroad by an Italian defense lawyer was, in fact, already rejected ten years ago by the Italian Court of Cassation. The Court stated that the official state instruments of international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters must be used if investigations are carried out abroad. The authors argue in this contribution that this position cannot be upheld in a unified Europe and deserves fundamental reconsideration. They also advocate a European solution of defensive investigations abroad – a possible … Read more

The article traces how Directive (EU) 2016/1919 on legal aid—adopted 26 Oct 2016—completed the 2009 Procedural Rights Roadmap. It recounts why “measure C” (access to a lawyer + legal aid) was split, the Commission’s 2013 proposal (initially focused on provisional legal aid), and the political split between “northern” states seeking flexibility/cost control and “southern” states/Parliament pushing broader coverage. After trilogues (2015–16), a compromise replaced “provisional” with legal aid, set a scope of “deprivation of liberty plus” (also covering mandatory-lawyer situations and key investigative acts), and anchored eligibility in combined means and merits tests, with a safety net guaranteeing aid when detention is decided or ongoing. The Directive also covers EAW proceedings, and adds rules on decisions, quality, and training. Member States must transpose by 25 May 2019.

The Commission’s proposal for a directive amending the fourth AML directive raises numerous issues concerning respect of the rights to privacy and to protection of personal data. The main challenges are related to the creation of central and public registries of beneficial ownership information and to the extension of the powers of the financial intelligence units concerning access to financial data. The latter is of utmost concern, as this new power of access to personal data is not balanced with explicit legal guarantees. Financial data, however, are private data deserving adequate protection.

The article analyses the EU’s anti-money laundering (AML) framework under Directive 2015/849 (the fourth AML Directive) and the Commission’s July 2016 proposal for amendments. Met-Domestici explains how the reforms respond to terrorist financing risks and evolving laundering methods by broadening the scope of obliged entities (including virtual currency exchanges and gambling providers), adding tax crimes as predicate offences, tightening rules on prepaid cards, and focusing on politically exposed persons and high-risk third countries. The proposal also strengthens customer due diligence, beneficial ownership transparency, central registers, and cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units. While these measures mark significant progress, the author argues that long-term effectiveness requires further integration, including the possible establishment of a European FIU and extending the EPPO’s jurisdiction to money laundering and terrorism.

The article critiques recent EU AML moves—4AMLD and the Commission’s 2016 package—through five lenses: scope, ECDD, beneficial ownership, FIUs, and criminalisation. It welcomes extending coverage to gambling and lowering the cash threshold, but flags gaps (e.g., construction/property developers; ambiguity on letting agents) and says virtual-asset gatekeepers belong inside the regime (as the 2016 proposal suggests). The Commission’s mandatory enhanced CDD list for high-risk third-country dealings may curb forum-shopping but risks cost, de-risking, and lost intelligence; a smarter calibration of the risk-based approach is urged. Beneficial ownership registers are innovative yet fragile without verification and clear sanctions, and wider/public access raises unresolved data-protection questions. Expanding FIU powers (direct access to obliged-entity data; bank-account registries) could speed analysis but needs tighter legal limits to avoid incoherence and privacy problems. On criminalisation, the piece cautions against over-broad predicate catalogues and negligence-based offences; it argues for careful treatment of self-laundering and prioritising robust enforcement … Read more