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

The article reflects on the legacy of the 1941 Ventotene Manifesto in light of today’s European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). While Spinelli and his co-authors could not foresee cross-border judicial cooperation or harmonised procedural rights, their call for federalism and equality foreshadowed the Charter of Rights and the AFSJ. Salazar argues that placing the individual at the centre of Europe remains the key to reviving the “spirit of Ventotene.” He highlights current shortcomings – from limited powers for Eurojust to stalled progress on the EPPO – as examples of the cost of “non-Europe,” and calls for a renewed commitment to integration, rights protection, and effective justice across the Union.

I. Protecting the EU’s Financial Interests: A Shared Responsibility in a Complex Enforcement Environment The protection of the EU’s financial interests (PIF) implies a shared responsibility on the part of both the Union and the Member States. In this respect, Art. 325 para. 1 TFEU recalls the multiple levels of cooperation required to counter and combat fraud and other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union. We can identify at least three levels or dimensions of cooperation in the PIF domain: The horizontal cooperation between the EU actors holding specific PIF responsibilities; The horizontal cooperation between the competent… Read more

I. Introduction The protection of the EU budget is a shared responsibility between the EU – namely the Commission – and the Member States.1 In principle, the national (administrative or judicial) authorities conduct investigations and sanction those violations of EU law that are detrimental to EU financial interests, both when they concern expenditure (e.g., structural funds) and revenue (e.g., customs duties). The readers of eucrim are certainly familiar with the developments in EU law that have taken place since the 1970s, which have entailed increasing EU intervention on the punitive aspects of the enforcement of EU policies. Such intervention mainly… Read more

As part of its efforts to ensure better law-making at the EU level, together with the other EU institutions, the European Parliament is paying increasing attention to the added value of European action (“European added value”) as well as the costs of not taking action at the EU level (“cost of non-Europe”).
This article looks at the questions of how and to what extent these concepts can be applied to the area of EU criminal law. It will do so based on an assessment of two studies produced by the European Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value:
- A European added value assessment accompanying a legislative initiative report on the reform of the European Arrest Warrant;
- A cost of non-Europe report on organised crime and corruption, supporting an own-initiative report on the matter.
The article concludes by identifying a number of challenges and limitations to measuring the … Read more