The article reflects on the future of financial criminal law investigations of the EU. It departs from the experts’ studies conducted which have developed the Corpus Juris Model, and recalls the historic development of the subsequent institutional debate up to the Lisbon Reform Treaty. The reform on OLAF’s functional independence and accountability is put into the context of a possible work plan to complete the reflections. Ultimately, the author outlines a way ahead, which possibly enables financial criminal investigations of the EU to be conducted under the lead of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The adoption of the regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office is a decisive step in the completion of the institutional settings for the protection of the EU’s financial interests. This article looks back at the origins of the project and recalls its underlying rationale. It further critically analyses the legislative procedure, studies the contents of the compromise reached, and provides insight into the requirements for efficient operation of the EPPO in cooperation with its partners. By way of concluding remarks, three perspectives are outlined that require further analysis and closer scrutiny, i.e.:
- Efforts in common training schemes;
- Need for criminal investigation and enforcement support;
- Reflections on the merger of the EPPO and Eurojust

This article gives an account of the negotiations of the Commission proposal for the Directive
on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law ("PIF Directive"). It also outlines the key elements of the finally adopted legal instrument as well as its significance for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The article concludes that the comprehensive approach followed by the EU in fighting crime against the Union budget will lead to tangible results and a significantly better protection of the financial interests of the European Union.

The piece explains how Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 creates the EPPO—the EU’s first true criminal investigation and prosecution office—focused on crimes affecting the Union’s financial interests (PFI) as defined in the PFI Directive (EU) 2017/1371. Set up via enhanced cooperation (20 participating states), the EPPO has a central level (Chief Prosecutor + College) and European Delegated Prosecutors operating nationally. While cross-border work is a step beyond classic mutual recognition, the absence of a single EU criminal procedure leaves tensions between lex fori and lex loci, and a complex decision system (Permanent Chambers) whose efficiency will be tested in practice.
On EPPO–OLAF relations, the article stresses complementarity: OLAF remains an administrative investigator whose reports can feed national criminal cases, and—per Art. 101 EPPO Reg.—should not run parallel admin inquiries when an EPPO criminal case is open, though close information exchange is expected. OLAF’s role stays crucial (especially with non-EPPO EU and third states) … Read more

The article reviews the 2017 evaluation of OLAF’s legal framework (Reg. 883/2013) and sketches next steps. Using the EU’s Better Regulation playbook, the Commission found OLAF delivers clear EU added value and largely effective cooperation (notably via AFCOS)—but its investigative powers are fragmented by dependence on national law, lack direct enforcement tools, and face uneven admissibility of OLAF reports in national proceedings. Differences in cooperation duties across Member States/IBOAs, governance frictions with the Supervisory Committee, and gaps around VAT and access to bank account information also emerged. With the EPPO launching, the Commission plans targeted amendments: align OLAF–EPPO relations, streamline and clarify references to national law, bolster report admissibility and cooperation duties, define OLAF’s VAT remit, improve access to financial data, and tidy up coordination cases—aiming for a stronger, more coherent anti-fraud framework.