Cross-border, asset-related crime exploits a persistent enforcement gap in Germany’s confiscation regime. Existing tools — conviction-based forfeiture under §§ 73 ff. German Criminal Code (StGB) and the narrowly framed conviction-independent procedure of § 76a StGB — fail whenever offenders abscond, die, or hide behind complex offshore structures. This article addresses two research questions: (1) Can a non-conviction-based confiscation (NCBC) mechanism close this gap effectively? (2) Is such a mechanism compatible with the property guarantee of Art. 14 Basic Law and the fair-trial safeguards of Art. 6 European Convention on Human Rights?
Building on Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on asset recovery; comparative practice in Switzerland (SRVG 2015), Italy (confisca di prevenzione), and the United Kingdom (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002); and German constitutional jurisprudence, the author proposes a Vermögenseinziehungsgesetz (VEG, Asset Confiscation Act). The VEG is conceived as an in rem civil procedure before specialised chambers: the public prosecutor must demonstrate the … Read more

In April 2024, the European Union’s Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (PAR) entered into force. In further efforts to ensure a transparent, safe, predictable and trustworthy online environment within the EU — particularly in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal — the Regulation aims to respond to the dangers and misuse of microtargeting, a sophisticated data-based method of online manipulation. Despite PAR’s lofty aspirations, the nature and functions of online manipulation are fraught with more conceptual and regulatory difficulties than it appears to acknowledge or resolve. First, PAR’s reliance on outmoded data protection principles and their largely unforeseeable effects on data disposition and aggregation complicate the problem of online user consent. Second, without adopting a broader “supervisory perspective” for identifying harmful microtargeting and interest misalignment, PAR risks endorsing only transparency without accountability. Third, a noticeable regulatory loophole risks prompting a surge in unregulated political advertising … Read more

This article examines the administrative penalty system under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in cases of over-declarations of agricultural land. It focuses on the “yellow card” legislation that was introduced in 2016 and applicable until 2022, analysing its practical implications. This “yellow card” system introduced reduced penalties for minor infractions but capped penalties at 100% of the granted aid. This approach can be regressive, as it eliminates additional penalties for irregularities over 50%. As a result, deterrent effects are lessened for serious infractions. Next to a legal analysis of the system, the author uses mathematical analysis to show that irregularities of over 40% do not lead to increased penalties. He argues that the approach followed has encouraged abuses and concludes that the EU should refrain from readopting a sanction system like the “yellow card” in the future.

The concept of security within the EU’s legislative and policy framework has evolved significantly over the past few decades, adapting to shifting realities. Building on existing and overarching foundations, notably the EU Security Union Strategy, the European Commission recently presented a trio of initiatives that further frame the EU’s approach towards security. Having begun with a focus on conventional threats, such as terrorism and organised crime, the EU’s security approach has expanded to encompass cyberattacks, hybrid threats, and the protection of critical infrastructure.
This article gives an overview of the most prominent adopted initiatives that have shaped, shape and will shape the EU’s security architecture. The authors argue that the concept of security can no longer be viewed in isolation and that it should be seen as intersecting with a wide range of different instruments, actions, and policy areas. The authors consider it essential to establish clarity regarding the EU’s … Read more

This article presents the principal results of a comparative study carried out as part of the AFRADE project. Co-funded by the EU Anti-Fraud Programme, it examined fraud in shared-management funds of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The article addresses three main areas: a) the payment mechanisms for CAP funds; b) the most recurrent fraud schemes and criminal offenses; and c) the most effective tools for information exchange activities that could optimise the reporting and detection of CAP fraud among national and supranational bodies involved in both criminal and administrative investigations. The authors highlight two key issues arising from the study: the methodological and procedural approach to the subject matter and the use of administrative instead of criminal measures.

It goes without saying that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) form the heart of the protection of the EU’s financial interests. However, the national authorities of the EU Member States are in the frontline when it comes to fighting fraud, bearing in mind that achievements in the field of the protection of the EU's financial interests also depend on the readiness and capacity of OLAF’s and EPPO’s partners in the Member States, (potential) candidate countries, and other non-EU countries, all of which cooperate to this end.
While the EPPO facilitates the achievement of its objectives in many ways through delegated prosecutors, OLAF, lacking a possibility to delegate its function, mainly relies on the anti-fraud coordination services (AFCOSes). These are established in each EU Member State to ensure effective cooperation and exchange of information with OLAF. In the absence of a stable legal framework … Read more