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 Nombreux sont les domaines règlementés par le droit de l’Union qui s’appuient sur un double système de contrôle et de sanction. Le parfait exemple est la lutte contre la fraude préjudiciable aux intérêts financiers de l’UE, qui fait l’objet aussi bien d’enquêtes administratives que de poursuites pénales.1 Le développement de ce que la littérature anglophone appelle « double track enforcement systems » présuppose par son essence même la coordination et coopération entre autorités administratives, d’une part, et autorités policières et judiciaires, d’autre part.2 La question s’avère d’autant plus complexe que l’éventail de modèles existants est vaste et varié.… 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