JOINT INVESTIGATION TEAMS PAN EUROPEAN PANACEAE OR DISASTERS

JOINT INVESTIGATION TEAMS PAN EUROPEAN PANACEAE OR DISASTERS WAITING TO HAPPEN ? London, 7 July 2014 Stefan DE MOOR

SCOPE n The OLAF experience n The Belgian experience n Some thoughts

OLAF’s challenges Serious misbehavior in institutions/bodies/ Agencies n n Cohesion funds/agricultural funds n Direct expenses : ex. Research projects n External aid n Customs fraud : ex. Cigarettes trafficking

FAKE PROJECTS n n n n Organised networks Intervening in EU projects Rigging procurement procedures Producing fake projects Conspiring with private companies, institutes, universities, experts, EU officials Inflating invoices Laundering money

OLAF and (national) judiciary/law enforcement n n n Criminalisation through PIF-instruments 1995 Role of judiciary/law enforcement Some kind of partnership Combine powers of collecting evidence with analysis capacity 2 nd Protocol PIF Convention 1997 : Commission’s assistance OLAF-Regulation/Decision 1999: independance of OLAF

Major fraud and corruption cases n n Start: OLAF administrative investigation Transmission to judiciary without closing the administrative investigation Assistance and synchronisation of actions Issue of the waivers of EU immunities/inviolabilities

Cour de Cassation Paris n n n 16/01/2013 accepted the regularity of the presence of OLAF officials during the house-search Accepted mission as experts analysing the evidence collected.

OLAF and JIT’s n 2000 MLA Convention: “possible participation of officials of bodies set up by the Treaties” n Explanatory report: “participation of OLAF in the team may also be considered” n Some national laws (ex. Belgium): ‘capacity of “experts” ’

Possible added value n n process information and evidence collected by several MS judicial authorities and OLAF analysis circulate the results to all involved MS-JA in real time

Bottle necks n Hidden consultant: neither its national law, nor any applicable international instrument provided for OLAF’s possible participation n Fake research projects: involved MS had no JIT legislation at all, except for drugs and terrorism cases.

Issues n n n authority over the OLAF officials during JIT -operations immunity of OLAF officials during JIToperations statute of the information analysed and the results of the analysis (repercussions for other MS).

The Belgian experience n n Belgium has experience with JIT’s since 2006. Roughly some 100 JIT’s have been constituted since. Most cases were drugs and organised thefts, followed by murder, terrorism, organised crime, fraud, money laundering, traffic of human beings. In 2013 18 JIT’s have been constituted and over 2014 : 8.

JIT’s in BELGIUM n n Almost all of them are bilateral and most with FR en NL, equally divided BE constituted 10 JIT’s with UK. Eurojust and EUROPOL are systematically informed. In 12 of them there was Commission financial contribution via EUROJUST* (own figures)

Some thoughts n new OLAF Regulation No 883/2013 : No JIT provisions (compare EUROPOL and EUROJUST Decisions) COM(2012)363 final Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law No JIT provisions (providing the obligation of MS to allow OLAF’s participation in JIT’s) n

THANK YOU Stefan DE MOOR S. demoor@yahoo. com