8 Amendments of Zbigniew ZIOBRO related to 2012/0193(COD)
Amendment 4 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In order to ensure effective, proportionate and dissuasive protection of the Union's financial interests, criminal law in the Member States should continue to complement the protection under administrative and civil law for the most serious types of fraud-related conduct in this fieldagainst the most serious types of fraud- related conduct, and in order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests are optimally protected, measures adopted under administrative and civil law should be complemented by legislation under criminal law in the Member States, whilst avoiding inconsistencies, both within and among these areas of law.
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The protection of the Union's financial interests calls for a common definition and classification of fraud covering fraudulent conduct with respect to both expenditure and revenues at the expense of the EU budget.
Amendment 6 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Fraud affecting Value Added Tax (VAT) diminishes tax receipts of Member States and subsequently the application of a uniform rate to Member States' VAT assessment base. As confirmed by the Court of Justice jurisprudence26, there is a direct link between the collection of VAT revenue in compliance with the Union law applicable and the availability to the Union budget of the corresponding resources, since any lacuna in the collection of the first potentially causes a reduction in the second. The Directive therefore covncerns revenue resulting from VAT receiptsules relating to the collection of VAT in the Member States.
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The Union's financial interests can be negatively affected where individual tenderers provide information to contracting or grant awarding authorities based on information unduillegally obtained directly or indirectly from the tendering body, with the aim of circumventing or skewviolating rules applicable to a public procurement or grant procedure. Such conduct is very similar to fraud, but does not necessarily need to constitutebear all the hallmarks of a full fraud offence on the side of the tenderer, since the provided bid may be completely in line with all requirementsmeet all the necessary criteria. Bid- rigging behaviour between tenderers violates Union competition rules and equivalent national laws; it is subject to public enforcement action and sanctions throughout the Union and should remain outside the scope of this Directive.
Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The Union's financial interests can be negatively affected by certain types of conduct of a public official which aim at misappropriating funds or assets contrary to the purpose foreseen, and with the intention to damage the Union's financial interests. There is therefore a need to introduce a precise and unambiguous definition of offences covering such conduct.
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to protect the Union's financial interests equivalently through measures which should act as a deterrent throughout the Union, Member States should further foresee certain minimum types and levels of sanctions when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. The levels of sanctions should not go beyond what is proportionate for the offences and a threshold expressed in money, under which criminalisation is not necessary, should therefore be introduced.
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The sanctions for natural persons in more serious cases should foresee imprisonment ranges. These serious cases should be defined by referring to a certain minimum overall damage, expressed in money, which must have been caused by the criminal behaviour to the Union's and, possibly, other budget. The introduction of minimum maximum imprisonment ranges is necessary in order to guarantee that the Union's financial interests are given an equivalent protection throughout Europe. The minimum sanction of six months ensures that a European Arrest Warrant can be issued and executed for the offences listed in Article 2 of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, thus ensuring that judicial and law enforcement cooperation will be as efficient as possible. The sanctions will also serve as a strong deterrent for potential criminals, with effect all over Europe. More severe sanction levels should be imposed for cases when the offence was committed within a criminal organisation in the sense of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA.
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure the coherence of Union law and safeguard the principle that no-one is punished twiceagain for the same cause of action, there is a need to clarify the relation between penalties under this Directive and other relevant administrative measures under Union law. The Directive should be without prejudice to the application of specific administrative measures, penalties and fines under Union law.