2020/2221(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by area-based direct payments; underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at Member State level, in particular by increasing convergence to 100% and going above the 10% minimum for the redistributive payment;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by area-based direct payments; underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at Member State level; points out that the actual distribution of land and subsidies could be even more unequal, as the statistics available do allow any assertion to be made about the ownership and control of farms, for example by holding companies; underlines the potential for abuse where payment entitlements lie far above the national average in Member States without internal convergence of European direct payments;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by area-based direct payments; underlines the need for ~~more targeted~~fairer support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at Member State level, while respecting the right of Member States to apply flexibility in choosing, among other things, the form of redistributive payments, taking into account regional and local specific features and circumstances;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by ~~area-based~~ direct payments; underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at Member State level; points out that the misuse of EU funds has been decreasing in recent years;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by area-based direct payments; underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at Member State level; stresses the need for the fastest possible external convergence between the EU Member States;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasises that existing statistical tools at EU level, such as the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), the Eurostat Farm Structure Survey and the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) gather data on different aspects of land tenure; underlines that comprehensive, up-to-date, transparent and high-quality data on land tenure, property structures, leasing structures, and price and volume movements on land markets at European level, have so far been lacking and, in some Member States, are collected and published only incompletely;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasises the need to change the criterion for the allocation of aid per hectare – which is leading to a scramble to acquire land and to the expansion of farms – and replace it with more relevant criteria relating to employment and the sustainability of production methods, introducing redistribution schemes to prevent situations involving annuities (especially when market prices are high), encourage best practices and relevant investments, and make support more accessible to those who need it most in order to ensure their farms remain viable;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Emphasises that if the current CAP support schemes are not changed, farm-expansion and land-grabbing will continue inexorably, forcing many farms out of business, to the detriment of a vibrant countryside in which many small- scale farmers manage holdings on a human scale, which are easier to pass on and offer better access to the land for younger generations and everyone interested in working in farming, including people who do not have backgrounds in farming;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Notes that the concentration of land ownership is also the result of a lack of transparency and oversight, and a lack or total absence of national land-use policies, making it possible for legal arrangements to be made that are aimed at circumventing existing rules, even prompting patronage-based practices that generally favour the rich, the powerful and those occupying top decision-making positions, which can lead to conflicts of interest;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Notes that land-grabbing may also involve illegal activity and corruption by oligarchies and kleptocracies, as we have seen in Member States in central and eastern Europe, or by mafia organisations or unscrupulous businesses that also exist in other Member States;

Amendment 2 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the common agricultural policy (CAP) is the largest item in the EU budget, representing 31 % of the total budgetary expenditure for the 2021-2027 period; stresses the key role of a properly functioning CAP in protecting the financial interests of the EU and its citizens against any misuse of EU funds that can be detrimental to the public image of such a strategic policy; Underlines, that general Union legislation on protection of the Union financial interests and avoidance of conflict of interest must be respected by the all Member States;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that the Member States are responsible for the EU agricultural funds under shared management with the Commission; considers the new delivery model and the new National Strategic Plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce Member States’ and the Commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds; however the controls should not bring unnecessary or additional administrative burden for small and medium farmers, who may have a problem with a new administration system; emphasises that it is necessary to differentiate between the small mistakes of small and medium-sized farmers caused by the complicated new system and deliberately committed fraud;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that the Member States are responsible for the EU agricultural funds under shared management with the Commission; ~~considers~~stresses that the new delivery model and the new National Strategic Plans tocan be a ~~great~~n opportunity to reinforce Member States’ and the Commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds; provided the Member States have effective management and control systems in place; however the controls should not bring unnecessary or additional administrative burden for small and medium farmers;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 23 #

Anne SANDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that the Member States are responsible for the EU agricultural funds under shared management with the Commission; considers that the new delivery model and the new Nnational Sstrategic Pplans ~~to be a great opportunity to reinforce~~should make it possible to introduce an appropriate level of monitoring of beneficiaries by Member States’ and by the Commission~~’s control~~ of the governance models introduced by Member States pertaining to the distribution ~~and~~, management ~~of fund~~and performance of funds; emphasises that the principle of the single audit should help relieve the pressure on farmers;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that the Member States are responsible for the EU agricultural funds under shared management with the Commission; considers the new delivery model and the new National Strategic Plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce Member States’ and the Commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds and to raise awareness among the authorities responsible for awarding grants of the opportunities for fraud; stresses, in this context, the importance of exchanges between European law enforcement actors and funding release authorities in order to ensure the highest possible level of prior awareness of possible fraud;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that the Member States are responsible for the EU agricultural funds under shared management with the Commission; considers that, because compliance checks on expenditure are transferred from the Commission to the Member States under the new delivery model for CAP reform and the new Nnational Sstrategic Pplans, t~~o be a great opportunity to reinforce Member States’ and the Commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds~~here is a danger not only of disparities among the checks carried out in each country, but also of less rigorous checks on the use of European public funds, which could result in a number of irregularities that are extremely harmful to the CAP’s image and its budget;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that the Member States are responsible for the EU agricultural funds under shared management with the Commission; stresses the need for a reasonable period of learning and implementation for the introduction of the new eco-schemes; considers the new delivery model and the new National Strategic Plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce Member States’ and the Commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Highlights~~Points out that the Member States are responsible for the EU agricultural funds under ~~shared~~ management with the Commission; ~~considers~~takes the view that the new delivery model and the new National Strategic Plans tomay be a ~~great~~n opportunity to reinforce Member States’ and the Commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that every effort should be made to ensure that the new delivery model for the CAP does not result in a reduction in the level of absorption of CAP funds by final beneficiaries as a consequence of unintentional errors, a lack of transparency in the rules or a lack of adequate information, particularly during the initial implementation period;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to raise Member States’ awareness of organised crime engaging in tax evasion, corruption and illegal practices (such as ‘pocket contracts’) in connection with land transactions, and to support them in combating such crime;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the common agricultural policy (CAP) is the largest item in the EU budget, representing 31 % of the total budgetary expenditure for the 2021-2027 period; stresses the key role of a properly functioning CAP in protecting the financial interests of the EU and its citizens against any misuse of EU funds that can be detrimental to the public image of such a strategic policy, and deprives genuine farmers of a greater delivery of financial support;

Amendment 30 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Michal WIEZIK, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Notes with regret the lack of progress and initiatives by the Commission towards achieving greater convergence of external direct payments under Pillar I of the CAP, which for many years has contributed to a distortion of the competitive balance between Member States; calls on the Commission to take decisive action to increase the external convergence of this funding;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of EU agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the EU and the Member States; underlines that EU funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents; the Commission shall establish a comprehensive real-time information and monitoring system, including but not limited to existing tools, such as Arachne, to allow a precise overview of the distribution and fair allocation of the EU funds and to have the possibility to track and aggregate the distributed financial means; this system should include information on the interconnections between companies and beneficial owners;

Amendment 32 #

Anne SANDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of EU agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the EU and the Member States; underlines that EU funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents, including in order, where necessary, to bring states that break the rules into line; takes the view that a distinction should be drawn between established fraud and clear or genuine errors; in that connection, welcomes the voluntary introduction of a right for genuine errors to be recognised and corrected, and of new transparency and anti-fraud tools in the context of the CAP;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of EU agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the EU and the Member States; notes that transparency and the control of agricultural funding are essential for the construction of a functional agricultural system; underlines that EU funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 35 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Michal WIEZIK, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The Commission shall collect information on all subsidies received from the first and second pillars of the CAP and aggregate the total amount that a natural person receives either directly through direct payments or indirectly as beneficial owner of legal persons that are beneficiaries of CAP payments (direct payments and payments from rural development);

Amendment 37 #

Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Highlights that land grabbing and land concentration are practices that negatively affect biodiversity, economic and social welfare of local communities and generational renewal, and calls on the Commission to address these issues at EU level;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that at least 5.5 million euros in farm subsidies was obtained by Italian organised crime, for land they did not own, between 2010 and 2017;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Highlights that fraud is often facilitated by individuals within the public administration, making it more difficult to uncover;

Amendment 4 #

Anne SANDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the common agricultural policy (CAP) is the largest item in the EU budget, representing 31 % of the total budgetary expenditure for the 2021-2027 period; stresses th~~e key role of a properly functioning CAP in protecting~~at it is vital for the CAP’s control systems at EU and national level to work properly to ensure that the financial interests of the EU and its citizens are effectively protected against any misuse of EU funds that can be detrimental to farmers and to the public image of such a strategic policy;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Underlines that farmers must be protected from intimidation by criminal gangs, who seek to claim subsidies for their land;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Notes the work of operation Grande Carro, which discovered a fraud scheme targeting the EAFRD vehicle purchase facility, resulting in fraudulent payments over 9.5 million;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)

4e. Stresses that Oligarchs structures are as or more financially detrimental to the CAP than organised crime gangs, the identification of these structures is essential to protect genuine farmers;

Amendment 43 #

Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Michal WIEZIK, Christine SCHNEIDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that OLAF is responsible for combating fraud in CAP payments, and that open cases are based on information from Member States or reports from members of the public who have been affected and who may then face retaliation; emphasises, furthermore, that OLAF cases are highly confidential and are not widely publicised when they are concluded; therefore calls, on the one hand, for whistleblowers to be protected, and, on the other, for the establishment of follow-up obligations for OLAF, for DG AGRI to report any suspected fraud, and for fraud investigation authorities in the Member States to share best practices in the area;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud, conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses the importance of EU-wide database interoperability, common rules and data exchange, cross- border cooperation and better use of IT tools; highlights the importance of adherence to the Financial Regulation of the EU, and in particular the implementation of Article 61 on Conflict of interests by all the EU member states and its application on all EU funds’ payments;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud, conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses th~~e importance of~~at it is important to have unique identifiers within reporting systems and databases to make it clear who the final beneficiaries are – whether they are individuals or belong to one or more companies in receipt of funds, including via several companies registered in several Member States – and to have shared databases to ensure EU- wide database interoperability~~, common rules and~~; lastly, emphasises the importance of having common data -exchange, rules, stepping up cross- border cooperation and ~~better~~improving the use of IT tools;

Amendment 46 #

5. Underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud, conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses the importance of EU-wide database interoperability, common rules and data exchange, cross- border cooperation and better use of IT tools; welcomes, in this context, the adoption of a provision on the voluntary use by Member States of the Arachne data analytics tool, which can help to increase the effectiveness of financial controls and the transparency of links between beneficiaries;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud, conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses the importance of EU-wide database interoperability, common rules and data exchange between government stakeholders, cross- border cooperation and better use of IT tools and technology; stresses the need for information and prevention activities among recipients of CAP funding;

Amendment 48 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Elsi KATAINEN, Alin MITUȚA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Jérémy DECERLE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud, conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses the importance of ~~EU-wide~~ database interoperability between Member States and across the EU, common rules and data exchange, cross- border cooperation and better use of IT tools;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls that under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the EU is strengthening its support to managing authorities in their administrative controls and management checks of the European funds notably through the use of the Arachne platform. Underlines the importance of the Arachne platform becoming mandatory for Member States in particular in the context of managing agricultural funds;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Highlights that Eurojust and OLAF must develop new strategies to target organised crime, receiving agricultural subsidies;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Takes the view that the Member States can play an important role in adding a ‘parent structure or company’ field to declaration forms, with a unique alphanumeric identifier, to prevent transcription errors and as an effective way of grouping subsidiaries together with their parent structures; points out that, in this way, the unique alphanumeric identifier of each applicant for CAP funding can be matched by fraud investigators with a unique EU company number, EUID (Regulation 2015/884) or the European business register;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Deplores the fact that there are more than 290 monitoring and reporting systems for the CAP and the Cohesion Fund, which makes it impossible to verify the final beneficiaries of these funds and to effectively prevent and investigate fraud and corruption; calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a harmonised or uniform reporting system with timely and accurate data; stresses that there is a lack of transparency and public access to data regarding the allocation of agricultural subsidies;

Amendment 53 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Elsi KATAINEN, Alin MITUȚA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Jérémy DECERLE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Points out that Arachne, the common data-mining tool in the regulation on the financial management and monitoring of the CAP (horizontal regulation), has thus far only been used to audit projects involving cohesion funding; takes note of Parliament’s calls to extend the data-mining and transparency approach currently only in use for CAP investment funding to all audits on area payments in the first and second pillars;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists on greater resources for investigation, as well as on stronger coordination between the Member States and EU bodies (OLAF, ECA and EPPO), to ensure that the fight against fraud in agricultural funds is effective; emphasises the need for a comprehensive fraud strategy with a robust fraud risk analysis. Stresses the need to create a continuous EU training programme for employees of paying agencies to improve fraud detection and exchange best practices.

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists on greater resources for investigation, as well as on stronger coordination between the Member States and EU bodies, including OLAF and EPPO, to ensure that the fight against fraud in agricultural funds is effective; emphasises the need for a comprehensive fraud strategy with a robust fraud risk analysis using information from different systems such as EDES and ARACHNE in order to safeguard the Union’s financial interests.

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists on greater resources for investigation, as well as on stronger coordination between the Member States and EU bodies, to ensure that the fight against fraud in agricultural funds is effective; emphasises the need for a comprehensive fraud strategy with a robust fraud risk analysis, while ensuring new checks and documentation requirements do not place an increasing burden on genuine farmers.

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists on greater resources for ~~investigation~~equipment and investigations by OLAF, Eurojust and EPPO, as well as on stronger coordination between the Member States and EU bodies, to ensure that the fight against fraud in agricultural funds is effective; emphasises the need for a comprehensive fraud strategy with a robust fraud risk analysis. Underlines, in this context, that the budget allocated to Eurojust under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 was frozen at the 2019 level, whereas the workload increased as a result of a greater number of cases and the corresponding additional effort required to prosecute crimes and liaise with the prosecution services of other Member States.

Amendment 58 #

Alin MITUȚA, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists on ~~greater~~ resources for investigation, as well as on stronger coordination between the Member States and EU bodies, to ensure that the fight against fraud in agricultural funds is effective; emphasises the need for a com~~prehensive~~mon fraud strategy with a robust fraud risk analysis.

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Highlights the need to better tackle environmental crimes of cross-border dimension which affect biodiversity and natural resources, such as illegal trade in plants and animals, illegal logging and timber trafficking, illegal waste trafficking; calls on the Commission to initiate the extension of the EPPO’s mandate in order to cover cross-border environmental crimes;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that in the coming years the accumulated impact of a range of factors increasing the risk to legal certainty and the stability of funding for agricultural production in the EU can be expected, including: the impact of the COVID pandemic, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, the reduction in the EU’s general budget, including the CAP, the systemic reform of the CAP together with additional payment conditionality, the Green Deal strategy with its reduction targets and the growth in environmental ambitions on an unprecedented scale, as well as adverse demographic trends worldwide and the rapidly increasing abandonment of farms; stresses, in this context, the particular importance of providing farmers with adequate information and training on the new legal framework for CAP funding, with consideration being given to the time taken to learn new legal standards and procedures;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Suggests that more field inspections, by inspectors not from the area, should be carried out in regions where a risk has been identified;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the importance of greater cooperation between European Member States and increased awareness among the competent national authorities, which in the recent past has led to a significant increase in the number of PIF cases and investigations against organised crime;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Deplores the fact that not all Member States choose to coordinate and initiate supranational prosecutions under Eurojust and that as a result many cases of organised crime at European level cannot be resolved;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Reiterates the transparency requirements for the CAP and cohesion policy, which require the competent authorities of the Member States to maintain a publicly accessible list of final beneficiaries; urges the Member States to publish this data in a single, machine- readable format and to ensure the interoperability of information; calls on the Commission to collect and aggregate the data and to publish the lists of the largest beneficiaries of each fund in each Member State;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6d. Reiterates its call for the introduction of maximum amounts for the payments that a natural person can receive under the first and second pillars of the CAP and the cohesion funds; notes that beneficiaries can artificially split their undertakings or set up additional undertakings, all of which can receive the maximum amounts; criticises the fact that, at their special summit in July 2020, the European Member States unilaterally decided not to introduce maximum amounts for natural persons under the first or second pillars, pre-empting a decision in the trilogue negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6e. Reiterates its concern that CAP subsidies continue to incentivise land grabbing and concentration by criminal and oligarchic structures, as well as abuse by organised crime; reiterates its urgent call on the Commission to ensure that complaint mechanisms for farmers and SMEs allow them to easily complain about land grabbing, serious misconduct by national authorities, irregular or biased treatment in tender procedures or the allocation of subsidies, pressure or intimidation by criminal structures, organised crime or oligarchic structures, or any other serious violation of their fundamental rights;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)

6f. Underlines its concern that, despite the numerous legal instruments adopted in the field of asset recovery, judicial cooperation continues to be hampered by large differences between national legal systems and a lack of harmonised rules; underlines that a number of Member States still face obstacles to the execution of requests for judicial cooperation and European Investigation Orders, to the identification and freezing of proceeds of crime and to the recognition of confiscation orders issued by other Member States;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 g (new)

6g. Stresses that the confiscation and recovery of criminal assets constitutes an essential element in the fight against organised crime and that this also has a deterrent effect by reinforcing the idea that ‘crime does not pay’; calls, in this connection, on the Member States to meticulously trace misappropriated European funds; points out that some have started to recruit specialised accountants to look into the financial aspects of criminal investigations in order to assist prosecutors;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 h (new)

6h. Underlines the need for Member States, which remain responsible for operational measures in the field of police and judicial cooperation, to make greater use of cross-border and EU-wide cooperation, as organised crime has become increasingly interconnected, international and digital;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 i (new)

6i. Stresses the need to monitor agricultural paying agencies in the Member States and to guarantee both their formal and informal independence and to bring their work in line with EU rules, in connection with which spot inspections, among other measures, may lead to a better control system;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Takes the view that despite repeated overhauls it has still not been possible to reform the CAP properly so as to take account of the expectations of EU citizens when it comes to the climate, the environment, food, transparency, efficiency and fairness in the use of public funds allocated to the farming industry; takes the view, furthermore, that this inability is a discredit to the CAP as a public policy, jeopardising both its very existence and its budget, which is falling even though agriculture guarantees our food security and has much to offer in terms of helping tackle challenges in all areas relating to the climate, the environment and employment;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 j (new)

6j. Stresses that the EU Financial Regulation, in particular Article 61 thereof, must be respected and implemented in all Member States and applied to all payments of EU funds, including direct payments for agriculture;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 k (new)

6k. Underlines the importance of a thorough investigation of cases of misuse of EU funds uncovered by journalists in EU Member States and of ensuring the recovery of EU funds used in violation of the rules;

Amendment 8 #

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Elsi KATAINEN, Alin MITUȚA, Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Jérémy DECERLE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by area-based direct payments; underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at Member State level; Regrets that for the new CAP, capping remains voluntary; calls on the Member States to use the capping of direct payments, as a measure for fairer distribution of the agricultural funds;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

source: 696.320

2021/09/08 LIBE 36 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that organised crime has demonstrated a high degree of infiltration into the social, economic, entrepreneurial and administrative structure of Member States, as well as an ability to launder in the legal economy the huge proceeds of crimes including those committed against the EU’s financial interests, thus representing a serious threat to EU citizens’ liberties, as well as to democracy and the rule of law, and necessitating a common, coordinated response from the EU and its Member States; welcomes, in this regard, the 2021-2025 EU strategy to tackle organised crim; stresses also that the nexus of organised crime and the state represents a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law, and that the fight against systemic corruption and the infiltration of the legal economy by organised crime are essential to guaranteeing equal treatment before the law, protecting citizens’ rights and welfare, presvent~~ed by the Commission on 14 April 2021~~ing abuses and ensuring the accountability of public office- holders;

Amendment 10 #

Olivier CHASTEL, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that organised criminal groups take advantage of the different laws in individual Member States, and that the development of a harmonised anti-fraud approach at EU level is complicated by differing definitions of organised crime; reiterates therefore its previous calls for the revision of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008, and the need to establish a common definition of organised crime, which should also take into account the use of violence, corruption or intimidation by criminal groups to obtain control of economic activities or public procurement, or to influence democratic processes; stresses that particular care should be taken to ensure any proposals to combat organised crime are consistent with fundamental rights and the rule of law;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. HRegrets the lack of harmonisation in national legislation to combat organised crime; highlights that organised criminal groups take advantage of the different laws in individual Member States, and that the development of a harmonised anti-fraud approach at EU level is complicated by differing definitions of organised crime; reiterates therefore its previous calls for the revision of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008, and the need to establish a common definition of organised crime, which should also take into account the use of new technologies and the use of violence, corruption or intimidation by criminal groups to obtain control of economic activities or public procurement, or to influence democratic processes;

Amendment 12 #

Olivier CHASTEL, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Stresses that organised crime is primarily enabled by corruption at state level and that corruption is a serious threat to democracy, the rule of law and fair treatment for all citizens; recognises that state corruption is often a product of systematic or structural deficiencies within government systems, and therefore impervious to cosmetic anti- corruption or judicial reforms; stresses the need to diagnose systemic forms of state corruption in order to promote full accountability in efforts to deal with organised crime;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes that the Commission's study identifies six main threats that could within five years significantly alter the way organised crime operates; highlights among these the impact of the coronavirus prompting a change in the modus operandi of organised crime cells; notes that this is also linked to the accelerated use of cryptocurrencies and non-banking payments; notes also that Europol has observed an increase in coronavirus-related criminal activity in the form of online crime, fraud or counterfeiting.

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Underlines the necessity to provide sufficient resources for the judiciary system and to use all available tools in a coherent manner across Member States to detect and tackle fraud and financial as well as economic crime;

Amendment 15 #

Olivier CHASTEL, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Stresses that corrupt activities are needed by organised criminal groups in order to remain in illicit business and engage in ongoing criminal activity without interruption, including in the misuse of EU funds, and that corrupt public officials protect organised criminal groups from law enforcement and disruption; strongly believes that corruption in law enforcement is particularly dangerous and should be effectively addressed by the Member States, as it has an impact on the safety of citizens and on their pursuit of justice, including in cases of political corruption and police misconduct; notes that besides the obvious dangers to public policy and public security presented by the forms of violence which are typical of criminal organisations, organised crime causes equally serious problems in the form of penetration into the legal economy and associated conduct which corrupts public officials, with the consequent infiltration of institutions and public administration;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Recalls that in order to tackle the coronavirus pandemic and to ensure the sustainable transition of our economies, the Commission is making available EUR 672.5 billion in the form of loans and grants to support the reforms and investments undertaken by the Member States through the Recovery and Resilience Facility; stresses the need to pro-actively ensure that the money is well used but also to provide the necessary resources to the control and audit institutions in order to ensure that the money is used in the interest of all European citizens.

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 18 #

Tineke STRIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the start of operations of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) on 1 June 2021; reiterates the need to ensure that the EPPO has all the necessary resources to carry out its functions, in order to protect the EU’s financial interests; notes that only six weeks after its establishment, the EPPO already processed 1000 reports of fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union; stresses that with the establishment of the The Next Generation EU fund, the workload of EPPO is likely to increase even further; recalls the European Chief Prosecutor statements in the LIBE committee on the need for more resources in order to hire enough financial investigators and case analysts in order for the Office to sufficiently perform its tasks; calls on the European Commission and Member States to ensure sufficient funding for the EPPO to fulfill its duties;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 2 #

Olivier CHASTEL, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that organised crime has demonstrated a high degree of infiltration into the social, ~~economic~~political, economic, financial, entrepreneurial and administrative structure of Member States, as well as an ability to launder in the legal economy the huge proceeds of crimes including those committed against the EU’s financial interests, thus representing a serious threat to EU citizens’ liberties, as well as to democracy and the rule of law, and necessitating a common, coordinated response from the EU and its Member States; welcomes, in this regard, the 2021- 2025 EU strategy to tackle organised crime, presented by the Commission on 14 April 2021;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the start of operations of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) on 1 June 2021~~; reiterates the need to ensure that the EPPO has all the necessary resources to carry out its functions, in order to protect the EU’s financial interests;~~ responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment crimes against the financial interests of the EU including several types of fraud, VAT fraud with damages above 10 million euro, money laundering, corruption, etc; reiterates the need to ensure that the EPPO has all the necessary resources to carry out its functions, in order to protect the EU’s financial interests; regrets that five Member States have not yet joined the EPPO; recalls the importance of cooperation with other EU bodies and agencies such as OLAF, Eurojust and Europol.

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the start of operations of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) on 1 June 2021; reiterates the need to ensure that the EPPO has all the necessary resources to carry out its functions, in order to protect the EU’s financial interests; calls on all non- participating Member States to review their decision, appoint European Delegated Prosecutors after all and join the fight against crimes affecting the Union's financial interests, such as fraud, corruption, money laundering or cross- border VAT fraud.

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Stresses that post-COVID economic recovery efforts call for the highest level of vigilance to prevent and counter infiltrations of organised crime in the legal economy; underlines in that regard that, as part of an EU coordinated approach, the EU agencies and bodies, such as EPPO, Eurojust, Europol and OLAF, should step up their operational cooperation in order to effectively contribute to fight against organised crime activities and potential fraud of the EU recovery budget; welcomes, in this regards, the recent conclusion of working arrangement between EPPO and OLAF;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Welcomes the set-up of the Next Generation EU - Law Enforcement Forum in Rome on 21September 2021; the Forum, co-chaired by Italy and Europol, aims at outlining the criteria and best practices to prevent any misuse of the NGEU - Recovery Fund, including by organised criminal groups;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that funds that are 4. managed jointly by the EU and the Member States, namely funds in ‘shared management’ for which the Commission currently entrusts the Member States with implementation programmes at national level, need to be better assessed and followed up on; calls on the Member States to set up a reliable and effective management and control system for the allocation of these funds to end recipients, also with a view to preventing, detecting and correcting irregularities; such management and control systems should be harmonised at EU level for the sake of comparability and to facilitate checks;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Considers~~Notes that criminal groups gain access to politicians and administrators in order to tap the financial resources at the disposal of the public administration and to influence its activities with the connivance of politicians, officials and businesspeople, and that their influence over politicians and administrators makes itself felt most of all in the sectors of public procurement and public works, public funding, and direct contracts for the procurement of all types of goods and the management of services; notes that fraud involving EU funds is a profitable but less risky income stream for organised criminals than activities such as the sale of drugs or human trafficking, thus making EU funds an attractive target for diversion; considers therefore that strong safeguards should be put in place to prevent abuse at national and European level, with solid due diligence procedures and transparency on beneficiaries of EU funds, in order to stop criminals illegally benefiting from EU funds;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that strong safeguards should be put in place to prevent abuse at national and European level, with solid due diligence procedures and transparency on beneficiaries of EU funds, as well as the effective exchange of banking information between Member States, in order to stop criminals illegally benefiting from EU funds;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that fraud prevention and the fight against fraud by organised crime should be a priority focus of managing, certifying and audit authorities, as well as being the subject of specialised financial investigations; believes that the fight against organised criminal groups also requires enhanced rules and measures regarding the freezing and confiscation of assets; strongly supports more effective investigations in order to disrupt organized crime structures and stresses that enforcement authorities have to be ahead of criminals who increasingly use new technologies and seize any opportunity to expand their illegal activities, online or offline;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that fraud prevention and the fight against fraud by organised crime should be a priority focus of managing, certifying and audit authorities, as well as being the subject of specialised financial investigations; believes that the fight against organised criminal groups also requires enhanced rules and measures regarding the freezing and confiscation of assets;, including the preventive seizure of property of equivalent value to the criminal proceeds; stresses that it is absolutely essential that every effort is made to recover EU funds that are obtained through fraudulent means.

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that fraud prevention and the fight against fraud by organised crime should be a priority focus of managing, certifying and audit authorities, as well as being the subject of specialised financial investigations; believes that the fight against organised criminal groups also requires enhanced rules and measures regarding the freezing and confiscation of assets; calls on the Member States to build upon their administrative, judicial and police cooperation in order to trace criminal assets across the EU, so they can be seized and confiscated;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that organised crime is involved in increasingly sophisticated fraudulent activities, such as cybercrime, which deprive the legal economy of considerable resources, particularly at difficult times like the present; points out that cybercrime costs the EU Member States EUR 265 billion per year1a and has a devastating impact on each EU Member State. _________________ 1a https://www.thehaguesecuritydelta.com/pa rtners/partner/137-europol

Amendment 30 #

Tineke STRIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that exchanges of information on irregularities in the use of funds should take place between the competent national and EU administrations as well as between the relevant law enforcement and judicial authorities. ; regrets that five Member States currently do not participate in the EPPO; welcomes the working arrangements between EPPO and Hungary; calls on the other non- participating Member States to urgently establish working arrangements with the EPPO as well in order to avoid gaps in the detection of organized crime and fraud; regrets that although Slovenia is a participating Member State in the EPPO, it currently does not fulfill its obligations by not appointing its European Delegated Prosecutors; stresses that the Slovenian government hereby undermines the effective work of the EPPO and seriously and in a direct way affects the sound financial management of the EU budget and the protection of the financial interests of the European Union; calls on the Slovenian authorities to immediately propose its European Delegated Prosecutors; calls on the Commission to use the tools at its disposal to ensure that Member States comply with the obligations of the EPPO regulation;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that regular and structured exchanges of information on irregularities in the use of funds should take place between the competent national and EU administrations as well as between the relevant EU and national law enforcement and judicial authorities.

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Calls on the Member States to avoid reforms reinforcing or creating strong Executive influence over the judiciary and to guarantee the proper independence of judges as a way to avoid undue political influence on the judiciary which can lead to biased, corrupt judgments serving interests other than the public’s;

Amendment 33 #

Tineke STRIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Notes that Europol's regular "Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment" (SOCTA) reports do not cover organised crime with EU funds; encourages Europol to include this issue in future SOCTA reports.

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Calls on Member States to ensure the independence of the prosecution, given such independence has important implications for the capacity to fight organised crime; calls further on Member States to ensure that public officials act with integrity and avoid engagements which may entail a conflict of interest and increased risk of corruption;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7 c. Calls on Member States to rapidly implement the Whistleblower Directive and to include, as part of the implementation process, legal safeguards for individuals and independent bodies who expose corruption, including journalists, whistleblowers, independent media, and anti-corruption NGOs; calls on all Member States to establish comprehensive whistleblower protection frameworks; reiterates the urgency of this demand given reporting of increased physical attacks on journalists, the rise of SLAPP suits and the use of fast-tracked security laws in certain Member States that criminalise the dissemination of images of or data regarding law enforcement officers, thus blocking journalistic work and limiting the accountability of national authorities;

Amendment 36 #

Olivier CHASTEL, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Fabienne KELLER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Malik AZMANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7 d. Reiterates its call for the EU to become a full member of GRECO without delay.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes that in its study the Commission identifies 9 main criminal markets and estimates that the annual revenues of these markets represented 139 billion in 2019; Stresses in particular that the markets for trafficking in human beings for sexual exploitation and migrant smuggling represent 7.185 billion and 289 million respectively; Stresses the importance of the collection of data by the relevant agencies in order to better assess the situation.

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Highlights that a common, coordinated response from the EU and its Member States to organised crime is desirable; notes, in this regard, the 2021- 2025 EU strategy to tackle organised crime, presented by the Commission on 14 April 2021;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses the necessity to assess impact of organised crime on the EU funds and own resources and to respond appropriately to tackle this problem across Member States;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Points out that there are at least 20 million cases of petty corruption in the Union public sector and that, clearly, this spills over into the Member State public authorities responsible for managing EU funds and other financial interests;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that organised criminal groups take advantage of the different laws in individual Member States, and that the development of a harmonised anti-fraud approach at EU level is complicated by differing definitions of organised crime; reiterates therefore its previous calls for the revision of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008, and the need to establish a common definition of organised crime, which should also take into account the use of violence, corruption or intimidation by criminal groups to obtain control of economic activities or public procurement, or to influence democratic processese importance of cooperation among the different judicial systems in the Member States in making the fight against organised crime more effective;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that organised criminal groups take advantage of the different laws in individual Member States, and that the development of a harmonised anti-fraud approach at EU level is complicated by differing definitions of organised crime; reiterates therefore its previous calls for the revision of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008, and the need to establish a common definition of organised crime, which should also take into account the use of violence, corruption or intimidation by criminal groups ~~to obtain control of economic activities or public procurement, or to influence democratic processe~~, as well as the specific features of Mafia-style organisations, which make use of forced affiliations and create a climate of submission to directly or indirectly take over the management or control of economic activities, concessions, licences, public procurement and services, or to access European funds;

source: 696.522

2021/09/15 CONT 77 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

— having regard to Special Report No. 13 of the European Court of Auditors entitled "EU efforts to combat money laundering in the banking sector are fragmented and implementationis insufficient" on money laundering,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that value-added tax (VAT) fraud is another major component of revenue fraud; points out that one of the sectors most at risk is the fuel sector, where criminal networks abuse VAT exemption rules and price differences among different types of fuel, resulting in huge losses of tax revenue; is concerned by the fact that criminal groups have been proven to exchange knowledge, information and intelligence in the area of VAT fraud;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that value-added tax (VAT) fraud is another major component of revenue fraud; regrets the systemic weaknesses of the current intra- Community VAT system and the insufficient exchange of information between Member States; is concerned by the fact that criminal groups have been proven to exchange knowledge, information and intelligence in the area of VAT fraud;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Expresses its regret that subsidies are an area affected by fraud on the expenditure side of the Union budget; notes with deep concern that according to Europol reports, the number of such cases has steadily increased over the years; notes that subsidy fraud happens in many areas of EU spending, such as agriculture policy, cohesion policy, research and development and environmental policy; notes with concern that fraudulent applications for EU grants and tenders are usually based on false declarations, progress reports and invoices; points out that many such fraudulent activities are carried out by organised crime gangs;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Expresses its regret that subsidies are an area affected by fraud on the expenditure side of the Union budget; notes that subsidy fraud happens in many areas of EU spending, such as agriculture policy, cohesion policy, research and development and environmental policy; points out that many such fraudulent activities are carried out by organised crime gangs, including Mafia-style gangs;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note of the special impact of organised crime in the misuse of common agricultural policy (CAP) funds; reiterates its concern that the current structure of CAP subsidies incentivises land grabbing by criminal and oligarchical structures; stresses that limited transparency in combination with corruption enables criminal organisations to keep their actions out of sight and prevent EU funding from reaching its intended beneficiaries; reiterates that the development of proper Union-level legal instruments against land grabbing and the enabling effective information sharing are crucial in this regard; stresses that the establishment of a centralised database displaying the ultimate beneficiaries of CAP subsidies is crucial for identifying fraudsters, criminal networks and oligarch structures and to prevent them from misusing EU funds; calls on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate in creating such a centralised database in line with the rulings of the European Court of Justice;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note of the special impact of organised crime in the misuse of common agricultural policy (CAP) funds; reiterates its concern that the current structure of CAP subsidies incentivises land grabbing by criminal and oligarchical structures; stresses that limited transparency in combination with corruption enables criminal organisations to keep their actions out of sight and prevent EU funding from reaching its intended beneficiaries; reiterates that the development of proper Union-level legal instruments against land grabbing and the enabling effective information sharing are crucial in this regard; reiterates firmly that an improved cooperation between the Commission and Member States is necessary, as well as tightening of rules with regard to data collection and management for final beneficiaries of CAP subsidies;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note of the special impact of organised crime in the misuse of common agricultural policy (CAP) funds; reiterates its concern that the current structure of CAP subsidies incentivises land grabbing by criminal and oligarchical structures; stresses that limited transparency in combination with corruption enables criminal organisations to keep their actions out of sight and prevent EU funding from reaching its intended beneficiaries; reiterates that the development of proper Union-level legal instruments against land grabbing and the enabling effective information sharing are crucial in this regard; highlights that the use of new technologies such as comprehensive digital land registers is essential in enhancing transparency, effective data collection and risk mitigation, ultimately reducing opportunities for fraudsters; welcomes the efforts of the Commission towards expanding the use of such technologies and calls on all Member States to speed up the implementation of these solutions;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note of the special impact of organised crime in the misuse of common agricultural policy (CAP) funds; reiterates its concern that the current structure of CAP subsidies incentivises land grabbing by criminal and oligarchical structures; stresses that limited transparency in combination with corruption enables criminal organisations to keep their actions out of sight and prevent EU funding from reaching its intended beneficiaries; reiterates that the development of proper Union-level legal instruments against land grabbing and the enabling effective information sharing are crucial in this regard; points to the need for greater scrutiny by the Commission or the relevant agencies, including with regard to livestock, with particular reference to the funds granted per head of cattle, whose actual existence must be properly verified;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Urges the Commission to propose a centralised Union-wide complaints mechanism to support those individuals having to deal with unfair land-grabbing practices and intimidation by criminal organisations by giving them the opportunity to lodge a complaint swiftly with the Commission;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes with concern that the Commission and OLAF have identified fraud in public tenders and procurement as a major trend among fraudsters; points out that fraud schemes often take place on a transnational level and can span several (EU and non-EU) countries, making them difficult to identify and dissolve; highlights that timely cooperation between national law enforcement authorities is a key component of an effective response to transnational crime; calls on the relevant European and national authorities to improve the interoperability of their systems, facilitating the timely exchange of information and enhancing cooperation and joint operations for tackling transnational organised crime;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)

— having regard to the package of four legislative proposals to consolidate EU standards to combat money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CFT) published by the Commission on July 20, 2021,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes with concern that the Commission and OLAF have identified fraud in public tenders and procurement as a major trend among fraudsters; notes that collusion between individuals and organisations, the use of fake invoices, creating fake companies and credentials and redirecting funds from their original purpose are common ways to undermine public procurement procedures; points out that fraud schemes often take place on a transnational level and can span several (EU and non-EU) countries, making them difficult to identify and dissolve;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes with concern that the Commission and OLAF have identified fraud in public tenders and procurement as a major trend among fraudsters; ~~points out that~~regrets that in many Member States there is no specific legislation against organised crime in the face of fraud schemes which often take place on a transnational level and can span several (EU and non-EU) countries, making them difficult to identify and dissolve;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic creates new opportunities for fraudsters and organised crime; notes with concern that Europol observed a rise in coronavirus-related criminal activities in the form of cybercrime, fraud and counterfeiting; recalls the scams and fake offers of vaccines detected by EU countries, as one of many harmful examples, where fraudsters tried to sell more than 1.1 billion vaccine doses for a total price of over EUR 15.4 billion; highlights that the threat of illicit sales of false COVID-19 Digital Certificates is rapidly growing with numerous examples identified in several Member States;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic creates new opportunities for fraudsters and organised crime; notes with concern that Europol observed a rise in coronavirus-related criminal activities in the form of cybercrime, fraud and counterfeiting, including that of medical equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE); recalls the scams and fake offers of vaccines detected by EU countries, as one of many harmful examples, where fraudsters tried to sell more than 1.1 billion vaccine doses for a total price of over EUR 15.4 billion;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is concerned by the assessment of the PIF Report, which found that seven Member States detected fraud in relation to health infrastructure in 2019 and that health infrastructure was particularly affected by violations of public procurement rules; points out that the dependence on emergency procurement procedures in response to the COVID-19 crisis may have aggravated these problems; highlights that emergency procedures must respect the same standards of transparency and accountability as regular procedures; calls on the Commission and Member State authorities to complement these procedures through the use of risk mitigation tools, focusing on prevention, as well as through comprehensive ex-post controls and scrutiny;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is concerned by the assessment of the PIF Report, which found that seven Member States detected fraud in relation to health infrastructure in 2019 and that health infrastructure was particularly affected by violations of public procurement rules; points out that the dependence on emergency procurement procedures in response to the COVID-19 crisis may have aggravated these problems and calls on the Commission and Member States to carryout a representative sample of ex-post controls in cases where emergency procurement procedures were used;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is worried by Europol’s expectation that the recession following the pandemic will create new opportunities for organised crime; warns that as organised crime follows the money, the unprecedented increase in EU spending in the context of the NextGenerationEU recovery plan offers major potential for misuse of funds by organised crime; highlights that this unprecedented increase in spending must be met with proper resources allocated to the relevant institutions which constitute the EU and national frameworks for fighting corruption, fraud and organized crime; recalls in this regard that the use of new technologies such as the ARACHNE and EDES systems should become compulsory elements of implementing the EU budget;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is extremely worried by Europol’s expectation that the recession following the pandemic will create new opportunities for organised crime; warns that as organised crime follows the money, the unprecedented increase in EU spending in the context of the NextGenerationEU recovery plan offers major potential for misuse of funds by organised crime; reiterates its call to the Council to agree with additional 40 posts for auditors with the European Court of Auditors and to the OLAF and EPPO to make sure they allocate sufficient resources in discovering and prosecuting criminal activities targeting the NextGenerationEU;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that organised crime, in particular Mafia-style crime, has already, in the past, geared its business to renewable energy; warns that, since they are already active in this sector, criminal organisations can easily intercept funds earmarked for the ecological transition, which account for a significant percentage of Next Generation EU funds;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas financial and economic crime ~~includes~~makes use of corruption, fraud, coercion, violence, collusion, obstruction~~, money laundering and~~ and intimidation for unlawful gain, concealing the money of illegal origin through money laundering, with the option of using it for further unlawful purposes, including the financing of terrorism;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Takes note with concern of the facilitators of organised crime, such as money laundering, cybercrime, document fraud, corruption, fake registration and the use of shell companies; stresses that these actions impact on the authorities’ ability to effectively monitor whether EU money is spent as intended;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Notes that the anonymity surrounding certain cryptocurrencies is leading to an increase in their use for illegitimate activities; notes that their use by organised crime groups to finance criminal activities and terrorism, and to launder criminal proceeds, has increased over the past few years; welcomes that Europol has collaborated with national authorities in dismantling several criminal operations which involved trading in cryptocurrencies; calls on the Member States to encourage cryptocurrency companies to use analysis tools to assess potential criminal activity associated with the destination and recipient addresses and to ensure that they fully apply the anti-money laundering legislation when users convert cryptocurrencies to real currency; stresses that cryptocurrencies must be subject to the same supervisory body as traditional currencies;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Notes that money laundering enables criminals to keep their profits undetected, and that offering money laundering services has in itself become a profitable business for criminal organisations; emphasises that this significantly impacts the financial interests of the Union and Member States, as a devastating 98% of estimated criminal proceeds are not confiscated and remain at the disposal of criminals;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Is concerned that the task of estimating the extent and severity of the impact of organised crime on the EU budget has repeatedly been judged to be extremely difficult or even impossible; regrets that the Commission and national authorities lacks insight into the scale, nature and causes of fraud, and hasve to date not carried out a consistent assessment of undetected fraud; calls on the relevant national authorities to improve data collection and increase the reliability of data communicated to the Commission; calls on the Commission to coordinate and collaborate with Member State authorities in order to carry out a comprehensive EU-wide assessment into the actual size, nature and causes of fraud, involving the relevant EU Agencies and collaborating with partners from the EU's neighbouring countries;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Is concerned that the task of estimating the extent and severity of the impact of organised crime on the EU budget has repeatedly been judged to be extremely difficult or even impossible, due, among the other reasons, to the different definitions of organized crime among all the Member States; regrets that the Commission lacks insight into the scale, nature and causes of fraud, and has to date not carried out a consistent assessment of undetected fraud; stresses that the lack of reliable estimates prevents an accurate assessment of the situation, which hampers the fight against organized crime;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that the 2019 PIF Report counted 514 fraudulent irregularities on the expenditure side with a financial value of EUR 381.4 million, and 425 fraudulent irregularities on the revenue side, totalling EUR 79.7 million; emphasises that these numbers do not capture the true extent of fraud, which is likely to be significantly greater; further highlights that not all fraud is committed by organised crime gangs, especially on the expenditure side, where fraud is frequently committed by individuals or individual companies and can even include high public or government officials;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Stresses with concern that corruption is an integral part of nearly all the activities of criminal organisations and that it poses a serious threat to the financial interests of the European Union, with an estimated GDP loss ranging between EUR 170 and 990 billion and a cost to the EU of more than EUR 5 billion per year for the public procurement part of the budget alone1 a; _________________ 1a 'The Cost of Non-Europe in the area of Organised Crime and Corruption: Annex II: Corruption' RAND Europe, 2016

Amendment 37 #

Alin MITUȚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Regrets that according to Europol, the EU shows only mediocre results when it comes to the recovery of criminal assets and that more than 98%1a of criminal assets remain in the hands of criminals; notes that this is partly caused by limited access to and sharing of financial and beneficial ownership information across borders; stresses that the establishment of a centralised, interoperable database displaying the final beneficiaries of EU subsidies could substantially boost the capabilities of law enforcement to identify fraudsters and recover misused funds; _________________ 1a EU SOCTA 2021

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Underlines that the phenomena of organised crime, corruption and money laundering usually have a cross-border dimension that requires close cooperation between national authorities; Stresses, in this context, the importance of exchanges between law enforcement authorities; Encourages the Commission to develop a common rules framework that would allow Member States to transfer criminal proceedings to another Member State, in order to avoid parallel investigations;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Regards the PIF Directive as an important step towards protecting the EU budget, as it provides a common definition of criminal offences and the misuse of funds, and the harmonisation of sanctions for crimes against the EU’s financial interests; appreciates that the Directive sets out clear reporting and investigation procedures, defines the monitoring of the fraud risk management framework and promotes the use of information, databases and data analytics by Member States; welcomes that all Member States have notified complete transposition of the PIF Directive1a but is concerned that the Commission identified conformity issues in several Member States; notes that these issues concern, among others, the definition of criminal offences ('fraud affecting the Union's financial interests', 'money laundering', 'corruption', 'misappropriation'), the liability of and sanctions for legal and natural persons, and Member States' obligation to annually report statistical data to the Commission; urges the Member States to fully align their national legislation with the requirements of the PIF Directive and the Commission to closely monitor Member States' compliance;urges the Commission to take all necessary steps to ensure a correct and comprehensive transposition, including the possibility of infringement procedures; _________________ 1a Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (COM(2021) 536 final), 06.09.2021

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas a rising number of organised crime groups are active in the EU, often with cross-border reach; whereas the phenomenon is increasingly complex with new criminal markets and new ways of operating that are emerging due to globalisation and new technologies; whereas Mafia-style organisations are particularly active in their attempts to intercept EU funds in various Member States;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), with its mandate to investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment crimes against the EU budget, as an important asset in the fight against fraud and organised crime in the EU; calls for effective funding for the EPPO; regards the EPPO’s role as especially promising in the fight against cross-border crime related to the Union budget, as national authorities are limited by their borders in their prosecution and other EU-bodies (such as Eurojust, Europol and OLAF) to not hold the required investigative and prosecuting powers; notes that the focus of the EPPO’s mandate is defined in the PIF Directive and includes the fight against fraud to EU expenditures and revenues, VAT fraud, money laundering, corruption and participating in criminal organisations; highlights that these focus points are crucial in the fight against organised crime, and trusts that the EPPO will therefore be an effective tool for fighting criminal organisations that impact the EU budget; regrets that five Member States have not yet joined the EPPO; regrets the lack of nominations of European delegated prosecutors, in particular by Slovenia, and considerable delays in many other Member States; highlights that this may represent a substantial hindrance in the EPPO’s effective fight against cross-border crime;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Regrets that the Commission established a staffing plan for the EPPO that does not allow it to efficiently fulfil its mandate; underlines that adequate staffing is necessary so that the EPPO can realise its main task, the fight against cross-border crime affecting the European budget; regrets that the EPPO currently is equipped with an insufficient number of case analysts and financial investigators to support prosecutorial activities of the European Delegated Prosecutors; regrets that the EPPO's operational staff is currently mainly focused on the registration of cases and not their persecution; regrets that the EPPO has expressed an urgent lack of additional qualified legal and IT experts as well as administrative staff to allow a smooth operationability; highlights that on top of its annual case load of 2000 cases, the EPPO has to deal with a backlog of more than 3000 cases; is concerned that the EPPO's workload will increase even further in the coming years in light of the unprecedented amounts mobilised through the recovery and resilience facility (RRF) and the acceleration of procurement procedures during the Covid-19 crisis; emphasises that the Commission's staffing plan for the EPPO for the year 2022 is insufficient to remedy the shortcomings expressed by the EPPO; highlights that when fully functional, the EPPO's benefits to protecting the EU budget will exceed its costs; strongly calls on the Commission to increase the budget and qualified staff available to the EPPO so that it can realise its full potential in the fight against crime;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Welcomes the Commission communication on the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-2025 and its focus on boosting an effective and timely information exchange across EU bodies and Member States, for instance through better interoperability between EU information systems and ensuring connection to relevant databases across Member States; appreciates the Commission’s commitment to streamline law enforcement cooperation and to fully realise the potential of existing tools, such as the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT); welcomes the Commission’s aim to improve information exchange and cooperation between Europol, Eurojust and non-EU countries;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Notes that financial intelligence units (FIUs) play a major part in detecting cross-border money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF) cases; notes that in the EU, FIUs operate on a national level and that the Commission found the coordination and exchange of information among national FIUs to be insufficient1a; regrets that there are differences in the amount and type of data exchanged between FIUs; notes that this hampers cooperation between them, which in turn negatively impacts their capability to detect and persecute cross- border crime in a timely manner; further regrets that the transmission of information from FIUs to criminal investigative agencies is slow and insufficient, and that consequently not all crimes are punished; welcomes that the Commission proposed measures to improve the cooperation among FIUs in its anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) package of 20 July 2021 and notes that the foreseen Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) will have powers to supervise, coordinate and support FIUs; further welcomes that the proposed Regulation 2021/0239 (COD)1b sets a clear timeline in which obliged entities have to report relevant information to FIUs; regrets, however, the timeline for establishing the AMLA, which is foreseen to become fully operational only in 2026; stresses that the cooperation and exchange of information among FIUs has to be improved without any undue delay, so that they can be effective tools in the fight against organised crime; _________________ 1aCommission staff working document SWD(2021) 190. Impact assessment accompanying the Anti-money laundering package, 20.07.2021 1b Regulation 2021/0239 (COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Commends the Commission on the new legislative package aimed at revising the AML/CTF framework, a single set of rules that represents a major step forward in the fight against money laundering and will allow for a uniform application of AML/CTF legislation; welcomes, in particular, the proposal for the creation of a new EU agency, as well as the new proposals on crypto-assets, a largely unregulated sector widely exploited by organised crime, which moves large flows of illicit money with impunity on the crypto-currency market;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas technology brings new detection and monitoring capabilities, ~~reduc~~making the ~~burde~~action onf investigators more effective and enabling the design of smarter enforcement measures;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Regrets that the national approaches to tackle organised crime vary significantly across Member States in terms of legislation, strategies and operational capacity; notes that this is partly due to varying levels of adoption and implementation of EU legislation; highlights in particular the varying role and capabilities of Anti-Fraud Coordination Services (AFCOS) in Member States, which complicate coordination at the national and EU level;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Regrets that the national approaches to tackle organised crime vary significantly across Member States in terms of legislation, strategies and operational capacity; notes that this is partly due to varying levels of adoption and implementation of EU legislation; regrets greatly that some Member States continuously choose not to implement OLAF’s recommendations following the conclusion of an investigation and do not launch judiciary actions aiming at recovering defrauded EU funds;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Regrets that the national approaches to tackle organised crime vary significantly across Member States in terms of legislation, strategies and operational capacity; notes that this is partly due to varying levels of adoption and implementation of EU legislation; welcomes that all Member States have implemented the PIF Directive but is worried by the remaining uncertainty about the degree to which the Directive has been transposed into national law;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Regrets that the national approaches to tackle organised crime vary significantly across Member States in terms of legislation, strategies and operational capacity; notes that this is partly due to varying levels of adoption and implementation of EU legislation; calls on the Commission to make use of its prerogatives and take the necessary measures for ensuring the timely and correct implementation of EU legislation;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Believes that the fight against money laundering is crucial to prevent the misuse of funds by criminal organisations; is deeply concerned by the ECA's1a findings that EU actions to prevent money laundering are fragmented and poorly co-ordinated, that the existing legal framework is inconsistent and that this can be exploited by criminals; regrets that the anti-money laundering directive 4 (AMLD 4) is still not fully transposed by two Member States although the transposition deadline has expired on 16 June 2017, and that infringement procedures for non-communication are pending against 4 Member States1b; further regrets that AMLD 5 is not yet fully transposed by 8 Member States albeit the transposition deadline expired on 10 January 2020, and that infringement proceedings are pending against 22 Member States3a; notes that to tackle the existing issues, the Commission on 20 July 2021 presented a package of 4 legislative proposals aimed at strengthening the EU's anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing (AML/CFT) rules; welcomes the proposal to establish a centralised EU- level Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) but emphasises that such an authority has to be provided adequate financial and human resources in order to be fully functional; regrets the delayed timeline for establishing the AMLA, as the Commission's plan foresees its establishment in 2023 and its full operationability only in 2026; underlines that the existing issues as regards ML/TF are of pressing nature and do not allow more time to be lost; calls on the Commission to present concrete measures to address the existing issues in the time until the AMLA becomes fully operational; _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors Special Report 13/2021: EU efforts to fight money laundering in the banking sector are fragmented and implementation is insufficient 1bAnti-money laundering directive IV - transposition status, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/anti -money-laundering-directive-4- transposition-status_en 3aAnti-money laundering directive V - transposition status, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/anti -money-laundering-directive-5- transposition-status_en

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Is also concerned by the completley different roles the Anti - Fraud Coordination Offices' have in the Member States possibly because EU legislation does not define their mandate precisely enough;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)

19 b. Expresses concern at the fact that efforts to combat fraud involving EU funds tend not to be priortised to the same extent as fraud involving national expenditures; this is highlighted by the fact that more than half of OLAF investigations are not followed up by Member States and even less reach the prosecution stage;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. NRegrets that a recent research indicates that some Member States do not prioritize fraud involving EU funds to the same extent as fraud affecting domestic spending; notes that although the Commission has encouraged Member States to develop national anti-fraud strategies (NAFS), only 13 Member States have done so and none of them used the template provided by the Commission; notes with concern that these differences across Member States pose obstacles for efficient cooperation;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Notes that although the Commission has encouraged Member States to develop national anti-fraud strategies (NAFS), only 13 Member States have done so and none of them used the template provided by the Commission; notes with concern that these differences across Member States pose obstacles for efficient cooperation; calls, therefore, on the Commission to take more resolute action with a view to making it mandatory for the Member States to lay down rules to prevent fraud against the EU;

Amendment 59 #

21. Calls on the Commission to develop a common approach for assessing the impact of organised crime ~~and~~on UE funds and evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken to tackle the problem across Member States; regards as crucial a timely, complete and effective exchange of ~~comparable data and~~information, and therefore reiterates the importance of harmonizing definitions inf or~~mation~~der to achieve comparable data across EU bodies and Member States to estimate the impact of the activities of organised crime on EU finances and swift action to combat it;

Amendment 6 #

Monika HOHLMEIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that revenue fraud is an area in which the harm done by organised crime is particularly significant, including customs fraud; notes that the ECA recently highlighted shortcomings in customs controls legislation and its application, which result in insufficient harmonisation, risk assessment and information exchange across the Union and between Member States; is concerned that this creates opportunities for organised crime to exploit weaknesses in the current system and defraud the Union and its Member States of income; notes that customs fraud is also frequently committed by under- declaring the value of goods imported into the EU, by which fraudsters can avoid paying higher rates of import duties; notes that the undervaluation schemes investigated by OLAF in recent years mainly concern goods imported from China; welcomes that OLAF's work in investigating these cases has reduced the estimated amounts lost to the EU budget from over EUR 1 billion in 2017 to EUR 180 million 20201a; underlines that despite these positive developments, efforts to fight undervaluation fraud have to continue, as fraud schemes are evolving to new patterns, particularly e- commerce; _________________ 1a The OLAF report 2020

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Is of the view that, given the transnational dimension of the fraudulent activities of criminal organisations, it is of vital importance to take action through measures to prevent and combat crime, including Mafia-style crime, and through the approximation of criminal laws in the Member States;

Amendment 61 #

22. Is concerned that the current system of differing national approaches prevents an effective, cross-border approach to address the problem, which gives criminals an opportunity to continue their actions without being held accountable; calls on the Member States to cooperate closely with EU bodies and each other and to make use of the Union’s tools and services in the fight against organised crime in order to excel data exchange and facilitate cross- border operations targeting organised crime activities against the EU budget;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22 a. Believes that the establishment of a centralised, interoperable database displaying the direct and ultimate beneficiaries of EU subsidies would facilitate the identification of fraudsters, criminal networks and oligarch structures misusing funds, and thereby be a vital asset in the fight against organised crime; underlines that in order to create such a database, the interoperability between existing national and EU-level databases has to be improved; emphasises that information has to be of adequate quality and must be available in a standardised format, so that it can be exchanged and aggregated in an automated way; underlines that beneficiaries must have a unique identifier that ensures their traceability across Member States and funds, independent of management method; calls on the Member States to reconsider their position of strict opposition on this matter and fully cooperate with the Commission in the creation of said database;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22 a. Calls on the Member States to increase the confiscation rate of funds associated with fraud with more emphasis on preventative measures;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to consider a more coherent use of all the available tools to detect and tackle fraud, in particular the Arachne IT platform and EDES; emphasises that the interoperability of Arachne, EDES, institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the EU budget; and reiterates its call on the Commission, and in particular on the Member States in the Council, to move closer to Parliament's position in favour of making the use of Arachne compulsory; calls on the Commission to consider the extension of the application of EDES to funds under shared management;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to consider a more coherent use of all the available tools to detect and tackle fraud, in particular the Arachne IT platform and EDES; emphasises that the interoperability of Arachne, EDES, institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the EU budget; calls on the Commission to consider the extension of the application of EDES to funds under shared management; calls on the Commission to make the use of Arachne, especially for funds under CAP, mandatory for the Member States;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to consider a more coherent use of all the available tools to detect and tackle fraud, in particular the Arachne IT platform and EDES; emphasises that the interoperability of Arachne, EDES, institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the EU budget; calls on the Commission to ~~consider the extension of~~extend the application of EDES to funds under shared management;

Amendment 67 #

Monika HOHLMEIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to consider a more coherent use of all the available tools to detect and tackle fraud, in particular the Arachne IT platform and EDES; emphasises that the interoperability of Arachne, EDES, institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the EU budget; calls on the Commission to ~~consider the extension of~~extend the application of EDES to funds under shared management;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls on the ~~Member States, with the support of the Commission, to~~Commission to support Member States by provideing training to national authorities to equip them with adequate knowledge for using tools such as EDES and Arachne most effectively and in accordance with EU reporting standards; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to analyse difficulties that national authorities encounter when using EDES and Arachne and to address specific recommendations and improve the existing general guidelines and the user- friendliness of these tools; regrets that some Member States oppose using these tools in fear of increased bureaucratic burden; highlights that when properly integrated, these tools can in fact reduce bureaucracy; calls on the Member States to reconsider their position on this matter and on the Commission to further engage in promoting the advantages of EDES and Arachne to the Member States;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls on the Member States, with the support of the Commission, to provide training to national authorities to equip them with adequate knowledge for using tools such as EDES and Arachne effectively and in accordance with EU reporting standards; calls for Anti-Money Laundering trainings schemes allowing authorities to detect risk of potential fraud before the funds are disbursed, particularly in area of KYC and unrevealed involvement of PEPs in CAP subsidies, projects and grants;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that revenue fraud is an area in which the harm done by organised crime is particularly significant, including customs fraud; fraud is a substantial component of revenue fraud; notes that this type of fraud is often committed by falsifying import declarations, using fraudulent documents for goods declaration, and falsely declaring the origin of goods to circumvent EU anti- dumping duties; notes that the ECA recently highlighted shortcomings in customs controls legislation and its application, which result in insufficient harmonisation, risk assessment and information exchange across the Union and between Member States; is concerned that this creates opportunities for organised crime to exploit weaknesses in the current system and defraud the Union and its Member States of income;

Amendment 70 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Regrets that Arachne and EDES are currently limited in their scope, awareness and use by Member States; highlights in this regard that EDES covers directly and indirectly managed funds but not funds under shared management, albeit the latter represent roughly 80% of EU expenditure;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Believes that transparency of public funds is crucial to maintain a high level of accountability and avoid conflicts of interests or corruption; recommends that all political parties in Europe operate with transparent bank accounts, which allow citizens to consult they transaction history and identify potential fraudulent behaviour such as links to organised crime;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24 b. Encourages the Commission to further promote the use of EDES and Arachne and Member States adopt them; calls on the Commission to reassess the framework for data exchange across EU institutions and with Member States, in order to maximise the degree of effective information exchange while at the same time respecting data protection requirements;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)

24 c. Regards the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR Regulation), which lays down common rules applicable to ESI funds, the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund, as another important element for preventing misuse of EU funds by organised crime;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Highlights that an important step in fighting organised crime is making it less profitable; recalls in this regard the work of OLAF, whose investigations are a crucial tool in the fight against fraud; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by OLAF to Member States is low and follows a downward trend, as it decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016- 2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years, and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2002 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 30 %; calls on OLAF and the Commission to investigate the underlying reasons and on the Member States to cooperate closely with the Union bodies, to ensure that funds misused by organised crime are effectively recovered; takes the view that decisive action to recover funds, including through preventive or value-based seizures, can deter criminal organisations from committing fraud against the European Union, thereby protecting its financial interests;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Highlights that an important step in fighting organised crime is making it less profitable; recalls in this regard the work of OLAF, whose investigations are a crucial tool in the fight against fraud; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by OLAF to Member States is low and follows a downward trend, as it decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016- 2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years, and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2002 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 30 %; calls on OLAF and the Commission to investigate the underlying reasons and on the Member States to cooperate closely with the Union bodies, to ensure that funds misused by organised crime are effectively recovered; invites the Commission to assess the possibility of complementing the current fragmented approach towards asset recovery through an EU-wide body in charge of ensuring the timely and effective recovery of EU funds;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Highlights that an important step in fighting organised crime is making it less profitable; recalls in this regard the work of OLAF, whose investigations are a crucial tool in the fight against fraud; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by OLAF to Member States is low and follows a downward trend, as it decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016- 2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years, and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2002 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 30 %; calls on OLAF and the Commission to investigate the underlying reasons and on the Member States to cooperate closely with the Union bodies, to ensure that funds misused by organised crime are effectively recovered; calls on OLAF to collect information on the rate of recovery following its financial recommendations and to publish this information in its annual reports;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Highlights that an important step in fighting organised crime is making it less profitable; recalls in this regard the work of OLAF, whose investigations are a crucial tool in the fight against fraud; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by OLAF to Member States is low and follows a downward trend, as it decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016- 2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years, and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2002 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 30 %; calls on OLAF and the Commission to investigate the underlying reasons and on the Member States to fulfil their legal obligation to recover the funds and to cooperate closely with the Union bodies, to ensure that funds misused by organised crime are effectively recovered;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that value-added tax (VAT) fraud is another major component of revenue fraud; is concerned by the fact that criminal groups have been proven to exchange knowledge, information and intelligence in the area of VAT fraud, making extensive use of new technologies, alternative cryptocurrencies and shortcomings of legal business structures to enhance and conceal their criminal activities, generating multi-billion-euro profits from VAT fraud; highlights that according to the 2021 Europol EU- SOCTA Report, VAT fraud is committed by people with good knowledge of the VAT system, legislation and tax procedures;

Amendment 9 #