Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

EU Fraud: institutional and legal competence

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper will focus on frauds committed against the budget of the European Union. It will consider the role of OLAF (the European Fraud Prevention Office) which is the lead agency in the fight against fraud. It will consider its powers and its capacity to co-ordinate the activities of anti-fraud agencies in twenty seven member states and the constraints which prevent it from operating in a more effective manner. The paper will also consider the role of other transnational bodies such as Eurojust and Europol and will seek to highlight the degree of fragmentation which exists with a multiplicity of actors involved in policing fraud, a fragmented legal approach and the difficulties this presents in policing sophisticated transnational frauds. The effect of EU expansion on this situation will also be examined and the EU anti-fraud efforts of the Czech Republic will be considered in some detail. The paper concludes that the legal system and the institutions are not yet in place to enable such frauds to be adequately policed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interview with OLAF Official 2005

  2. Interview with OLAF Officals 2005

  3. Interview with Czech Officials 2006

  4. Interview with OLAF Officials 2005

  5. Interview with UCLAF official 1998

  6. Interview with Czech Officials 2006

  7. Interview with Czech Officials 2006

  8. Interview with Czech Officials 2006

References

  1. Committee of Independent Experts. (1999). Second Report on Reform of the Commission - Analysis of current practice and proposals for tackling mismanagement, irregularities and fraud, Vol.2, Brussels.

  2. Court of Auditors (1998). Special Report No. 8/98 on the Commission’s services specifically involved in the fight against fraud, notably the unite de coordination de la lutte anti-fraude’ (UCLAF) together with the Commission’s replies, OJ C230, Vol.41. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Court of Auditors (2005). Special Report No. 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office OLAF together with the Commission’s replies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  4. EuCrim (2006). The European Criminal Law Association Forum, Issue 1–2.

  5. European Commission (2003). ‘The Fight against Fraud: 2002 Annual Report’. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  6. European Commission (2006). ‘The Fight against Fraud: 2005 Annual Report’. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  7. European Commission (2008). ‘Fight against Fraud: 2007 Annual Report’. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Europol (2004). 2004 Annual Report, Europol: The Hague.

  9. Fenyk, J. (2007). The level of Implementation of the Convension on the Protection of the EC’s Financial Interests and of the follow-up Protocols in the Czech Republic. European Law and National Criminal Legislation, 1, 116–121.

    Google Scholar 

  10. House of Lords (1999). Prosecuting Fraud on the Community Finances—The Corpus Juris (with evidence), 9th Report, Session 1998/99. London: H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  11. House of Lords (2004a). Strengthening OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, 24th Report, Session 2003/04. London: H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  12. House of Lords (2004b). Judicial Cooperation in the EU: the role of Eurojust, 23rd Report, Session 2003/04. London: H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Levy, R. (1996). A suitable case for treatment: anti-fraud audit in the EU. Hume Papers on Public Policy, 4(3), 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Murawska, A. (2004, June). ‘Impact of the Enlargement on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Community against fraud’, (Paper presented at the 2nd Pan-European Conference Standing Group on EU Politics, Bologna).

  15. National Audit Office (2003). Financial Management in the European Union: The European Court of Auditors report for the year 2001, H.M.S.O.

  16. Official Journal of the European Communities, C316, 27.11.(1996). Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests.

  17. Passas, N., & Nelkin, D. (1993). The thin line between legitimate and criminal enterprises: Subsidy Frauds in the European Community. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 19, 223–243. doi:10.1007/BF01844060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pujas, V. (2003). The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF): a European policy to fight against economic and financial fraud? Journal of European Public Policy, 10(5), 778–797. doi:10.1080/1350176032000124087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Quirke, B. (2000). ‘Fraud: Who Polices Europe’. Business Ethics: European Review (Chichester, England), 9(4), 276–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruimschotel, D. (1994). The EC Budget: ten per cent? A policy analysis approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 32(3), 319–342. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.1994.tb00500.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sherlock, A., & Harding, M. (1991). Controlling Fraud within the European Community. European Law Review, 16(1), 20–36.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sieber, U. (1997, June). ‘EUROFRAUD: Organised Fraud against the European Communities’, (Paper presented at Judicial and Administrative and Mutual Assistance in the Common European Legal Space Conference, Helsinki).

  23. Sieber, U. (1998). Euro-Fraud: Organised Fraud against the Financial Interests of the E.U. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 30(1), 1–42. doi:10.1023/A:1008312916457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stefanou, C., & Xanthaki, H.(2005). Strengthening OLAF — Towards greater effectiveness in the protection of the Communities financial interests: The Revision of the OLAF Regulation 1073/99’. Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.

  25. Tupman, W. A. (1996). ‘The search for supra-national solutions: investigating fraud against the European Budget. Hume Papers on Public Policy, 4(3), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tutt, N. (1989). Europe on the Fiddle: The Common Market Scandal. London: Croom-Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vervaele, J. A. E. (1999). Towards an Independent European Agency to fight Fraud and Corruption in the EU. European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 7(3), 331–346. doi:10.1163/15718179920518907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Warner, C. M. (2003). Creating a Common Market for Fraud in the European Union. The Independent Review, VIII(2), 249–257.

    Google Scholar 

  29. White, S. (1995). A variable geometry of enforcement? Aspects of European Community budget fraud. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 23(3), 235–255. doi:10.1007/BF01301638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. White, S. (1998). Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Communities: The Fight against Fraud and Corruption, (Kluwer Law International).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Liverpool John Moores University, 98 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool, United Kingdom

    Brendan J Quirke

Authors
  1. Brendan J Quirke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brendan J Quirke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quirke, B.J. EU Fraud: institutional and legal competence. Crime Law Soc Change 51, 531–547 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9183-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9183-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation