Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 97–108 | Cite as

OLAF’s role in the fight against fraud in the European Union: do too many cooks spoil the broth?

  • Brendan Quirke
Article

Abstract

This article discusses the role of OLAF in the fight against fraud in the European Union (EU) by examining (1) its powers and capacity to coordinate the activities of anti-fraud agencies in the twenty seven member states and (2) the constraints which prevent OLAF from operating in a more effective manner. It also analyses OLAF’s relationship with other transnational agencies such as Eurojust and Europol and highlights the degree of fragmentation which exists among the many actors involved in the fight against fraud, a fragmented legal approach and the difficulties this presents in attempting to police sophisticated transnational frauds. The effect of EU expansion on this situation is considered and the support offered to new member states who have been asked to bring their anti-fraud structures up to the standards of existing members within a very short period of time is also examined. The efforts of Romania in seeking to build up anti-fraud structures and systems are discussed in some detail. This article concludes that despite the best efforts of the actors involved, a fragmented legal system and institutions have hampered the fight against fraud in the EU.

Keywords

European Union Member State Common Agricultural Policy Candidate Country European Union Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Committee of Independent Experts. (1999). First report on allegations regarding fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the European Commission (Vol. 1). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Court of Auditors. (1998). Special report No. 8/98 on the commission’s services specifically involved in the fight against fraud, notably the Unite Coordination de la lutte anti-fraud’ (UCLAF) together with the Commission’s replies, OJ230, vol. 41. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    DLAF. (2007). The fight against fraud 2006 annual report. Bucharest: Prime Minister’s Chancellery: Department for the Fight Against Fraud.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DLAF. (2008). The fight against fraud 2007 annual report. Bucharest: Prime Minister’s Chancellery: Department for the Fight Against Fraud.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commission. (2004). Monitoring report on Romania. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Commission. (2005). Complementary evaluation of the activities of the European anti-fraud office (OLAF). Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission. (2006). Report of the European anti-fraud office sixth activity report for the period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    EuCrim (2006). The European criminal law association forum. Issue 1–2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Parliament. (2004). Report on the protection of the financial interests of the communities and fight against fraud—annual report 2002. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    House of Lords. (2004a). Strengthening OLAF, the European anti-fraud office. 24th Report, Session 2003/04. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Murawska, A. (2004). Impact of the enlargement on the protection of the financial interests of the European community against fraud (pp. 1–8). Bologna: Second Pan-European Conference Standing Group on EU Politics. 24–26 June 2004. Official Journal of the European Communities, C316, 27/11/1995, Convention on the Protection of the European Communities Financial Interests.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OLAF Supervisory Committee. (2007). Activity report of OLAF supervisory committee, December 2005-May 2007. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(3), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quirke, B. (2006). Economic Crime and Legal Competence in the EU. In P. C. van Duyne, A. Maljevic, M. van Dijck, K. von Lampe & J. L. Newell (Eds.), The organisation of crime for profit (pp. 91–107). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quirke, B. (2007). OLAF: the fight against EU fraud. Journal of Financial Crime, 14(2), 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quirke, B. (2008). EU fraud and new member states: The case of the Czech Republic. In P. C. van Duyne, J. Harvey, A. Maljevic, K. von Lampe & M. Scheinost (Eds.), European crime-markets at cross-roads (pp. 221–236). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sigma. (2004). Draft report of the assessment of the anti-fraud system in Romania. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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. London: Institute of Advances Legal Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Transparency International (2008). Corruption perceptions index. Http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/survey_indices/cpi/2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Liverpool Business SchoolLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations