MAKING THE FIGHT
AGAINST CORRUPTION IN
THE EU MORE EFFECTIVE
TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
EVALUATION MECHANISMS
ST . JULIANS (MALTA), 16-17 MAY 2013
Event Number: 313RT08
Introduction to the Conference
This conference holding the title “MAKING THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IN THE EU MORE
EFFECTIVE: Towards the Development of the New Evaluation Mechanisms” was organised by ERA
(Laviero Buono) in cooperation with the University of Malta (Criminal Law Department)/ Maltese
Association for European Criminal Law and for the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interest. This event
was also co-financed by the European Commission (OLAF) under the Hercule II Programme.
This event was attended by over 50 participants from various interested fields from around the EU
Member States, with the intention to analyse and come to conclusions about prospective measures to
be taken to combat corruption. Participants ranged from Judges, prosecutors or former prosecutors to
government officials, policymakers, academics and lawyers.
The discussion was aimed to tackle the recent EU policy developments and legislative reforms and the
works underway of a study commissioned by OLAF which is aimed at collecting information and
developing methodologies to assist both the Commission and Member States’ authorities with the
implementation of the new EU anti-corruption policies. Presentations were made by national, European
and international experts.
Summaries of Conference Sessions
INTRODUCTION
The introduction to this conference was given by Laviero Buono and Kevin Aquilina. Laviero Buono
studied law at Salerno, at the University of Fisciano. In 1998 he earned a degree in Law with a thesis on:
"I diritti dell'uomo: storia, giustificazione e prospettive". Since 2007 he has been the ERA head of the
Section of European public law and criminal law. His areas of expertise are: police and judicial
cooperation in criminal matters, the rights of the defence and EU policy against corruption amongst
others.
In the introduction Buono spoke about the aim of the conference, that being to discuss and analyse the
recent EU policy developments and legislative reforms which purport to lead to EU anti-corruption
policies.
Kevin Aquilina is Associate Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Laws. He is also Head of the Department
of Media, Communications and Technology Law at the Faculty of Laws of the University of Malta. He
holds a doctorate of philosophy in law (Ph.D.) from the London School of Economics and Political Science
of the University of London, a doctorate in law from the University of Malta (LL.D.) and a Masters in
International Maritime Law from the International Maritime Organization’s International Maritime Law
Institute. Profs. Aquilina has authored various books, written several reports for Maltese and foreign
institutions, drafted many laws and written various articles published in local and foreign papers.
Profs. Aquilina gave an introduction into the discussion on the fight against corruption. He stated that
the fight against corruption is no easy job and this mainly due to the secretive nature of such an offence
which more often is difficult, if not impossible to detect. He stresses that therefore new methods to
combat corruption need to be devised at a national as well as at an EU level, keeping however in mind
the right to a fair and public trial and a right to privacy. Profs. Aquilina also spoke about the Maltese
scenario with regard to corruption, mentioning in particular some administrative law measures which if
perfected, Aquilina says, will help towards the fight against corruption. Amongst these measures where
the asset reporting duties of MPs, the Freedom of Information, Political Party Finances and Auditor –
General Controls amongst others. Aquilina, however, still stressed the importance and role of criminal
law and procedure as being “a pivotal tool in the fight against corruption”. Again, reference was made to
the Maltese scenario regarding measures which if taken will enforce the role of criminal law and
procedure in this fight against corruption. Amongst these measures: Permanent Commission against
Corruption, The role of the Inquiring Magistrate, Judicial Database, Collaborators of Justice, Whistle
Blowers and others. At EU level Aquilina said that there should be laws regarding transnational
agreements for the detection of criminals. He mentioned this in the light of the fact that “the EU should
make laws to authorise law enforcement infiltrators in the workings of criminal organisations who, for
instance, instead of being arrested in Malta, are left to proceed to another state in order to identify the
criminals involved in that state. He also mentioned letters of request and spoke about the access to
information held by banks and other entities. He wished that practical measures are draw up through
the conference proceedings which can eventually be implemented at European Level. It is only if there is
collaboration between state entities that these offences can be dealt with more successfully.
1. RECENT INITIATIVES AND MAJOR CHALLENGES IN THE FIGHT
AGAINST CORRUPTION
The first part of the conference was chaired by Lech Paprzycki, with the speakers being Raluca Stefanuc,
Laura Sanz-Levia and Lothar Kuhl.
2011-2013: The Commission’s efforts to forge a comprehensive anticorruption policy at EU level (Raluca Stefanuc)
Since December 2012, Raluca Stefanuc has been an anti-corruption policy officer in the Unit for Fight
against Organised Crime of the European Commission’s Directorate-General Home Affairs, having as a
main task the development, implementation and monitoring of the EU policy on prevention and fight
against corruption. She is currently coordinator of the EU Anti-Corruption Report within the same Unit.
Raluca Stefanuc spoke about the EU Anti-Corruption Report. Firstly dealing with the Scope, Stefanuc said
that the EU Anti-corruption report is published every two years, starting from 2013. Corruption is given
a wide definition, being the abuse of power for private gain. The subject of the Anti-Corruption report
will change every two years, the 2013 report focusing on public procurement. The report, she explained
will act as a monitoring mechanism which will be capable of identifying failures and vulnerabilities
across the EU member states. The monitoring mechanism will engage with existing and European
initiatives including the European Council’s Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO), the UN
Convention against corruption (UNCAC) and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign
Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Following this, the different sections which are
present within the report were explained. The sources used for the report were mentioned and the
supporting mechanisms named and explained briefly. Stefanuc concluded by remarking about the
challenges faced, mainly, the availability of information and consistency of approach. Nevertheless she
envisaged the projects to be successful with the cooperation of member states reporting to the expert
group.
The Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO): recent
work and cooperation with the European Union (Laura Sanz-Levia)
In 1997, Laura Sanz-Levia, obtained her Law degree specializing in International Public Law from
Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Spain. She is a University Expert in Human rights at the University
UNED, Spain. Since 2004 Laura has been working at the Council of Europe, Group of States Against
Corruption (GRECO) in Strasbourg. Greco Monitors anticorruption, governance and transparency
legislation, polictal and institutional frameworks of the 49 Member states of GRECO (48 European
Countries – including all EU members and USA).
In her capacity, Laura Sanz-Levia spoke about GRECO. Firstly she gave a historical overview of the EU
situation and how eventually the need for the setting up of GRECO was felt back in 1999. The scope of
GRECO was explained, that being to improve the capacity of its members to fight corruption by
monitoring their compliance with Council of Europe anti-corruption standards through a dynamic
process of mutual evaluation and peer pressure. The process of monitoring was explained in detail,
explaining the implementation and level of compliance member states have with GRECO’s
recommendations. Furthermore, she delved into the results of monitoring, stating that GRECO’s
recommendations have proved to be increasingly effective and influential in overcoming and preventing
corruption in the Member States. Finally, GRECO’s cooperation with the EU was tackled, referring to the
benefits of this cooperation from its inception and the expected benefits of EU’s participation in GRECO.
Tackling corruption more effectively in the European Union: role and powers
of OLAF (Lothar Kuhl)
Dr. Lothar Kuhl is the Head of Unit DG OLAF European Commission.
In his capacity as Head of Unit, Kuhl spoke about OLAF. What is OLAF? OLAF is an administrative
institution which protects the financial interests of the European Union (EU) by investigating fraud,
corruption and any other illegal activities. It detects and investigates serious matters relating to the
discharge of professional duties by members and staff of the EU institutions and bodies that could result
in disciplinary or criminal proceedings and supports the EU institutions, in particular the European
Commission, in the development and implementation of anti-fraud legislation and policies. Kuhl says
that OLAF is faced with a great number of limitations namely the difficulty to access bank accounts and
certain databases of EU institutions, despite their role as investigators. He also emphasised on the
importance of whistleblowers for OLAF and the need for their protection. The main vision Kuhl says is
therefore the corrupt conduct vis a vis the damage caused to the EU. Kuhl finally points out that the
OLAF, rather than being looked at as a fraud hunter, needs to be considered as a constructive
contributor towards the better prosecution of this abusive conduct.
2.
ASSISTING
MEMBER
STATES’
AUTHORITIES
WITH
THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW EU ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES
The second part of the conference was chaired by Lothar Kuhl, with the participation of Jan Maarten de
Vet, Rudy Hoskens and Commentator: Martin Priborsky.
Presentation of the main results of the Commission Study (Jan Maarten de
Vet/ Rudy Hoskens, Commentator: Martin Priborsky.)
Jan Maarten de Vet, is director of Ecorys in Brussels. He has extensive experience in European policy
preparation and managing complex and cross-cutting projects for the European Commission. He is coleading an important project with OLAF on the Development of an EU evaluation mechanism in the area
of anti-corruption.
Rudy Hoskens is a partner at PWC in Brussels and has been the competence leader of the Forensic
Services team in the firm’s Assurance practice since 2002. Rudy has a board range of experience in fraud
and dispute related issues, including fraud prevention, detection and investigation, forensic technology
and money laundering amongst others.
Jointly, Maarten de Vet and Hoskens spoke about a study which, on the initiative of the EP, the EC has
commissioned to develop a methodology to estimate the costs of corruption in public procurement in a
number of member states and sectors, with particular focus on EU funds. They explained the aim of the
study which is being done both by PWC and Ecorys. This report which started in March 2012 is reaching
completion. They spoke about their 4 different strands of research, these being: Surveys and Interviews,
Indicator-based Literature, Audits, Investigations, the Judiciary and finally Performance analysis. They
then focused upon the implications and the challenges the project was faced with, one challenge being
that corruption is by definition a hidden phenomenon, difficult to intercept. In conclusion, good
practices and benchmarking processes where referred to. It was stated that with regard to public
procurement, a sound system is based on rules which encourage competition, promote transparency
and strengthen accountability. Finally, they remarked how impossible it is to draw valid conclusions on
the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures and programmes.
3.
TOWARDS
THE
DEVELOPMENT
OF
A
COMPREHENSICE
METHODOLOGY TO MEASURE THE REAL COSTS OF CORRUPTION
This part of the conference was chaired by Martin Priborsky with the participation of Michael Levi and
Simon Marsh.
Improving cooperation between the national competent authorities and the
European Union: sharing of information as key feature (Michael Levi)
Michael Levi has been Professor of Criminology at Cardiff University since 1991. He has been conducting
international research on the control of white-collar and organised crime, corruption and money
laundering/financing of terrorism since 1972, and has published widely on these subjects. Since 2011 he
has been appointed Vice-President of the US White-Collar Crime Research Consortium.
Introducing his presentation, Michael Levi posed the question; Are we talking about crime or regulatory
risks, is it just an integrity or financial risk, or is it also a social legitimacy risk? This is part of the big
balance between saving money, against delivering justice towards corruption. But what are the socioeconomic costs of information sharing? , Levi asks. If we jail drug addicts but do not jail people who are
corrupt, people will start to ask, what is the justice system all about? He noted that it is becoming more
of an arduous task to get people to share information, this, due to both personal and institutional issues.
However Levi noted that statistics show that private sources are more common than public sources
(including EU Institutions and Member states) when it comes to contribution. He continues to pose
more questions to those present; How can we share information if we want to? Does having data imply
that it is used intelligently? Is more cooperation always a good thing? Levi mentions that in reality
having operational units to activate the decisions is the main answer. In his conclusion he claims that
people will make demands on anti-fraud and corruption but it is a difficult task to deal with all the
different variations. Data protection registrars are not really interested in the balancing exercise, but, if
one believes in data protection as a right, then how can one not believe in another human right which is
the protection from illegitimate use of the taxpayers’ money? Levi says that no criminal justice system
can deal with all the crimes, so maybe one just has to simply reduce the harm caused by this conduct.
Identifying innovative tools and mechanisms that are able to uncover
irregularities in national and international corruption cases (Simon Marsh)
Simon Marsh holds a Master of Arts degree in Terrorism, International Crime and Global Security from
Coventry University in which he focused on Organised Crime in Sub Saharan Africa. He spent over
thirteen years as a Police Officer with the Metropolitan Police in London where he was selected in 2004
as Detective Sergeant and in 2010 for the rank of Detective Inspector. Since 2006 Simon has been
specialising in asset recovery, money laundering and corruption, leading some of the most high profile,
groundbreaking and successful investigations undertaken in that field. Simon lectures on money
laundering and organised crime at Coventry University.
Quoting Jim Yon Kim, Simon Marsh says, “Corruption is simply stealing from the poor”. He states that
Grand corruption is the organised, structured and pre-meditated crime which involves the theft of huge
sums of money and admits that in all his years of practise he has yet to come across a case of corruption
which does not include a professional. The issues and complications in grand corruption investigations
are then mentioned. Many high profiled persons, Marsh explains, feel that they are above the justice
system and go beyond the scope of prosecution or investigation. He mentions that although the saying
goes, “it takes a thief to catch a thief”, it is almost enough if one understands the line of thinking of
these officials and the tools in their hands. He then explains this to all those present through real cases
to put the realistic situation in perspective. Finally Marsh winds up with a quote from Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle in Sherlock Holmes ; “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the
most important.”, and through Simon Marsh’s presentation one purports to think rightly so.
4. WHAT MAKES THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION SO DIFFICULT IN
PRACTICE? A VIEW FROM THE COALFACE
This fourth part was chaired by Laviero Buono with the participation of Judge Michael Hopmeier and
Stefano Filletti. Seeing the same coin from different sides, the Prosecution vs. the Defence.
The Challenges of prosecuting and adjudicating on corruption cases: new tools
in the fight against corruption (Michael Hopmeier)
His Honour Judge Michael Hopmeier was called to the bar in 1974. Before he was Barrister for over 30
years acting for the Prosecution and the Defence, specialising latterly in economic crime related cases.
Appointed as a full-time Circuit Judge in 2009 sitting on serious criminal cases. In 2011 Appointed
Diversity and Community Relations Judge, Surrey.
In 2011, Hopmeier explains, organised crime revenues in Italy were estimated at 150 billion Euro and in
2006, in the UK alone, organised crime revenues were estimated at 15 Billion GBP. Corruption, quoting a
Vietnamese study, is a serious and sophisticated crime and points out that Denmark is the least corrupt
country in the EU. The Judge mentioned the report submitted by the House of Lords, “The Fight against
Fraud on the European Union’s Finances” and explained that this inquiry into fraud against the EU’s
budget was in part to coincide with the recent publication of the Directive aimed at protecting the EU’s
financial interests by the criminal law. In particular, this was aimed to gauge the vulnerability of EU
funds to fraud, assess the efficacy of the EU’s anti-fraud system as a whole, and the effectiveness of the
Member States in pursuing these crimes. Hopmeier referred to the case R v James Ibori (April 2012), an
ex-Governor who was jailed for 13 years for fraud totalling nearly 50m GBP. Moreover he claimed that
although there is still a lot of work needed, Europe is behind the UK when it comes to confiscation of
assets. Hopmeier then speaks about the UK having Deferred prosecution agreements, a mechanism
enjoying notable success in the US. Why prosecute someone when you can have a deferred prosecution
agreement? The new regime would change the factors for self-reporting a crime committed within the
organisation.
Defence rights in corruption cases: on an equal footing with the prosecution?
(Stefano Filletti)
Stefano Filletti graduated Bachelor of Arts (B.A. Legal & Humanistic Studies) and Doctor of Laws (LL.D.)
from the University of Malta. After being awarded a scholarship by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he
furthered his studies in Public International Law of the Sea and Shipping Law at the International
Maritime Law Institute (IMLI, run in conjunction with the International Maritime Organisation - IMO),
where he was awarded a Masters of Law (LL.M.) with distinction. Stefano Filletti has presently been
appointed Assistant Lecturer and Examiner in Public International, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure
within the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta. He has also delivered a number of public lectures
and has been invited on numerous occasions as a speaker at seminars and conferences. He also has been
appointed National Correspondent for European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Statistics within the
framework of the CDPC, Council of Europe.
The starting point for Dr. Filletti is Cicero’s quote “ Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus - We are
slaves of the law so that we can be free”. Dr. Filletti mentions how during court proceedings, matters
take a different shape from that found in theory. Filletti stresses that defence rights are of the essence
and mentions how trust and mutual recognition of EU member states is crucial at this point.
Nevertheless he points out that EU criminal law need not necessarily interfere with domestic law for it
to be effective. There is a lot left to be done regarding defence rights within the European Union; the
Lisbon Treaty was an introduction. Various defence rights are mentioned. Firstly, he mentions
interpretation when someone is investigated in foreign states, which would also relate to
documentation where he suggested a bill of rights to be handed to the person arrested in a language
which he understands where the reasons of one’s arrest is clearly stated. Moreover, the right to a
lawyer was tackled with reference to the case of Salduz vs. Turkey ECHR (Application no. 36391/02) 27
November 2008. Filletti mentions the right to a fair trial which commences from the first contact with
any authority. Speaking to one’s lawyer, Filletti explains, may also draw inferences in some jurisdictions
such as Malta. Finally he refers to Whistle Blowing in cases of corruption, the European arrest warrant
and the influence of media on the trial, referring to recent Maltese cases, where he emphasised on the
basic right that one is to always be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The final point discussed by
Dr. Stefano Filletti was the issue of Ne bis in idem and how it is applicable and works in Malta. He
mentions that, inter alia, the latter notion may be counterproductive in the carrying out of justice.
4. CRIMINALISING ACTIVE AND PASSIVE CORRUPTION CARRIED OUT IN
THE COURSE OF BUISNESS ACTIVITIES
This fifth part of the conference was chaired by Stefano Filletti, with the participation of Philip
Fitzgerald, Liviu Chirita and Björn Rohde-Liebenau.
Liability of legal person with regard to the bribery of foreign public official
and proposals to improve the current normative framework (Philip
Fitzgerald)
Philip Fitzgerald graduated with LL.B(Hons) in law and French from the University of Edinburgh in 1999.
From there he moved to France to the Universite Aix-Marseille III thanks to a law faculty exchange
gained on merit. He has done his thesis on “The International Normative Framework Combating the
Corruption of Foreign Public Officials”.
Fitzgerald notes that there has been uneven enforcement of foreign bribery legislation on an
international level and in over half of the OECD there has been little or no enforcement. He states that
investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery is difficult and expensive and some governments have
been unwilling or unable to muster the required resources. Nevertheless, progress markers since the
OECD were mentioned, such as the UK Bribery Act, and the central issue of corporate criminal liability
was dealt with. Moreover, a comparative analysis between Unites States, France and Australia was
made. In comparison to the US, the French texts have a much narrower approach to corporate criminal
liability. Fitzgerald then dealt with the aspects of respecting the FCPA through compliance and claimed
that from his research the American model resulted to be the most effective, although the US model is
sometimes unfair. Corporations are left with few remedies in respect of respondeat superior.
Commentators have notes that “as long as repondeat superior is the law of the land, corporations won’t
be mounting any defence to potential criminal charges under the FCPA. They can’t win in court so of
course they don’t go to court.” The good-faith or compliance defence incentives for corporations were
dealt with, together with the factors which oppose the good-faith/compliance defence. The company
perspective of good faith/ compliance defence was delved into as well. In conclusion, Fitzgerald said that
normative developments include growing recognition of the positive implications of good and clean
conduct. Greater participation means greater efficiency, and greater efficiency creates better rules.
Preventing corruption in the private sector: a banker’s perspective (Liviu
Chirita)
In 2004, Liviu Chirita, obtained a Bachelor in Economics – Finance/Insurance from the University of
Craiova. In 2012 he graduated from Universityof Bucharest, Law School, with a Bsc in Law. He is
Chairman of Romanian Banks Anti Fraud Committee, Vicepresident of the ACFE the Romanian Chapter
and is Head of Fraud Prevention in UniCredit Tiriac Bank.
Liviu Chirita spoke about fraud and corruption from a banking perspective. He observed 4 aspects of the
topic, firstly giving the bankers view on what is corruption, secondly giving the Romanian position and
study cases, he explained the model on prevention of corruption in banking, and finally he drew three
conclusions on his view of corruption. Corruption he said is divided into four: Conflict of Interest,
Bribery, Illegal Gratuities and Economic Extortion. International legislation and recommendations on
anticorruption were referred to and mentioned. Chirita explains, that there is need of higher
involvement of the private sector in combating corruption in the public sector. It is explained that there
is a direct link between organised crime and corruption at states level and there is still a low
contribution on its analysis. He mentions that one may not realize that in some countries, corrupting is a
way of life in a way that people think that everyone has a price tag, without realising that they are
committing a crime. In conclusion, Chirita says: 1) Corruption is nothing more than one’s actions failing
in front of ethics, 2) One’s ethics are failing when he is complying with anything else but moral, 3) The
pure fraud and corruption temptations is a simple event that occurs in one’s life time. Due to these
concluding points, Chirita changes the basic fraud triangle to a pyramid where he mentions that
‘Pressure’, ‘Opportunity’ and ‘Rationalization’ are joined together with ‘Tomorrow’ and ‘Capability’, with
‘Values’ at the centre of the pyramid.
Corporate compliance: who is setting the standards, why the standard-setting
may not be enough and why would anyone supersede the standard? (Björn
Rohde-Liebenau)
Björn Rohde-Liebenau has been active as an attorney and mediator in his own practice since 1991.
Within his law practice he has specialised in commercial law and for several years has worked in
company restructuring. He has founded RCC Risk Communication Concepts, later moving from Berlin to
Hamburg. The comprehensive range of consultancy services reaches from a needs assessment, expert
opinions and surveys to the set up and implementation of best practice structures for risk communication
and whistle blowing plus the specific counselling, and training. In complex conflict situations Björn
Rohde-Liebenau makes his services as coach, mediator or arbitrator available. In whistle blowing systems
he can be the designated ombudsman.
Björn Rohde-Liebenau believes that we already have enough laws to tackle the situation and all we need
is better enforcement or compliance. Different standards serve different needs and different societies.
He mentions how 20-80 standards come out every day in Germany alone but would standards be
enough? There are difficulties in living up to standards but in reality Compliance means more than
standards as the latter may lead to deviation. Today in the age of global responsibility and it takes more
than refraining from illegality. He claims that compliance means quality and adds value. Concluding,
Björn Rohde-Liebenau says that if there already is compliance, states must improve it and if a system of
more efficient compliance is needed, one must start tackling the problem immediately. For the system
to be future oriented, states must render it a continuously improved process.
CLOSING DEBATE
The closing debate was chaired by Lothar Kuhl with the participation of Philip Fitzgerald, Michael
Hopmeier, Martin Priborsky and Björn Rohde – Liebenau. The concluding remarks were given by
Margarita Popova.
Measuring the costs of corruption in the EU: what next?
Björn Rohde-Liebenau – Björn Rohde-Liebenau says that he believes that states have to look at the
system and check its flaws. The effective way to look at corruption is to replace it with something easier
and more effective. He encourages us to look at the cost of corruption from a different perspective and
realise how expensive this is.
Patrick Fitzgerald – The fact that Corruption goes through international authorities is a sort of handicap
to the system. Could corruption be considered as a human rights violation?
Michael Hopmeier – It is not just the cost which is the centre of corruption and fraud but also its effects
on democracy. All countries are trying to do something on corruption. The reality is that one can have
laws and rules, but it has to be enforced and this is up to the political will of politicians. Due to the fact
that there are different types of corruption, each one has to be looked at separately. Interestingly
enough he mentioned how the accused people in fraud are more worried about the money and assets
which they will lose, rather than about a prison sentence. In all of this one has to however consider
human rights. Discussions between countries have to be done, but again there has to be the political will
and if one doesn’t investigate or prosecute nothing will be done to undermine this illegal conduct.
Martin Priborsky – We have different numbers and rates of corruption and fraud. The anti-corruption
policy must be much more targeted. Whistle blowing is good for getting information but risky because
of defamation. The whistle blower’s job should be that of providing the initial information but then it
should be the investigators job to investigate the facts of the case. Corruption will never be done away
with completely, but great efforts are to be made for reducing corruption. Priborsky noted that the
question of inclusion of Deferred prosecution agreements within the EU scenario may eventually arise.
Concluding remarks
Margarita Popova is Vice President of the Republic of Bulgaria, former Minister of Justice, Sofia.
The Vice President remarked that together we can send a message to Europe and the World that we are
concerned and determined to make the fight against corruption more effective. The increasing forms
and types of corruption require the need of more expertise and specialisation in order to counteract
them. Now more than ever we have to be aware of the policies pursued by the European institutions
called upon to protect the financial interests of the EU. The situation we are in today is because of the
systematic violations of the rule of law, the lack of monitoring from existence of corruption at each
member state and insufficient level of legal integration. At EU level we need a lot more radical decisions
in this direction. She stated the present forum gathered us to see what we can do against hideous and
tempting evil present in the global world. There is therefore the need of global work in two directions:
the expert and the political fields. In conclusion she stated that if we could bring back the rule of law,
the citizens of the European Union will find it easier to bring back their hope about the functionality of
our judicial systems.
The above conference report has been prepared by Gianella Farrugia and Veronica-Anne Spiteri,
2nd Year Law Students at the University of Malta, upon the request of Dr.Stefano Filletti, Assistant
Lecturer and Examiner in Public International, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure within the
Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta.