JOINT INVESTIGATION
TEAMS
PAN EUROPEAN PANACEAE OR DISASTERS WAITING TO HAPPEN ?
London, 7 July 2014
Stefan DE MOOR
SCOPE

The OLAF experience

The Belgian experience

Some thoughts
OLAF’s challenges
Serious misbehavior in institutions/bodies/
Agencies


Cohesion funds/agricultural funds

Direct expenses : ex. Research projects

External aid

Customs fraud : ex. Cigarettes trafficking
FAKE PROJECTS







Organised networks
Intervening in EU projects
Rigging procurement procedures
Producing fake projects
Conspiring with private companies,
institutes, universities, experts, EU officials
Inflating invoices
Laundering money
OLAF and (national) judiciary/law
enforcement






Criminalisation through PIF-instruments 1995
Role of judiciary/law enforcement
Some kind of partnership
Combine powers of collecting evidence with
analysis capacity
2nd Protocol PIF Convention 1997 :
Commission’s assistance
OLAF-Regulation/Decision 1999: independance
of OLAF
Major fraud and corruption cases




Start: OLAF administrative investigation
Transmission to judiciary without closing
the administrative investigation
Assistance and synchronisation of actions
Issue of the waivers of EU
immunities/inviolabilities
Cour de Cassation Paris



16/01/2013
accepted the regularity of the presence of
OLAF officials during the house-search
Accepted mission as experts analysing the
evidence collected.
OLAF and JIT’s

2000 MLA Convention:
“possible participation of officials of bodies
set up by the Treaties”
 Explanatory report:
“participation of OLAF in the team may also
be considered”
 Some national laws (ex. Belgium):
‘capacity of “experts” ’
Possible added value


process information and evidence
collected by several MS judicial authorities
and OLAF analysis
circulate the results to all involved MS-JA
in real time
Bottle necks

Hidden consultant:
neither its national law, nor any applicable international
instrument provided for OLAF’s possible participation

Fake research projects:
involved MS had no JIT legislation at all, except for drugs
and terrorism cases.
Issues



authority over the OLAF officials during
JIT-operations
immunity of OLAF officials during JIToperations
statute of the information analysed and
the results of the analysis (repercussions
for other MS).
The Belgian experience




Belgium has experience with JIT’s since 2006.
Roughly some 100 JIT’s have been constituted
since.
Most cases were drugs and organised thefts,
followed by murder, terrorism, organised crime,
fraud, money laundering, traffic of human
beings.
In 2013 18 JIT’s have been constituted and over
2014 : 8.
JIT’s in BELGIUM




Almost all of them are bilateral and most
with FR en NL, equally divided
BE constituted 10 JIT’s with UK.
Eurojust and EUROPOL are systematically
informed.
In 12 of them there was Commission
financial contribution via EUROJUST* (own
figures)
Some thoughts

new OLAF Regulation No 883/2013 :
No JIT provisions (compare EUROPOL and
EUROJUST Decisions)
COM(2012)363 final
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the fight
against fraud to the Union's financial interests by
means of criminal law
No JIT provisions (providing the obligation of MS
to allow OLAF’s participation in JIT’s)

THANK YOU
Stefan DE MOOR
S.demoor@yahoo.com