20 Amendments of Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ related to 2020/2221(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
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 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that value-added tax (VAT) fraud is another major component of revenue fraud; notes that VAT fraud is defined as avoiding the payment of VAT or fraudulently claiming repayments of VAT from national authorities following an illicit chain of transactions; notes that the most common forms of VAT fraud are Missing Trader Intra Community fraud, e-commerce fraud, and fraud to Customs Procedure 42; is concerned by the fact that criminal groups have been proven to exchange knowledge, information and intelligence in the area of VAT fraud;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
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 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
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 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
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 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
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 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
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 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
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
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)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
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 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
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 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Member States, with the support of the Commission, toCommission 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 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
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 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
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)
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 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
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;