This article reflects on the negotiations concerning Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (the “PIF Directive”) and discusses some of the controversial issues at that time from a criminal law policy perspective. Germany’s approach to the transposition of the PIF Directive is explained, and the article also presents the corresponding amendments made to the German Criminal Code as well as the provisions in the newly created Act to Strengthen the Protection of the EU‘s Financial Interests (EU-Finanzschutzstärkungsgesetz).

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) are the two investigative bodies at the EU level that together will effectively detect, investigate, and protect the EU’s financial interests by combining the strengths of an administrative investigation with those of a criminal investigative approach. This article outlines in concrete terms how this cooperation is being organised. It illustrates how both offices have been equipped to follow the trail of money irregularly spent on criminal organisations, fraudsters, and corrupt individuals. It also explains the links between the two offices, the new legal framework at the basis of their cooperation, and their operational relationship.

Until the European Public Prosecutor’s Office was set up, the competence for investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses against the financial interests of the EU in Romania belonged to the specialized anticorruption prosecution office, the DNA (National Anti-Corruption Directorate). The DNA looks back on 18 years of experience in tackling this type of criminality, which has resulted in a significant number of court decisions. An analysis carried out by the DNA in 2019, which was based on data obtained from convictions handed down during the period 2015-2018, brought to light the main typologies of EU fraud.