De Fiscale Inlichtingen- en Opsporingsdienst (FIOD) publiceerde onlangs haar jaarverslag over 2024. De publicatie biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de prestaties, ontwikkelingen en prioriteiten van de dienst in een tijd waarin financiële en fiscale criminaliteit steeds complexer, internationaler en digitaler wordt. In deze blog vatten we de belangrijkste bevindingen samen en maken we – waar mogelijk – een vergelijking met het voorgaande jaar.
Read MoreRechtbank Oost-Brabant 2 mei 2025, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2025:2544
Een Belgische belastingadviseur dient een klaagschrift in tegen de inbeslagname van documenten tijdens een Belgische doorzoeking op verzoek van Nederland. Hij beroept zich op het Belgische verschoningsrecht. De rechtbank Oost-Brabant oordeelt dat de rechtmatigheid van de Belgische uitvoering van het EOB niet aan de Nederlandse rechter ter toetsing voorligt. Enkel bij een onherroepelijke vaststelling van onrechtmatigheid in België zou dit anders zijn. De rechtbank wijst erop dat belastingadviseurs in Nederland geen verschoningsrecht hebben. Het beklag wordt ongegrond verklaard.
Read MoreOp 10 februari 2025 heeft het Europees Openbaar Ministerie (EOM) een beroep ingesteld bij het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie, op grond van artikel 263, lid 4, VWEU, tegen het besluit van de Europese Rekenkamer om een verzoek van het EOM te weigeren. Dit verzoek betrof het toestaan dat een aantal medewerkers van de Rekenkamer zouden getuigen in een lopend strafrechtelijk onderzoek. De samenvatting van het beroep is vandaag gepubliceerd in het Publicatieblad.
Read MoreThe European Union's stance on the extraterritorial reach of its sanctions has evolved recently, particularly in response to the need to prevent circumvention of restrictive measures against Russia. This article examines the legal basis and challenges associated with the "Best Efforts" obligation and the "No Re-export clause". While these provisions impose contractual and compliance obligations on EU-based companies, they also raise questions about their extraterritorial enforcement, legal consistency, and the potential for legal challenges before EU and international courts. By analyzing the intersection between EU sanctions laws, international jurisdiction principles, and corporate liability, this article explores how these new measures might be challenged and what legal arguments could be used to contest their enforcement beyond EU borders.
Read MoreEuropean Union ("EU") sanctions compliance has gone global. Since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the EU has continuously expanded the substantive and geographic reach of its restrictive measures in innovative and unprecedented ways. Among these latest innovations is a requirement, now enshrined in several EU sanctions regulations concerning Russia and Belarus, for legal and natural persons subject to EU law ("EU operators") to undertake their best efforts to ensure that any entity that they own or control outside the EU do not undermine EU sanctions against Russia and Belarus. This obligation is commonly referred to as the "best efforts" clause or requirement.
Read MoreIn twee recente uitspraken (ECLI:NL:CBB:2025:272 en ECLI:NL:CBB:2025:265) heeft het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (CBb) zich uitgesproken over het beroep op het vertrouwensbeginsel door ondernemingen. Deze zaken benadrukken de strikte voorwaarden waaronder dit beginsel kan worden ingeroepen, vooral wanneer het Unierecht van toepassing is of wanneer er geen duidelijke toezeggingen zijn gedaan door de overheid.
Read MoreThe EU has introduced explicit compliance obligations in its 14th Russia sanctions package, marking a shift from just prohibiting certain economic activities to also mandating how businesses must ensure compliance. Previously, operators had to adhere to sanctions but were not given clear regulatory requirements on implementation within the regulations. The evolving framework extends beyond sanctions regulations to broader EU legislation, including anti-money laundering (AML), instant payments, and crypto-asset transactions. This fragmented approach risks resulting in overlapping yet incomplete obligations, uncertainty, and administrative complexity. Financial institutions face multiple layers of compliance rules, while other sectors remain underregulated. The article examines these regulatory developments, their scope and their impact on businesses. To improve enforcement and prevent circumvention, a more unified EU compliance framework is necessary. A risk-based, harmonised approach would reduce inconsistencies, enhance clarity for businesses, and ensure sanctions are more effective in practice.
Read MoreIt goes without saying that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) form the heart of the protection of the EU’s financial interests. However, the national authorities of the EU Member States are in the frontline when it comes to fighting fraud, bearing in mind that achievements in the field of the protection of the EU's financial interests also depend on the readiness and capacity of OLAF’s and EPPO’s partners in the Member States, (potential) candidate countries, and other non-EU countries, all of which cooperate to this end.
Read MoreThe European Anti-Fraud Office was created 25 years ago, in 1999, to fight fraud, corruption, and any other illegal activities affecting the EU budget. While there are several anti-fraud actors at EU level, OLAF is unique with regard to its international activities. In particular, OLAF is mandated to conduct investigative activities directly on territory outside the EU. Against this background, the article traces the evolution of the EU legal framework for OLAF’s international investigations and the parallel development of OLAF’s international relations in practice. The analysis of OLAF’s engagement with international partners focuses on several key activities of the Office to protect EU funds abroad, especially negotiating anti-fraud provisions in international instruments, concluding administrative cooperation arrangements with non-EU countries and international organisations, and building networks of partners around the globe. Looking back at the past quarter of a century, the article demonstrates that many features which are hallmarks of OLAF’s international relations today can be traced back to the early years of the Office. The article also shows how these practices have grown and matured over time.
Read MoreThe protection of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees in administrative investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has constantly evolved since its creation in 1999. First, the catalogue of procedural rights and guarantees embedded in the successive regulations governing the conduct of OLAF’s investigations was significantly expanded. Second, the existing mechanisms to ensure their protection were reinforced by the creation of the new function of the Controller of procedural guarantees and a new complaints mechanism. As a result, the legal framework under which OLAF operates at present is significantly more protective of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees than it was 25 years ago. This article sheds light on these two key developments: the progressive codification of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees applicable to OLAF’s investigations and the reinforcement of their protection by the creation of the new Controller and the new complaints mechanism.
Read More