The purpose of this paper is to examine the arrangements and institutions that have been put in place at both the transnational and the national levels to fight fraud against the…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the arrangements and institutions that have been put in place at both the transnational and the national levels to fight fraud against the European budget. It also seeks to consider the experiences of two new Member States, Romania and the Czech Republic, in seeking to build effective anti‐fraud structures and to co‐operate effectively with Brussels.
Design/methodology/approach
Semi‐structured interviews are undertaken with officials of the European Anti‐Fraud Office (OLAF), as well as with officials in both Romania and the Czech Republic. A review of secondary materials such as official reports and academic articles is also undertaken.
Findings
The fight against European Union (EU) fraud is hampered by a number of factors. Fragmentation occurs at different levels, transnational, national and legal. The lead transnational agency OLAF has not been given the support it requires and has been subjected to a long period of uncertainty regarding its powers and responsibilities. New Member States have been admitted to the EU, but some of them have not been ready in terms of their ability to tackle fraud effectively. These problems are to a large extent self‐inflicted, and make the fight against fraud all the more complex and difficult.
Originality/value
The paper provides an insight into the difficulties facing both OLAF and the agencies of new Member States in terms of fragmentation and seeking to acquire investigative and other technical skills in a very short period of time. It is an addition to a body of literature which is not particularly extensive.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to consider the mission of Unité de Coordination de la Lutte Anti‐Fraud (UCLAF); how it cooperated with Member States and how it accounted for its…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to consider the mission of Unité de Coordination de la Lutte Anti‐Fraud (UCLAF); how it cooperated with Member States and how it accounted for its actions. The paper seeks to detail examples of its investigations and to consider the criticisms made of UCLAF by the European Court of Auditors and the Committee of Independent Experts which had been established to investigate allegations of fraud, nepotism and mismanagement within the European Commission. It will also seek to draw lessons from the UCLAF experience for the future fight against EU fraud.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper used a combination of semi‐structured interviews with EU and national officials in the UK and Ireland as well as a review of secondary materials such as organisational reports and academic sources.
Findings
The paper found that the fight against fraud was fatally undermined by the high degree of fragmentation due to the multiplicity of national and EU agencies involved. There were some self‐inflicted weaknesses on the part of UCLAF such as poor use of intelligence databases and the employment of a high number of staff on temporary contracts which led to high‐staff turnover and disrupted the investigative process.
Practical implications
The paper reveals how not to fight against transnational fraud. Lessons need to be learned from the UCLAF experience, so that the same mistakes are not made again.
Originality/value
The paper is an addition to a body of work which is not particularly extensive. It strives to offer some lessons for the future fight against fraud.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of the European Anti‐Fraud Office, OLAF, in the fight against EU fraud and to consider the difficulties and problems it has to…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of the European Anti‐Fraud Office, OLAF, in the fight against EU fraud and to consider the difficulties and problems it has to contend with in attempting to carry out its mission.
Design/methodology/approach
The approach adopted was to carry out a number of semi‐structured interviews with relevant officials and to review secondary materials such as reports by the European Commission, the European Court of Auditors and OLAF itself.
Findings
The paper finds a high degree of both organisational and legal fragmentation as well as difficulties caused by the personnel policies of the European Commission leading to a significant staff turnover often in the midst of complex investigations.
Originality/value
It provides an insight into the difficulties faced by OLAF such as the degree of fragmentation with a multiplicity of agencies involved in the fight against fraud and is a contribution to an area, which does not contain a great amount of academic literature.
Details
Keywords
This paper seeks to examine the prevalence of fraud in the EU, the weaknesses of the current system in combating it, and to suggest recommendations for a more effective effort in…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper seeks to examine the prevalence of fraud in the EU, the weaknesses of the current system in combating it, and to suggest recommendations for a more effective effort in this respect.
Design/methodology/approach
The recent (post‐won) history of European fraud is chronicled and the observations of authors in this issue (JFC, Vol. 17 No. 1) are noted.
Findings
EU fraud has so far received low priority in the law enforcement's hierarchy of prosecutable offences. However, it is possible, even of this late juncture, to co‐ordinate efforts effectively to pursue, detect, try, convict and punish offenders.
Originality/value
The paper, at last, makes concrete suggestions for combating EU fraud – a move long‐awaited and sorely needed.