Rita Simões
Senior Specialist, Asset Recovery
Rita Simões joined the Basel Institute on Governance in November 2024 as a Senior Specialist, Asset Recovery focusing on policy.
Rita has over 20 years of experience as a public prosecutor, with a particular focus on financial crime, asset recovery and international cooperation. She has also gained considerable expertise as a speaker and trainer on these topics.
Before joining the Basel Institute, Rita served as Assistant to the National Member for Portugal at Eurojust, where she worked on international cooperation cases involving both European Union Member States and third countries. She was actively involved in several Eurojust working groups, with a particular emphasis on asset recovery, money laundering, corruption and conflicts of jurisdiction.
Rita began her career with a multidisciplinary approach, handling civil, criminal and family cases before specialising in criminal investigations. She led numerous complex investigations into fraud and tax fraud at the Lisbon Department for Criminal Investigation and Prosecution (2007–2012).
Between 2012 and 2020, Rita served at the Central Department for Criminal Investigation and Prosecution (DCIAP), a division of Portugal’s Public Prosecution Service responsible for investigating highly complex and organised crime. During her time at DCIAP, she was involved in large-scale economic and financial crime investigations, as well as anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML-CTF).
Rita has published three papers on asset recovery and international cooperation.
She holds a law degree from the University of Coimbra.
Publications
Quick Guide 42: Non-conviction based confiscation
Criminals exploit legal loopholes, borders and other avenues to conceal the proceeds of their illegal activities and evade prosecution. Meanwhile, they use their illicit proceeds to buy luxury villas or increase their power and influence. Victims of crime – including communities affected by corruption – suffer the losses.
One tool to address this problem is non-conviction based confiscation: legal mechanisms that allow states to recover illicit assets even in the absence of a criminal conviction. It is also known as non-conviction based forfeiture or, in some jurisdictions, civil confiscation or civil forfeiture.
This Quick Guide outlines in simple terms how non-conviction based confiscation is used, the concerns and challenges it faces and how it can be implemented in line with established legal safeguards.
About this Quick Guide
You are free to share and republish this work under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Licence. It is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Quick Guide series, ISSN 2673-5229.
Quick Guide 41: Managing seized and confiscated assets
This Quick Guide explains why effective, transparent and fair management of seized and confiscated assets – including assets linked to sanctions violations – is essential to successful asset recovery. It introduces key principles, standards and practical steps based on international good practice. These include legal, institutional and technical arrangements, that help countries manage seized assets in a way that preserves value, ensures accountability and supports justice.
The Guide is primarily intended for government officials working in law enforcement, justice and asset recovery. It may also be useful to policymakers and development partners seeking a better understanding of how countries can improve their asset management systems.
About this Quick Guide
You are free to share and republish this work under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Licence. It is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Quick Guide series, ISSN 2673-5229.
News and blog
How will the EU Anti-Corruption Directive affect enforcement against corruption?
What does the EU's new Anti-Corruption Directive actually change, and where does it fall short? This article by Rita Simões of the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery takes a closer look at the final text. She looks at what was adopted, what was left out during negotiations, and what the final text is likely to mean for enforcement across the EU. For a broader reflection on what the directive reveals about changing corruption risks and the future direction of EU anti-corruption policy, see a companion analysis by Dr Jacopo Costa. The European Union EU has adopted and published its Anti-Corruption Directive, concluding a process that began with the Commission’s proposal in May 2023. Its adoption comes amid a broader recalibration of global anti-corruption enforcement, marked by decreased U.S. leadership through the scaling back of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement and increased expectations for the EU to assume a more central role in global anti-corruption efforts. Following a lengthy negotiation period, the final directive is a compromise between the widely differing levels of ambition reflected in the proposals put forth by the European Parliament and European Commission. It establishes a common baseline of corruption offences, corporate liability rules and jurisdiction, but leaves member states significant discretion to limit the scope of new measures. The final version also omits key provisions relating to political financing, non-trial resolutions and victims’ rights. Therefore, the directive's central achievement is the harmonisation of anti-corruption offences and sanctions. Its central limitation is that it leaves key aspects of enforcement practice largely in the hands of member states. Important changes in criminal law, liability and jurisdiction The directive establishes a detailed enforcement and prevention framework. It requires member states to, among others: - create independent anti-corruption bodies; - adopt national strategies; - conduct sector-specific risk assessments; - provide training for officials; and - use Europol’s SIENA system for information exchange. These measures are complemented by harmonised statistical reporting obligations on investigations, prosecutions and sanctions. On substantive criminal law, the directive introduces a harmonised baseline of corruption offences across member states including domestic and foreign bribery, trading in influence, misappropriation, abuse of functions and obstruction of justice. The directive also requires member states to establish a broad criminal liability regime for legal persons . Under this framework, companies can be held accountable for corruption offences, including those resulting from lapses in senior management supervision. Notably, the directive reinforces this regime through obligating the use of dissuasive measures, such as fines based on global turnover and exclusion from public procurement. The directive also strengthens jurisdictional rules. Member states must assert jurisdiction over offences committed on their territory or by their nationals. Furthermore, a member state can prosecute offences committed abroad without needing the state where the crime occurred to report it first. . How these could help enhance anti-corruption enforcement These measures aim to strengthen the EU’s enforcement capacity by expanding the legal tools available to investigate and prosecute corruption, particularly in cross-border cases. Measures on corporate liability, for instance, will strengthen the ability of member states to address complex bribery schemes involving multinational structures. Similarly, the enhanced jurisdictional rules will enable member states to pursue corruption cases that occurred outside their territory, even where the state in which the corruption took place is unwilling or unable to act. In addition, the institutional and procedural framework – particularly coordination, risk assessments and dedicated enforcement bodies – should strengthen the EU’s ability to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute corruption. However, enforcement effectiveness will still depend heavily on national implementation capacity and political will. Three missed opportunities: political financing, non-trial resolutions and victim participation Previously identified as areas of significant potential, several key measures proposed by the European Parliament that could have further enhanced enforcement were excluded or significantly watered down in the final directive. Political financing The European Parliament had proposed stronger measures to tackle illicit political financing, including enhanced transparency requirements and potential criminalisation of certain violations. However, member states are only encouraged – not required – to address risks linked to political funding, with no binding obligation to implement transparency measures or criminalise political financing. This leaves the EU without a harmonised framework in this area. This is a critical gap given growing concerns about how illicit funding can distort electoral processes and enable undue influence over public decision-making, both globally and at the European level653631 EN.pdf . Non-trial resolutions Proposed mandatory frameworks for non-trial resolutions in cases involving legal persons, reflecting established practice in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, were not retained as binding obligations in the final directive. As a result, this instrument does not establish a level playing field across the EU. This is likely to lead to divergent enforcement approaches, with some jurisdictions relying on negotiated resolutions while others depending on full criminal proceedings. Such fragmentation may weaken the effective imposition of financial sanctions on companies, as well as the recovery of proceeds and their use for compensating victims of corruption or enhance anti-corruption efforts. Victim and public participation in corruption cases The final version of the directive requires member states to grant procedural rights to victims and members of the public affected by corruption offences. But it largely relies on existing EU frameworks and national law, providing participation rights only where they already exist domestically. By contrast, the European Parliament’s proposal was more ambitious: it sought to define these categories explicitly, regulate their procedural rights and grant victims a clear right to compensation. As a result, recognition of victims in corruption cases remains uneven across member states. This approach also may limit victim and civil society participation, despite growing international support for more participatory approaches. Anti-corruption ambition is now up to member states The directive adopts an anti-corruption approach that strengthens enforcement powers while maintaining deference to national legal systems. Its effectiveness will depend heavily on implementation, particularly where it sets only minimum standards or leaves room for national discretion. In practice, this is likely to produce uneven legal frameworks across the EU, shaped more by domestic political will than by EU-led harmonisation. Member states implementing the directive will face a choice: - Should they adhere to the minimum requirements only? - Or take the opportunity to pursue more ambitious anti-corruption reforms, including some of the broader measures originally proposed by the European Parliament? Choosing a more ambitious approach presents an opportunity to lead by example and influence future EU reform.
INTERPOL Silver Notices: Speeding up the tracing of criminal assets
Criminal assets can cross borders in hours, while international asset recovery often struggles to keep pace. The INTERPOL Silver Notice is designed to close this gap by enabling earlier identification and tracing of criminal assets across jurisdictions. Can this new instrument fundamentally change how law enforcement responds to the rapid flight of illicit wealth? Criminal funds can be moved across jurisdictions, layered through shell companies or converted into digital assets in a matter of hours. By contrast, international legal cooperation frequently moves at a far slower pace. The mismatch between the speed of asset flight and the pace of enforcement is one of the central reasons why several international bodies estimate that a very high proportion of criminal assets ultimately remain unrecovered. INTERPOL’s Silver Notices seek to narrow this gap. They provide law enforcement with an early, structured mechanism to identify and trace assets across borders, strengthening one of the weakest stages of asset recovery: the initial identification of criminal assets. For practitioners dealing with fraud, corruption, money laundering and organised crime, Silver Notices reflect a shift toward treating asset recovery as an enforcement priority rather than merely a consequence of criminal conviction. The state of play INTERPOL launched the Silver Notice as a pilot initiative in January 2025, involving 52 jurisdictions across all regions. As of November 2025, 133 Silver Notices and 35 Diffusions had been published at the request of 39 countries, linked to suspected financial harm exceeding EUR 30 billion, according to INTERPOL. Switzerland does not currently participate in the pilot and therefore does not issue Silver Notices. However, Swiss authorities may still receive Silver Notices and share information through existing police cooperation channels. In November 2025, during the 93rd INTERPOL General Assembly in Marrakech, delegates approved the extension of the Silver Notice pilot, allowing additional jurisdictions to participate. For practitioners, this expansion matters: broader participation directly increases the likelihood that assets can be identified and preserved before they are moved beyond the reach of enforcement authorities. What is the Silver Notice? INTERPOL Notices enable countries to share critical criminal intelligence and request operational assistance across borders. A Silver Notice is a non-coercive intelligence tool designed to support the identification and tracing of assets linked to serious criminal offences. It does not, by itself, authorise the freezing, seizure or confiscation of assets. Any such measures must be taken in accordance with national law and applicable judicial procedures. In practice, Silver Notices may be used to: flag bank accounts, real estate, corporate holdings and digital assets; identify beneficial owners or persons exercising control over assets; enable secure and structured intelligence sharing between participating jurisdictions. From identification to legal action One of the most persistent challenges in cross-border asset recovery lies in the slow and often complex operation of Mutual Legal Assistance MLA mechanisms used to gather evidence or freeze assets. Evidentiary thresholds and procedural requirements vary widely across jurisdictions, and delays in cooperation can allow assets to be dissipated. When a Silver Notice leads to the identification of assets, the jurisdiction in which they are located informs the requesting country and INTERPOL, outlines domestic legal options, and acts within its legal framework. Early bilateral engagement allows investigators and prosecutors to align MLA requests with domestic standards, shortening the transition from intelligence to evidence and from tracing to freezing, helping preserve asset value and improving the prospects of confiscation and victim restitution or compensation. Safeguards and limits Before any Notice is circulated, it must pass a strict legal compliance review to ensure that it complies with INTERPOL’s Constitution, including the prohibition on matters of a political, military, racial or religious character. These safeguards are essential to maintaining trust between member countries and protecting the system from misuse, particularly in sensitive or high-profile cases. The Silver Notice is also deliberately designed to avoid coercive overreach. Key safeguards include: restriction to serious criminal offences; a requirement for a clear factual link between the assets and suspected criminal conduct; use within the framework of national legal systems, including judicial or prosecutorial oversight where required. At the same time, Silver Notices are not without limitations. For example, in politically sensitive cases, careful scrutiny is required to ensure that asset-tracing requests are not used to advance improper objectives. This makes the robustness and independence of INTERPOL’s compliance review mechanisms particularly important. Ultimately, Silver Notices are not a solution to all asset recovery challenges. Their effectiveness depends on domestic legal framework and the willingness and ability of authorities to act on shared intelligence. They enhance international cooperation, but they do not replace the need for strong national asset recovery regimes or effective MLA processes. Closing the enforcement gap The speed at which criminal assets move across borders continues to outpace traditional enforcement tools. Silver Notices respond to this challenge by enabling earlier asset tracing and more timely operational engagement between jurisdictions. More broadly, Silver Notices reflect an evolving approach to financial crime enforcement that prioritises proactive, intelligence-led intervention over reactive asset recovery at the end of lengthy criminal proceedings. Silver Notices are an enabler, not a shortcut. Used effectively and responsibly, they can strengthen the strategic focus on asset recovery and materially improve the prospects of asset confiscation and victim restitution. This blog is also published on the Hochschule Luzern Economic Crime Blog here.
The FATF’s asset recovery guidance reflects real-world challenges and solutions
The Financial Action Task Force FATF has published new Asset Recovery Guidance and Best Practices, offering a comprehensive roadmap to help countries get better at recovering illicit assets. Through our International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR , the Basel Institute is proud to have contributed to this initiative, which will be instrumental in strengthening asset recovery across jurisdictions globally. The Guidance reflects real challenges and operational lessons encountered by jurisdictions worldwide. It incorporates innovative legal tools and best practices that have proven effective in practice, including those supported through our collaborative policy, training and technical assistance work with our partners. The Guidance in brief The Asset Recovery Guidance aims to help countries implement the 2023 revisions to the FATF Recommendations, which emphasise the crucial role of asset recovery in combating money laundering and related financial crimes. It provides policymakers and practitioners with clear practical steps for developing for more effective, transparent and victim-centred asset recovery systems. Drawing on the experience of 38 jurisdictions as well as 22 stakeholder organisations, including the Basel Institute, the Guidance brings together global best practices, operational lessons and legal innovations into a single reference document. Together, these set out how countries can more effectively trace, restrain, confiscate, manage and return criminal assets. The Guidance also outlines the growing role of technology in asset recovery, including blockchain analytics and open-source intelligence, which are crucial to keep pace with crime in a digital economy. It highlights new international tools such as Interpol’s Silver Notice, which facilitates the tracing of criminal assets across borders. Key recommendations The Guidance recommends that states and their relevant agencies adopt a number of key policies and practices to improve asset recovery outcomes: Asset recovery as a priority: Adopt clear policies, allocate human and technical resources and provide training for agencies involved in the process. Establish inter-agency coordination and cooperation mechanisms, guidelines for the reuse of recovered funds, monitoring mechanisms and partnerships with the private sector or civil society. Systematic approach to financial investigations: Initiate asset tracing efforts from the outset of serious crime cases, ensuring inter-agency coordination. Focus on preventing asset dissipation: Share intelligence and take immediate actions to safeguard assets. This includes the use of temporary suspension or withholding of consent for suspicious transactions by financial intelligence units, as well as rapid freezing or seizing mechanisms by law enforcement agencies. Beyond criminal confiscation: Introduce non-conviction based confiscation and unexplained wealth measures to recover illicit proceeds even where prosecution of the perpetrators is not possible. Cooperation in cross-border cases: Improve and facilitate cooperation, including the use of both formal and informal cooperation mechanisms, joint investigation teams and networks, such as Asset Recovery Interagency Networks ARINs and the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units. Asset management and allocation of recovered funds: Plan the management of confiscated assets to maximise the value of any assets that can be recovered and to ensure benefits for victims and communities. Fundamental rights: Make sure every step in the asset recovery process is proportional, in line with due process and subject to judicial oversight. Role of civil society and the private sector The guidance also underscores the vital roles of civil society and the private sector in asset recovery: Civil society actors, including investigative journalists, help uncover illicit activities and drive advocacy for reforms. The private sector, including financial institutions and so-called designated non-financial service providers DNFBPs , provide critical financial intelligence as well as support to take immediate action in safeguarding assets. Together with authorities, they collaborate to detect, trace and return criminal proceeds. This collective effort enhances recovery outcomes and strengthens public trust through increased transparency and accountability. How our work in the field reflects the Guidance With our 20+ government partners, our specialist ICAR teams prioritise many of the key areas highlighted in the Guidance. Through training and technical assistance, we help authorities strengthen their capacity to investigate, trace and recover illicit assets, with tangible results – from advancing major transnational corruption and money laundering investigations throughout Africa, Europe, South America, and Asia and through assisting in the development of asset recovery legislation such as unexplained wealth and non-conviction based confiscation laws. We are also heavily focused on ensuring that recovered criminal assets or proceeds of corruption are either returned to victims or reinvested for good, such as in sustainable development or anti-corruption projects or in criminal justice reforms. Why does this matter? Asset recovery continues to be one of the most challenging elements of the global fight against financial crime, with the effectiveness of recovering criminal proceeds still falling short. The FATF Guidance seeks to address this by raising global standards and ensuring greater consistency in their application. The message is clear: recovering criminal assets is crucial to effective criminal justice and transparent financial systems. We support this approach and are committed to advancing it. As the Director of ICAR, Iker Lekuona states: “We are encouraged to see many of our policy priorities align with the approach outlined by the Guidance, which will strengthen the support we provide to our partner jurisdictions. ICAR will continue to assist countries through technical assistance, training and policy development, helping turn these priorities into tangible outcomes for communities.”
Keeping Europe safe means keeping up with corruption and financial crime threats
Two recent EU publications underscore the central role of corruption and money laundering in enabling organised crime and threatening security – and how essential it is to invest more in efforts to investigate, seize and confiscate criminal assets. Europol’s 2025 Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment SOCTA painted a sobering picture of how organised crime is “evolving at an unprecedented pace”, with corruption and money laundering as key enablers. The SOCTA, among other inputs, informed the new European internal security strategy, ProtectEU. This equally sobering document sets out how the EU needs to involve all of society in tackling threats to security including organised crime, cybercrime and terrorism. It urges the rapid passing and implementation of the EU Anti-Corruption Directive and emphasises that “seizing assets and confiscating criminal gains is essential.” What does this mean in practice for anti-corruption and asset recovery in Europe? SOCTA: three factors driving organised crime’s transformation The SOCTA is an intelligence-driven report that evaluates the impact of serious and organised crime on society. Published every four years, it is essential in shaping the EU’s criminal priorities. This year’s assessment points to a profound transformation that “is making organised crime more dangerous, posing an unprecedented challenge to security across the EU and its Member States”. The report reveals how organised criminal groups increasingly destabilise society. This includes by collaborating with so-called hybrid threat actors that seek to undermine European stability and institutions in order to achieve their economic or political objectives. For example, criminal networks can further the agendas of hybrid threat actors through orchestrated ransomware attacks on critical infrastructure, businesses and government agencies. Again, corruption exacerbates this destabilisation effect by enabling criminal networks to evade justice, undermine good governance, consolidate power and expand their operations. The ease of laundering illicit money also enables organised crime groups to bridge “the gap between the licit and illicit worlds”. Second, criminal networks increasingly benefit from shifting their operations online. Digital infrastructure like the dark web, social media and e-commerce platforms make it easier for them to recruit individuals, market their illicit services, buy and sell products, conduct financial transactions, communicate via encrypted platforms and identify targets and victims. Third, the report highlights how new technologies – such as artificial intelligence and blockchain-based technologies such as crypto – act as catalysts for organised crime. Cyber-enabled fraud schemes have reached unprecedented levels and are expected to keep growing. Going forward, such technologies will continue to increasingly “drive criminal operations’ efficiency by amplifying their speed, reach, and sophistication”. Parallel financial underworld grows; asset recovery remains low The SOCTA highlights the evolving nature of money laundering techniques, emphasising that these “serve as crucial components of a parallel financial criminal underworld” circumventing anti-money laundering regulations. Cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens NFTs , decentralised finance DeFi platforms and AI-driven automation now facilitate greater anonymity and complexity in the money laundering process. As a result, even if illicit transactions are detected, the money may still disappear before it can be seized – and the individuals laundering the money may remain unknown. These newer methods complement the existing – but still growing – use of cash-intensive businesses such as restaurants to launder illicit funds. The enhanced capability of organised crime groups to hide their proceeds therefore contributes to “an alarmingly modest level of approximately 2%” confiscation rate of criminal proceeds. Innovation to tackle evolving corruption risks This complex and evolving landscape of organised crime and security threats demands a multi-faceted approach. And addressing corruption and enhancing asset recovery are a crucial part of that. Innovation will help. Just as criminals take advantage of increased access to data and digital technologies, so we – governments, law enforcement, citizens, business – need to leverage data and digital tools effectively. That kind of research and innovation is a major goal of the EU-funded FALCON research project to which the Basel Institute is contributing. A 2025 Policy Brief distills concrete insights and red flags from an analysis of 63 corruption cases, for example. This research will help policymakers to develop measures to identify and proactively address weaknesses in legal and administrative procedures that increase corruption risks. In terms of tools, automated corruption risk assessment platforms could help law enforcement analyse data more efficiently and to uncover corruption patterns and new leads. Digitalisation can also help to minimise the discretion of public officials, for example at borders or in public procurement processes. Meanwhile, sophisticated tools and methods for blockchain analytics can help trace illicit crypto flows and to uncover the individuals and networks behind the transactions. Enhancing asset recovery: laws, investigations, coordination As highlighted by the SOCTA, “asset recovery is a powerful deterrent and an effective tool to tackle serious and organised crime”, because it cuts off criminal networks from their resources and prevents them from using these funds to undertake further criminal activity. From nearly two decades of experience of the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR , we can say that improving success rates in asset recovery demands a comprehensive approach to enhancing confiscation mechanisms, financial investigations and coordination. In terms of asset recovery legislation, there are well-documented good practices. For the EU specifically and in the context of sophisticated methods to conceal illicit wealth, we would highlight the need to maximise non-conviction-based and unexplained wealth confiscation mechanisms. When well drafted and implemented, these are especially effective in targeting assets links to organised crime or corruption that are difficult to trace back to specific illegal activities. Financial investigations are crucial to identify criminal assets, but not all financial investigations are the same. For example, investigating financial flows involving crypto requires specialist skills and analytical tools, as well as rapid, proactive collaboration with private-sector crypto asset service providers. In contrast, financial investigations involving predominantly cash or unregulated remittance methods such as hawala banking require the use of more traditional investigative methods, such as surveillance, searches and witness interviews. Coordination could be improved through the use of multi-agency asset recovery task forces. These harness the expertise, resources and legal mandates of law enforcement, prosecutors, asset recovery offices and financial intelligence units, among others, and ensure a coordinated approach to recovering illicit assets. Meanwhile, public-private partnerships can help enhance the sharing of financial intelligence – thus closing the gap between the detection of money laundering and the enforcement of freezing measures. Building defences against corruption and illicit finance ======================================================== Organised crime will continue to exploit regulatory loopholes and rapidly adapt to evolving legal and technological landscapes. In the current geopolitical landscape, we are glad that European institutions are taking a fresh look at the links between corruption, organised crime and security. At the Basel Institute we will continue to support our partners in governments, international organisations, the private sector and civil society to, among other things: improve the effectiveness of anti-money laundering systems as new forms of financial crime evolve; address weaknesses in regulatory frameworks and gaps in the effective implementation of rules and laws; and improve all stages of the asset recovery chain, from detection and tracing to recovering criminal assets.
The EU’s anti-corruption directive enters a critical juncture
Given the increasing headwinds against global anti-corruption efforts blowing out of the United States in recent weeks, the EU’s commencement of trilogue negotiations regarding its proposed Directive on combating corruption has gone largely unnoticed. With the US recently indicating its retreat from the global fight against corruption however, by freezing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and dissolving its kleptocracy units amongst other things , the stakes surrounding these negotiations have somewhat risen. Several key issues are due to be discussed in these negotiations that may significantly impact the EU’s ability to tackle corruption for years to come. In the face of these cross-Atlantic headwinds, the finalisation of this Directive is an opportunity for the EU to assert itself as the vanguard in the fight against corruption. Background: What is the proposed Directive? As outlined in the draft itself and an accompanying statement, the EU’s proposed Directive represents a push to “modernise” its existing anti-corruption legal framework. Specifically, it seeks to better equip EU Member States to tackle an “evolution of corruption threats” by: bringing in stronger rules of accountability for the public sector e.g. regarding conflict of interest ; “harmonising” corruption offences and sanctions across the EU; and enhancing investigation and prosecution capabilities. To date, in accordance with EU procedure, the European Commission has put forward their proposed text for the Directive. In response, the European Parliament and European Council have provided amended versions. The three bodies have now entered into negotiations to agree on a final text. Issues that have been largely agreed so far Based on synergies between the three versions, the Directive will likely require Member States to introduce a number of corruption offences in their national laws if they haven’t already done so . These include domestic bribery, both in the public and private sectors, foreign bribery, misappropriation, trading in influence, abuse of functions and obstruction of justice. The proposed Directive will also require Member States to establish a harmonised, proportionate and dissuasive set of sanctions for these offences. The intention is that this will set a base level for anti-corruption offences across the EU to ensure similar anti-corruption standards are applied in all Member States. Ideally, this will also boost the capacity of EU agencies to investigate and prosecute cross-border cases. Notably, the proposed Directive will require Member States to introduce criminal liability for legal persons i.e. companies for all the offences set out in the Directive. This liability will also apply to situations where a lack of supervision by a person holding a leadership position in an entity resulted in the commission of an offence. The Directive will also obligate Member States to impose a minimum level of sanctions on legal persons in this context that would include fines based on the legal person’s worldwide turnover. Such liability laws have proven successful in countries that actively target foreign bribery e.g. the United Kingdom and Switzerland and would significantly reinforce EU efforts to target similar offending. Moreover, with respect to ensuring accountability, it is likely that Member States will be required to ensure that the immunity of public officials can be lifted through a clear, impartial and transparent legal process. Additional issues to be negotiated While the bulk of the Directive has largely taken shape, the European Parliament has proposed the inclusion of several provisions that will undoubtedly be debated during negotiations. In our view, these provisions could significantly strengthen the EU’s overall ability to counter corruption and warrant serious consideration. For example, the Parliament has proposed that the Directive also addresses the risks that illicit political financing poses to democracies. It has recommended including transparency obligations regarding political party funding as well as a new criminal provision addressing illicit political financing. These changes would help reinforce the integrity of electoral processes throughout the EU. The Parliament has also recommended introducing an obligation that Member States establish effective and transparent processes for non-trial resolutions that can be used to resolve corruption cases involving legal persons. Such non-trial resolutions have proven critical to resolving complex foreign bribery cases worldwide. The United Kingdom has had a significant amount of success using mechanisms in this way. Ironically, so too has the United States. The development of these tools amongst EU Member States would undoubtedly better equip them to tackle similarly complex cases. Additionally, the Parliament has recommended several key amendments aimed at enhancing the rights of victims and affected communities. The amendments introduce the notions of “public concerned” and “victim” and afford both groups a number of procedural rights, including the right of victims to claim compensation. Victims are often forgotten in the resolution of corruption cases. These new amendments, if included, would represent an important step towards enhancing their ability to be heard and potentially seek reparations. They would also strengthen civil society participation in anti-corruption efforts. Why does this matter? The adoption of this Directive is an opportunity for the EU and its Member States to implement a harmonised, comprehensive and enforceable anti-corruption framework that will bolster efforts to target corruption both in domestic and cross-border cases. It also represents an opportunity to tackle issues that have hampered these efforts in the past, and to bring in new, practical avenues to achieve better results. New rules for the lifting of immunities may finally address some of the challenges authorities face when investigating public officials. The inclusion of liability for legal persons will ensure a wider range of corrupt activities can be targeted and sanctioned in a dissuasive manner. And the enhancement of non-trial resolution frameworks will present a transparent and efficient alternative to trial proceedings. Finally, the Directive provides a window to achieving a higher level of justice in corruption cases. Recognising that corruption is not a victimless crime and allowing victims and civil society to participate in proceedings is a key acknowledgment of their role in the fight against corruption. Furthermore, establishing rights for victims will close the gap on their standing in corruption cases and pave the way for effective compensation. The global anti-corruption fight is entering an undoubtedly uncertain era. The outcome of the negotiations on these key issues is a defining moment and will reveal how willing the EU is to take the lead to navigate these tumultuous times.
Interpol’s Silver Notice: paving the way to improved asset recovery
Interpol has recently published its first Silver Notice to identify and trace assets owned by a senior member of the mafia at the request of Italian authorities. The creation of such Silver Notices is a positive step that has the potential to reinforce one of the weakest aspects of the asset recovery process: the detection of illicit financial flows. What is the Silver Notice? Interpol Notices are international requests for cooperation or alerts used by police in member countries to share crime-related information. The Notices are colour coded according to category. Red notices, for example, operate as requests to law enforcement agencies worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person. The newly launched Silver Notice can be used to request information on assets linked to criminal activities, including properties, vehicles, financial accounts and businesses. According to Interpol, “countries may subsequently use such information as a basis for bilateral engagement, including requests for seizure, confiscation or recovery of assets, subject to national laws”. Therefore, it aims to improve the exchange of information in cross-border asset recovery investigations. This will potentially facilitate the detection of proceeds of crime that may have been moved or acquired outside of an investigating jurisdiction. What is the background and framework of the Silver Notice? The concept has been over a decade in the making. While Interpol’s General Assembly decided to create the Silver Notice already in 2015, it only approved the launch of the pilot phase of the project in 2023 and tasked its Expert Working Group on Asset Tracing and Recovery with designing the pilot’s scope, format, conditions and safeguard measures. The pilot phase of the project will run at least until November 2025 and involves 52 countries and territories. Why does this matter? The creation of the Silver Notice is rooted within Interpol’s wider efforts to strengthen global asset recovery processes and combat transnational organised crime. It creates another tool in law enforcement’s toolbox to enhance asset recovery efforts for tracing, identifying and recovering criminal assets related to organised and serious crime. While it remains to be seen how effective Silver Notices will be in aiding live cases, ideally such notices will: improve information sharing between law enforcement agencies; provide a systematic approach to the identification and recovery of concealed assets across jurisdictions; and bolster international cooperation more generally. Overall, this new tool has the potential to strengthen the asset recovery process, particularly in terms of detecting criminal assets that may have been laundered internationally.
EU closes sanctions loophole and validates the confiscation of proceeds of sanctions violations
A recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU addresses two significant weaknesses in the effectiveness of EU sanctions enforcement. First, it makes it clear that an EU-wide ban on “brokering services” for military goods to or from Russia applies even when these goods do not physically enter EU territory. Second, it clarifies that the administrative confiscation of proceeds of sanctions violations is compatible with EU law, in effect allowing for confiscation orders to be issued automatically rather than through drawn-out criminal proceedings. The CJEU is the EU’s judicial authority, comprising the Court of Justice and General Court. The judgement is highly significant in the context of questions over the effectiveness of the EU’s enforcement of sanctions against Russia. It is also relevant to the efforts of EU member states to confiscate assets that are involved in sanctions violations. As argued in our 2023 Working Paper, states should have in place robust legal mechanisms to target assets that are involved in sanctions violations, including proceeds generated by companies that operate in violation of sanctions. The case: Russian military radios The Romania-based company Neves 77 Solutions SRL brokered a transaction involving the supply of 32 radio sets, 20 of which had been manufactured in Russia, on behalf of two companies based in non-EU countries. Neves received over EUR 2.98 million for the transaction, and the radios never entered EU territory. Even though the radios never physically entered the EU, the Romanian authorities still classified the deal as one involving “military goods” and ruled it a violation of EU sanctions under Article 2 2 a of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, as well as a violation of Romania’s own sanctions laws. The Article forbids the provision of brokering services related to military activities to persons and entities in Russia. Brokering services include “the negotiation or arrangement of transactions for the purchase, sale or supply”, as well as the selling or buying “of goods and technology or of financial and technical services”. As a result, the authorities imposed an administrative fine of RON 30,000 approximately EUR 6,000 and confiscated the entire proceeds of the transaction i.e. EUR 2.98 million . The Bucharest Regional Court referred to the CJEU seeking clarification on whether the prohibition on brokering services applied despite the goods never having physically entered the territory of the EU. It also asked whether Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP allowed for the confiscation of the entire proceeds of a brokering transaction. Closing the "brokering" loophole The CJEU considered that there is no requirement for goods to be imported into the EU in order for the deal to count as a sanctions violation under the above-mentioned Council Decision. This makes it clear that the prohibition on brokering services for military goods to or from Russia applies even if the latter never physically entered the territory of any EU member state. According to the CJEU, this interpretation ensures the effectiveness of the EU’s sanctions regime by preventing someone from simply bypassing them by routing relevant goods outside the EU paragraph 69 of the judgement . Confiscating proceeds of sanctions violations The CJEU found that the automatic confiscation of the proceeds in a brokering transaction through an administrative decision is compatible with EU law, provided it is based on clear legal provisions and serves the purpose of deterring violations. Ultimately, this also achieves the objectives pursued by Decision 2014/512/CSFP in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine paragraph 89 of the judgement . The Court also found that the confiscation was proportionate to the infringement, given the severity of the violation and the relatively low maximum fine under Romanian law approximately EUR 6,000 . In fact, the Court actually considered that the fine alone in this case would not be sufficient to deter such violations and that the confiscation of all the proceeds over EUR 2.98 million was necessary to dissuade companies from violating such prohibitions. The Court also affirmed that the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is not absolute and can be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of general interest pursued by the EU. Finally, the CJEU called upon European Court of Human Rights case law to assert that where confiscation “is imposed separately from a criminal penalty” paragraph 95 of the judgement , sufficient procedural safeguards should be put in place to allow such measures to be challenged effectively. Why does this matter? The Neves 77 Solutions judgement addresses some of the uncertainties competent authorities and companies face when dealing with sanctions in the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine, especially concerning the scope of prohibited conducts such as brokering and the consequences of violations. The case also demonstrates how sanctions enforcement can lead to asset recovery: specifically, through the pursuit of the proceeds of sanctions violations. The judgment ensures greater legal consistency across the EU. It strengthens sanctions enforcement by providing clarity and closing loopholes, and by affirming the possibility of confiscating proceeds from violations, including through administrative proceedings. It not only enhances the rule of law but also widens the toolkit to recover assets related to sanctions through established legal means. Read more Working Paper 42: ‘From sanctions to confiscation while upholding the rule of law’ , by Andrew Dornbierer.
Back
Go back to the team overview