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 level.

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.