Europäischer Rechnungshof - European Court of Auditors
Auditors flag weaknesses in EU’s anti-fraud fight
- Photo Info
- Download
Press release
Luxembourg, 15 December 2025
Auditors flag weaknesses in EU’s anti-fraud fight
- 27 000 fraud allegations reported to EU anti-fraud bodies between 2022 and 2024
- EPPO and OLAF cooperation affected by inefficient exchange of information
- European Commission oversight of repayments to the EU budget insufficient
The EU’s fight against fraud suffers from weaknesses in the way its key anti-fraud bodies exchange information, according to a new report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). This affects the number and timeliness of investigations, the EU executive’s oversight, and its wider role in protecting the EU budget. Although investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) have led to millions of euros being recovered from fraudsters, the European Commission does not know whether all the money owed to the EU budget is being repaid. At a time when the EU’s anti-fraud architecture is under review, the auditors call for a new system to simplify the handling of fraud allegations and investigations.
Under the EU’s anti-fraud architecture, allegations of fraud are investigated by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, while the European Anti-Fraud Office is responsible for administrative investigations. OLAF and EPPO are supported by the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), as well as by national authorities.
“Effective cooperation between all those fighting fraud, from EU investigators to national police and judicial authorities, is key to keeping fraudsters at bay,” said Katarína Kaszasová, the ECA Member leading the audit. “The ongoing review of EU anti-fraud architecture is a golden opportunity to right the system’s faults in terms of information exchange and oversight.”
The auditors found that OLAF, EPPO, Eurojust and Europol have clearly defined legal mandates. Their independent roles are actually complementary, and can be an effective safeguard against fraud. While they welcome mutual support when requested, the number of cases where they have supported one another in recent years has remained relatively small.
Procedures for dealing with allegations of fraud against the EU’s financial interests are complex. To start with, fraud-reporting obligations vary and lead to duplicate reporting to OLAF and EPPO, which increases the administrative burden. In addition, the system fails to ensure that all allegations reach EPPO, which could assess them for potential criminal activity. Procedures for transferring allegations from OLAF to EPPO are cumbersome, and the way EPPO exchanges information with OLAF also has limits, which reduces the scope for further protective measures.
Between 2022 and 2024, OLAF and EPPO received a total of 27 000 fraud allegations, a third of which merited investigation. Figures show that EU bodies report three times more fraud allegations to OLAF than to EPPO, while for many member states there is a substantial gap between their share of the EU budget and the number of cases of fraud they report. The auditors call on the Commission to analyse the reasons for these variations, and to investigate the causes of any significant under-reporting.
Following its investigations during this period, OLAF recommended repayments of €615 million to the EU budget. By the end of 2024, €23 million had already been repaid. In the same period, EPPO froze €3 billion worth of assets. Following its investigations, in 2024 the courts ordered the national authorities to recover €232 million resulting from criminal activity. However, the Commission does not have a mechanism to monitor whether the recoveries ordered by the courts have taken place and the full amount due to the EU budget has been recovered. The auditors therefore stress the need for the Commission to enhance its oversight of the follow-up of fraud investigations.
Background information
The EU and its member states have a duty to counter fraud affecting the bloc’s financial interests; this covers all EU revenue, spending and assets. OLAF (Brussels-based) and Eurojust and Europol (both in The Hague) have been operating for over two decades, while EPPO (with headquarters in Luxembourg and operational offices in all EPPO member states) started operations in 2021. National authorities are required to report alleged fraud to EPPO, while EU bodies report to both EPPO and OLAF; others may report to one or both. Data on the outcomes of EPPO and OLAF investigations are not comparable, as EPPO cases do not concern the EU budget alone, but also national budgets and other victims. The Commission is ultimately responsible for implementing the EU budget, and must ensure that all amounts due are recovered promptly by the national or EU authorities. In July 2025, the Commission launched a review of the EU’s anti-fraud architecture by publishing a white paper. The EU’s anti-fraud architecture is the set of policies, institutions, bodies, and mechanisms established to protect the financial interests of the EU by preventing, detecting, and fighting fraud and other illegal activities that could affect the EU budget.
Special report 26/2025, “EU bodies fighting fraud: clear mandates but exchange of information and Commission oversight remain insufficient”, is available on the ECA website, together with a one-page overview of the key facts and findings. In early 2026, the ECA will publish a special report on tackling fraud in the EU’s COVID recovery fund (RRF).
Press contact
ECA press office: press@eca.europa.eu
Damijan Fišer: (+352) 621 552 224