INTRODUCTION

When the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, the attitude of the EU towards the criminal law remained business as usual. The existing Framework Decisions were transformed into Directives, and the EU's initiative followed the same guidelines that existed previously. However, a dramatic set of events pursuant to the 2010 EU sovereign debt crisis triggered unheard-of reactions by the EU. Starting with the (in)famous bailouts of EU Member States on the brink of bankruptcy, the EU became aware of fragility of the current system and the need to protect its own financial interests. Since 2011 the communications produced by EU institutions clearly show a change in not only the rhetoric but also the actual means to be used to efficiently protect EU financial interests.

This final chapter first deals with the reaction of both Unions to financial crisis. Though from an economic perspective historical circumstances explain the different approach to the current financial crisis, a common ground can be observed when it comes to the financial interests of the Unions. In the US, the first federal criminal law provisions, i.e. federal crimes prosecuted by US attorneys, were enacted in the wake of the late 18th-century US sovereign debt crisis when the federal government had to assume the debt of the Union's member states. In a similar fashion, the EU is enacting criminal law provisions protecting EU financial interests to be enforced by European Public Prosecutors. The pressure of modern financial markets has forced the EU to take “immediate” action in this field to reassure financial investors of the soundness of EU sovereign debt.

This chapter next addresses the communications of the EU underscoring the rationale behind its approach: protecting EU taxpayers’ monies, designing an anti fraud policy and implementing a criminal law policy. There is a clear intent by EU institutions to provide a roadmap for future action. Although the language related to harmonized protection throughout the EU is used constantly, the federal “taint” can be perceived all over the EU message. The deficiencies of the approach undertaken so far have been acknowledged, and the need for an overhaul of the system is presented. The success of such an endeavor will depend on the determination of the EU institutions.