Observations
| Author | European Court of Auditors |
| Pages | 16-43 |
16
Observations
Anti-fraud policy, fraud prevention and detection measures
Managing authorities generally have no specific anti-fraud policy
18 The Commission has provided guidelines for Member States and managing
authorities to help them comply with their legal obligation to put in place anti-fraud
measures that are proportionate and effective.
— At the level of the Member States, the Commission recommends the adoption of
national anti-fraud strategies for the protection of the ESI Funds, with the
objective of ensuring homogenous and effective implementation of anti-fraud
measures, especially where Member States’ organisational structures are
decentralised.
— At the level of operational programmes, the Commission recommends that
managing authorities develop a structured approach to tackling fraud, organised
around the four key elements in the anti-fraud management process: prevention,
detection, correction and prosecution16.
— The Commission has further defined concrete criteria for evaluating the way
managing authorities have complied with their legal obligations for setting up
proportionate and effective anti-fraud measures17.
16 Commission’s Guidance for Member States and programme authorities on fraud risk
assessment and effective and proportionate anti-fraud measures (EGESIF 14-0021 of 16
June 2014), OLAF’s Handbook on the role of Member State auditors in fraud prevention and
detection (October 2014) and Guidance on a common methodology for the assessment of
management and control systems in the Member States (EGESIF 14-0010-final of
18 December 2014).
17 Article 30 and Annex IV of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 480/2014 of
and of the Council (OJ L 138, 13.5.2014, p. 5) and defining key requirements of
management and control systems and their classification with regard to their effective
functioning - specifically key requirement 7 (effective implementation of proportionate
anti-fraud measures).
17
19 The Commission recommends that managing authorities use a formal anti-fraud
policy18 to communicate their determination to combat and address fraud. This policy
should, in particular, include strategies for the development of an anti-fraud culture
and the allocation of responsibilities for tackling fraud. We consider that managing
authorities should have prepared a formal anti-fraud policy or a similar single, stand-
alone document specifying their fraud prevention, detection and response measures
and making clear to their own staff, the beneficiaries of EU funding and other
authorities that measures to tackle fraud are in place and being implemented.
20 We found during our visits that very few of these policies actually constitute
formal reference documents summarising the measures to be implemented at each
stage of the anti-fraud management process in response to identified fraud risks. We
only found examples of formalised anti-fraud policies in Latvia, at specific intermediate
bodies in Spain, and in France (where the policy has not been made public). In all other
cases, to obtain a full description of anti-fraud measures we needed to consult
multiple management documents and manuals of procedures. We consider that the
absence of formalised anti-fraud policies limits Member States’ ability to supervise and
coordinate anti-fraud measures and evaluate their effectiveness. This is particularly
relevant in that only ten Member States have adopted a national anti-fraud strategy19
based on the Commission’s recommendation (see paragraph 18).
21 We also consider the absence of provisions requiring managing authorities to
adopt formal anti-fraud policies as a shortcoming in the design of the anti-fraud
framework for 2014-2020. Furthermore, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)
18 In this sense, the concept of a formal anti-fraud policy c orresponds to the ’fraud risk
management programme’ defined by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) in
its ”Fraud examiners manual” or in the ”Fraud Risk Management Guide” it developed with
the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and to
the “formal counter fraud and corruption strategies” defined by the Chartered Institute of
Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) in its “Code of practice on managing the risk of
fraud and corruption”.
19 National anti-fraud strategies exist in ten of the 28 Member States: Bulgaria, Czechia,
Greece, France, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, Hungary, Malta and Slovakia. Romania also has a
strategy, but it is now out-of-date (Source: 2017 PIF report, page 12). The Member States
that have not adopted a national strategy are: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia,
Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal,
Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom.
To continue reading
Request your trial