# CE2004084EN.01012401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/124 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/124

---

(2004/C 84 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3969/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Judicial investigation by the Catania Public Prosecutor's office into an EUR 5 million fraud against the European Union

Subject:

According to an article that appeared in the newspaper La Sicilia on 12 December 2003, entitled ‘Catania — EUR 5 million EU fraud’:

| — | members of the Guardia di Finanza's excise and revenue unit in Catania have uncovered a case of fraud committed by a Catanese company with a view to illicitly obtaining Community funds totalling EUR 5 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

members of the Guardia di Finanza's excise and revenue unit in Catania have uncovered a case of fraud committed by a Catanese company with a view to illicitly obtaining Community funds totalling EUR 5 million;

| — | the company had received a grant under Law No 488/92 to set up and develop a new firm for the production of medical surgical equipment in the Catania development area; |
| --- | --- |

—

the company had received a grant under Law No 488/92 to set up and develop a new firm for the production of medical surgical equipment in the Catania development area;

| — | however, the company had altered its corporate structure several times in recent years, despite remaining a non-operating company, and once the funding had been obtained its Italian members vanished from the scene and ownership passed to two companies with head offices in Liechtenstein and Luxembourg; |
| --- | --- |

—

however, the company had altered its corporate structure several times in recent years, despite remaining a non-operating company, and once the funding had been obtained its Italian members vanished from the scene and ownership passed to two companies with head offices in Liechtenstein and Luxembourg;

| — | around 90 % of the investment expenditure provided for in the plan had gone towards the purchase of a particular machine which, according to the proprietors, could only be supplied by a design office based in Liechtenstein after construction by a Spanish firm. Both these firms turned out to have connections to the companies that owned the share capital in the Catanese company; |
| --- | --- |

—

around 90 % of the investment expenditure provided for in the plan had gone towards the purchase of a particular machine which, according to the proprietors, could only be supplied by a design office based in Liechtenstein after construction by a Spanish firm. Both these firms turned out to have connections to the companies that owned the share capital in the Catanese company;

| — | a subsequent detailed retracing of the movements of this machine showed that these were in fact quite different to what had been claimed, or in other words that the machine, the value of which was declared at around EUR 9 million, was in reality worth around EUR 1,5 million and had been purchased directly from production establishments in Modena and Varese; |
| --- | --- |

—

a subsequent detailed retracing of the movements of this machine showed that these were in fact quite different to what had been claimed, or in other words that the machine, the value of which was declared at around EUR 9 million, was in reality worth around EUR 1,5 million and had been purchased directly from production establishments in Modena and Varese;

| — | in order to conceal the its origins, the machine had been transported to the port of Barcelona from where, after briefly lying in store, it had been shipped to Catania. In this way, with the previous legs of its itinerary omitted, the machine seemed on paper to have been manufactured in Spain and imported from there; |
| --- | --- |

—

in order to conceal the its origins, the machine had been transported to the port of Barcelona from where, after briefly lying in store, it had been shipped to Catania. In this way, with the previous legs of its itinerary omitted, the machine seemed on paper to have been manufactured in Spain and imported from there;

| — | invoices to the value of around EUR 9,5 million had been issued for fictitious operations in support of the fictitious costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

invoices to the value of around EUR 9,5 million had been issued for fictitious operations in support of the fictitious costs.

Is the Commission aware of these events, and what measures has it taken or will it take in this regard? Has OLAF been notified of this situation, and has it launched or will it launch an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

(10 February 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into a company on charges of defrauding the Union.

As the judicial proceedings are already in progress at the Catania public prosecutor's office in Italy OLAF would be prepared to provide any assistance that the judicial authorities concerned might request.

---