COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, counterfeiting, euro, fight against crime, organised crime, project evaluation, technical education

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1615 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the 
euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme)  

{COM(2011) 913 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1614 final} 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION (LEGAL BASIS AND MANAGEMENT) 

1.1. 

The Pericles programme 

The Pericles Programme is an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection 
of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting.  The  programme  was  established  by  Council  Decision 
2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001 and its effects were extended to all EU Member States, 
also including the ones which have not adopted the euro as the single currency, by Council 
Decision 2001/924/EC of 17 December 2001. Subsequent amendments to these basic acts by 
Council Decisions 2006/75/EC, 2006/76/EC, 2006/849/EC and 2006/850/EC have prolonged 
the duration of the programme until 13 December 2013. 

1.1.  Management of the programme 

OLAF  is  the  leading  service  for  the  programme.  Continuous  contacts  with  TAIEX/HOME 
and  CEPOL  are  necessary  in  order  to  assure  coherence  with  possible  actions  potentially 
linked  to  the  area  of  the  protection  of  the  euro.  In  particular,  it  could  happen  that  events 
funded by CEPOL and TAIEX include, among others, the protection of the euro issue. In such 
a case, specific coordination takes place and OLAF provides its support1. The same happens if 
HOME  or  TAXUD  are  involved.  Pericles  being    the  specific  EC  training  tool  for  the 
protection  of  the  euro,  its  actions  are  100%  focused  on  this  matter  and  their  target  are  staff 
working in this particular field. 

Implementation of the programme (2006-2010) 

1.2. 
From 2006 until 2010, 442 actions were committed: 38 of these actions were implemented in 
the period 2006-2010 and the remaining 6 are scheduled to be implemented in 2011.  
The organisers of these actions, co-funded under the Pericles Programme, have consisted of 
16 National Competent Authorities from 10 Member States.  

Actions per Member States

Estonia, 1

Portugal, 2

The Netherlands, 1

France, 3

Poland, 2

Belgium, 5

Germany, 7

Italy, 16

Spain, 6

Hungary, 1

Italy implemented the highest number of actions: 36% of the total actions. 

1   E.g.: shaping of the agenda and select speakers. 
2   During the same period of time, The Commission/ OLAF organised 25 Pericles actions on its initiative. These 

actions are not included in this document.  

EN 

- 1 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The following chart shows a breakdown of the number of actions committed per year. 

Actions Committed per Year

2010: 12 actions

2006: 9 actions

2007: 7 actions

2009: 8 actions

2008: 8 actions

The following chart depicts the types of actions carried out, the most popular being staff 
exchanges and Seminar/Conferences (together almost 80% of the actions)  

Type of Actions

Seminar/ 
Conference
36%

Study
2%

Training
20%

Staff exchanges

42%

1.3. 

Value added of the programme 

While the most recent biannual figures for the number of counterfeit euro banknotes seized in 
2010 show reductions of 13% and 6% respectively (compared to the previous six months), the 
long-term trend shows an overall increase of 31% in the last two years (compared to 2007-8). 
The  number  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  removed  from  circulation  in  2010  increased  by  8% 
compared to the year before and its trend has been increasing from 20023. 

The  euro  continues  to  appear  an  interesting  target  for  organised  crime  groups  active  in  the 
forgery of money, not only in Europe but also in other regions of the world. The international 
dimension  of  the  threat  with  respect  to  euro  counterfeiting  results  in  the  need  for  a 

3   See details in par. 3.2. 

EN 

- 2 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
supranational coordination in facing it. Through the Pericles programme, OLAF implements 
such a coordination in the specific field of training activities. In particular, by implementing a 
specific  training  strategy4  agreed  with  Member  States,  the  programme  complements  the 
national  training  by  adding  a  multidisciplinary  and  international  dimension,  provides  the 
beneficiaries  with  the  ability  to  carry  on  international  trainings  and  increase  the  level  of 
protection of the euro and the quality of cooperation outside the European Union by directly 
involving the most sensitive third countries in specific training actions (see below "regional 
cooperation"). 

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The  Pericles  programme  includes  a  multi-disciplinary  set  of  actions  involving  stakeholders 
who  are  all  important  in  the  fight  against  euro  counterfeiting  but  whose  contribution  takes 
different forms – technical, legal, financial and law-enforcement. 
The  Commission  has  collected  the  opinions  of  the  stakeholders  of  the  Pericles  programme 
through  (i)  a  mid-term  evaluation  conducted  among  the  programme  beneficiaries  in  early 
2011;  (ii)  the  evaluation  forms  that  Pericles  action  participants  fill  in  following  each  of  the 
events; and (iii) the views expressed by the experts in the Euro Counterfeiting Experts’ Group 
(ECEG)5, where implementation of the Pericles programme is one of the standard discussion 
items.  

Mid-term evaluation6 

By  initiative  of  the  programme  manager,  a  mid-term  evaluation  was  conducted  among  the 
programme  beneficiaries.  This  mid-term  evaluation  supplements  the  continuous  feedback 
received  from  Member  States  (included  in  the  reports  of  the  Euro  Counterfeiting  Experts 
Group,  Euro  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group7,  meetings).  Participants  views  are  obtained  by 
means of the evaluation forms filled in after each event.  

The  result  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  shows  broad  satisfaction  with  the  Programme. 
Participants,  at  a  percentage  of  98%,  were  satisfied  with  the  programme,  whereas  all  the 
beneficiaries  (100%)  expressed  their  satisfaction  and  asked  for  prolongation  of  the 
programme beyond 2013. 

Based on beneficiaries’ opinion and on the experts views: 

• 

• 

Pericles  increases  the  number  of  people  trained  at  national  level  and  the  quality  of 
trainings by adding an international and multidisciplinary dimension; 

Pericles trainings are complementary and additional to the national trainings; 

4   See annex. 
5   The  Commission/OLAF’s  Euro  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group  meets  three  times  a  year  and  brings  together 
experts from all MS and relevant disciplines, as well as Europol, Interpol and the European Central Bank. The 
implementation of the Pericles programme is one of the standard items at the meetings of the Group. 

6   Report is in annex. 
7   The  ECEG  is  chaired  by  Commission/OLAF  and  meets  three  times  per  year  in  Brussels;  it  is  a 
multidisciplinary group including experts from Member States (police, judicial and financial staff), European 
Commission, Europol, Interpol and European Central Bank. 

EN 

- 3 - 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

Pericles trainings have a direct link with operational results (training of staff directly 
involved in the protection of the euro, such as police, judicial and financial staff8); 

Pericles is the instrument for providing the beneficiaries with the ability to carry on 
their own trainings. 

In addition, all beneficiaries participating on a regular basis in Euro Counterfeiting Experts’ 
Group (ECEG)9 meetings considered that their level of involvement was significant or very 
significant both at the multilateral and the bilateral level. The importance of the coordination 
by OLAF and the positive contribution of the Programme in increasing the protection of the 
euro were highlighted. 

The  beneficiaries  showed  high  appreciation  for  the  Programme  and  its  management  by 
OLAF.  The  support  to  the  protection  of  the  euro  is  a  continuous  process  that  cannot  be 
interrupted without prejudice to the entire system. 
Pericles is instrumental in providing the beneficiaries with the ability to carry on the proper 
trainings  and  has  become  a  natural  complement  to  the  national  training  plans  of  Member 
States. 

Some  beneficiaries  made  specific  suggestions  for  the  continuation  and  management  of  the 
programme, here below a short list of them10; 

• 

Simplification: greater flexibility/ discretion in using the granted amount 

The beneficiaries refer to the fact that the Pericles Decision provides for a rigid split 
between costs to be covered by Commission and costs to be covered by the Member 
States.  This  split  complicates  the  preparation  of  the  budget  when  the  actions  are  not 
implemented on the beneficiaries’ premises11. 
This request has been taken under serious consideration in the Commission proposal 
for the renewal of the programme. 

• 

Evaluation Committee: 

- To limit the evaluation to cost/effectiveness criteria  
- Need for more meetings of the Committee  
- More flexibility to increase the amount of the advanced payments 
With respect to these comments, we notice that: 
-  The  criteria  of  evaluation  are  listed  in  the  Financial  Decision  and  in  the  Call  for 
Proposals; 
-  The  number  of  the  evaluation  sessions  is  strictly  linked  to  the  deadlines  for 
submission of the applications; this number (3) cannot be further increased; 
-  In  the  second  half  of  2010,  OLAF  increased  transparency  and  flexibility  in 
providing  “increased”  advanced  payments  when  needed  (the  list  of  cases  is  within 
the Call for Proposals) 

8   E.g.:  investigations  against  euro  counterfeiting  started  in  Colombia  after  the  first  Pericles  training  hold  in 
Bogota  in  2002.  Pericles-trained  Colombian  staff  carried  out  the  highest  number  of  successful  euro-
anticounterfeiting operations during the last 9 years outside EU.  

9   OLAF’s Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group brings together experts from all MS and relevant disciplines, as 

well as Europol, Interpol and the European Central Bank. 

10  The entire document is in attachment. 
11  This is the case of the large majority of the actions. 

EN 

- 4 - 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

Need for clarification regarding the type of documents and final procedures in order to 
avoid long delays in closing the actions  

Based on this, a specific Pericles Workshop took place in Brussels in June 2011. 

Continuous  monitoring  and  coordination  to  avoid  possible  overlapping  with  other 
actions of European institutions occurs in the field of protecting the euro.  

This refers to the importance of coordination among European institutions in training: 
this  is  one  of  the  main  tasks  for  the  Euro  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group.  In  the  past 
some overlapping took place due to the fact that Europol did not inform about its plans 
in  advance;  in  consideration  of  this,  OLAF  already  asked  Europol  to  discuss  all 
training activities in advance at the ECEG meetings. 

Need for more specialised training on the different types of the printing machines used 
by counterfeiters (under discussion at the meetings of the Euro Counterfeiting Experts 
Group). 

The totality of beneficiaries (100%) requested a prolongation of Pericles beyond 2013. 

All the above mentioned feedback has been taken into account in this impact assessment.   

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND INTERVENTION LOGIC 

Size of the problem 

The status of euro counterfeiting can be described as follows: according to Europol Organised 
Crime  Threat  Assessment12,  the  euro  continues  to  be  a  target  for  organised  crime  groups 
active in the forgery of money, not only in Europe but also in other regions of the world such 
as  South  America  and  Eastern  Asia,  which  plays  an  increasing  role  in  the  supply  of  raw 
material and equipment. While the most recent biannual figures for the number of counterfeit 
euro banknotes seized in 2010 show a declining course through the year, an overall increase 
of 31% in the last two years (compared to 2007-8) was recorded. 

According  to  the  European  Central  Bank,  more  than  97%  of  counterfeits  removed  from 
circulation  in  the  second  half  of  2010  were  found  in  euro  area  countries  where  there  is  a 
greater possibility for their local distribution; just 1.5% was seized in EU MS outside the euro 
area, and another 1.5% in other parts of the world.  

Organised  crime  groups  involved  in  euro  counterfeiting  are  characterised  by  their  rigid 
organisation,  with  a  strict  distribution  of  tasks  to  cells  operating  independently  in  order  to 
minimise risk. Organisers fund the  activities but do not take part in the production process; 
printers have very high levels of technical skills (offset printing or digital printing); high level 
distributors  purchase  the  counterfeits  at  low  prices,  while  low  level  distributors  are  usually 
unskilled young people who operate in small but flexible temporary networks.  

Italy,  Bulgaria  and  Colombia  are  among  the  foremost  countries  for  counterfeit  currency 
production sites. The production of counterfeits is not limited to illegal laboratories: perhaps 
as a consequence of the global economic crisis, owners and employees of legitimate printing 
firms have become increasingly involved in this illicit activity. 

12   Source:  OCTA  2011  https://www.Europol.Europa.eu/content/publication/octa-2011-eu-organised-crime-

threat-assessment-655 . 

EN 

- 5 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
There is also a dynamic relationship between criminal groups.  Counterfeit euro produced in 
Italy are circulated by a wide range of groups active all over Europe, but particularly in Italy, 
France  and  Spain.  Itinerant  communities  have  also  been  identified  among  the  main 
distributors. Criminal Groups in South Eastern Europe are also prominent in the production of 
counterfeit euro. Bulgarian producers cooperate mainly with Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Turkish, 
Romanian  and  Albanian  criminal  groups  to  circulate  counterfeit  banknotes.  Meanwhile 
distributors of counterfeit euro use the same channels for other illicit commodities, as in the 
case  of  Estonian  and  Lithuanian  organised  crime  groups  also  engaged  in  the  trafficking  of 
drugs.  These  groups  are  also  involved  in  outsourcing  counterfeit  euro  distribution  to  local 
street-level  drug  dealers,  which  may  emerge  as  an  effective  long-term  modus  operandi  for 
other groups as well. Moroccan groups involved in trafficking cannabis resin towards Spain 
and France also cooperate with Italian suppliers of counterfeit euro. (Extract from Europol EU 
Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2011). 

Consequences of the problem 

The  above  scenario,  together  with  the  appearance  of  new  types  of  counterfeits  also  in  2011 
and  the  continuous  seizures  of  counterfeits  by  police,  shows  that  the  level  of  threat  for  the 
euro continues to be high.  

The description of criminal groups made by Europol13 provide a precise qualitative evaluation 
of  the  threat  as  well;  in  particular  describing  the  organised  crime  groups  involved  in  euro 
counterfeiting as  "characterized by their rigid organisation, with a strict distribution of tasks 
to cells operating independently in order to minimize risk". In particular, the "organisers fund 
the activities but do not take part in the production process; printers have very high levels of 
technical  skills  (offset  printing  or  digital  printing);  high  level  distributors  purchase  the 
counterfeits at low prices, while low level distributors are usually unskilled young people who 
operate in small but flexible temporary networks.”  

As  a  result  of  the  coherent  measures  taken  at  EU  and  Member  States  level,  the  number  of 
counterfeit euro banknotes and coins is small and remains under control. In addition, there is a 
continuous discovery of illegal print shops and mints and a large number of counterfeits (both 
coins and banknotes) were seized before entering into circulation.  

13   Source: OCTA 2011. 

EN 

- 6 - 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Status of counterfeit euro banknotes (in pieces) 

Total 
Counterfeits

Total  

genuine 
circulating 

2010 

2009 

2008 

2007 

2006 

2005 

2004 

2003 

2002 

751 000 

13.6 billion 

860 000 

12.8 billion 

666 000 

11.5 billion 

561 000 

11.4 billion 

565 000 

10.6 billion 

579 000 

10.4 billion 

594 000 

9 billion 

551,287 

8.7 billion 

167 118 

8.2 billion 

According  to  the  European  Central  Bank,  during  the  first  half  of  2011  "the  €20  and  €50 
denominations continue to be the most counterfeited. During the past six months, the share of 
counterfeit €20 banknotes increased and the shar e of €50 banknotes decreased. The two most 
counterfeited denominations together accounted for 79.0% of the total during the first half of 
2011. The €100 banknote is the third most counter feited denomination, accounting for 16.0% 
of the total. The share of the other denominations (€5, €10, €200 and €500) is very low

. 

The table below provides a percentage breakdown, by denomination, of the total number of 
counterfeits withdrawn from circulation in the first half of 2011.  

Denomination 

€5 

€10 

€20 

€50 

€100 

€200 €500

Percentage breakdown 0.5%  1.5%  43.0% 36.0% 16.0% 2.5% 0.5%

The majority (98%) of counterfeits recovered in the first half of 2011 were found in euro area 
countries, with only around 1.5% being found in EU Member States outside the euro area and 
0.5% being found in other parts of the world. "14 
The  continuous  discovery  of  new  dangerous  types  of  counterfeit  euro  banknotes  is  a  strong 
indicator of the high interest that criminality has in counterfeiting.  

14   Source : ECB:  http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2011/html/pr110117.en.html . 

EN 

- 7 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Status of euro coins (in pieces) 

50-cent 

1-euro 

2-euro 

Total 
Counter
feits 

Total genuine 
in circulation  
(3 denom.)  

2010 

24 900 

30 800 

130 300 

186 000 

16.1 billion 

2009 

18 100 

26 500 

127 500 

172 100 

15.4 billion 

2008 

16 600 

24 500 

154 800 

195 900 

14.8 billion 

2007 

13 000 

16 200 

181 900 

211 100 

14.1 billion 

2006 

8 286 

14 099 

141 437 

163 822 

13.2 billion 

2005 

3 989 

12 771 

83 731 

100 491 

12.4 billion 

2004 

2003 

2002 

950 

556 

29 

8 482 

65 046 

74 478 

11.5 billion 

6 561 

25 642 

32 759 

10.7 billion 

1 105 

1 035 

2 169 

9.7 billion 

The  number  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  removed  from  circulation  in  2010  increased  by  8% 
compared to the year before and its trend has been increasing from 2002. Over the last four 
years  the  total  number  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  removed  from  circulation  has  been  at  the 
same level. In 2010 about 186 000 counterfeit coins were detected. Since the introduction of 
the euro 16 illegal mint shops have been dismantled.  

Nevertheless  the  number  of  new  classes  of  counterfeits  remains  significant  and  so  is  the 
number of still operating illegal mints. This shows that the criminal potential remains and that 
continuous vigilance and cooperation is necessary to guarantee the confidence in using euro 
coins. The impact of future action will have to be directed towards the increased vigilance by 
law enforcement bodies, including non EU countries, the cooperation with mints and private 
industry players in order to ensure the identification of counterfeits and the implementation by 
the  competent  authorities  in  Member  States  of  the  authentication  procedure,  which  become 
mandatory at the beginning of 2012. 

The 2-euro denomination remains by far the most counterfeited euro coin, representing almost 3 
out of every 4 counterfeit euro coins. 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1338/2001  as  amended  by  Regulation  44/2009  lays  down 
measures necessary for the protection of euro against counterfeiting. Art. 6 of that Regulation 
requires  credit  institutions  and  any  other  related  institutions  to  authenticate  euro  coins  and 
banknotes  before  re-circulating  them.  For  harmonizing  authentication  procedures  related  to 
euro  coins  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  Regulation  1210/2010  which 
sets the rules for the financial institutions for implementing art.6 of Regulation 1338/2001.  

EN 

- 8 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2182/2004  as  amended  by  Regulation  46/2009  concerning 
medals  and  tokens  similar  to  euro  coins  aims  to  avoid  confusion  between  euro  coins  and 
medals/tokens similar to euro coins. The regulation is designed to protect the public from the 
risk  of  confusion  or  fraud  caused  by  metallic  objects,  such  as  medals  and  tokens,  with 
similarities to euro coins.  

The Regulation contributes to better differentiating between euro coins and medals or tokens. 

The  above  indicates  that  the  protection  of  the  euro  is  successful.  It  also  demonstrates  that 
criminality  is  still  a  potential  threat  that  needs  to  be  checked  so  as  to  remain  at  the  present 
levels.  Pericles  plays  an  important  role  in  this  and  is  indispensable  for  maintaining  this 
performance. 

Continuous support 

Protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  is  a  continuous  process  based  on  close 
cooperation  between  European  Institutions  and  Member  States.  In  order  to  be  effective,  the 
support  must  be  continuously  adapted  to  the  priorities  identified  by  threat  analysis  made  at 
national  and  European  level.  Priorities  and  strategies  of  implementation  are  regularly 
discussed  at  the  meetings  of  the  euro  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group.  The  ECEG  assures  the 
effective coordination and complementary implementation of Pericles actions. 

The  programme  meets  the  need  for  continuing  vigilance,  training  and  technical  assistance 
necessary  to  sustain  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting,  by  providing  a  stable 
framework  for  the  planning  of  Member  States  programmes.  This  approach  has  yielded 
substantial results in terms of number of people trained, quality of training, complementarity, 
and operational results for the protection of the euro.  

Drivers 

A number of key drivers have been identified which have a negative effect on the joint efforts 
of the Commission and the Member States to work together to protect the euro against 
counterfeiting. 

In particular:  

–  the euro continues to be a target for organised crime groups active in the forgery of money, 
not  only  in  Europe  but  also  in  other  regions  of  the  world  such  as  South  America  and 
Eastern Asia (driver 1); 

–  differences  in  incentives  and  capacities  between  countries  impede  equivalence  in  the 

protection of euro against counterfeiting (driver 2). 

Driver  1:  the  euro  continues  to  be  a  target  for  organised  crime  groups  active  in  the 
forgery  of  money,  not  only  in  Europe  but  also  in  other  regions  of  the  world  such  as 
South America and Eastern Asia 

The  following  maps  show  the  geographical  correspondence  between  Pericles  trainings  and 
police operations in the South East of Europe. 

EN 

- 9 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
Latest Pericles actions in the South East Region (2010-2011) 

EN 

- 10 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Main police operations in the South East region (2002-2011) 

Strategy 

The close correlation between Pericles and concrete protection of the euro in the field (both 
prevention and repression of this crime) relies on the fact that the strategy for implementing 
the Pericles programme is largely based on the deliberations of the ECEG. Discussions focus 
on  defining  the  specific  needs  for  training  and  technical  assistance,  as  well  as  the 
geographical areas where action needs to be taken; this ensures the efficient implementation 
of the Pericles programme in the EU Member States most affected by euro counterfeiting and 
the active support and involvement of other Member States.  
With respect to areas outside the EU, priorities are also set on the basis of discussions in the 
euro  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group,  with  references  to  risk  assessments  carried  out  by 
Interpol/Europol,  as  well  as  on  the  initiative  of  a  Member  States  or  OLAF.  Additionally, 
OLAF makes bilateral contacts with competent authorities in the areas/countries determined, 
with a view to specifying the type (conference/seminar, staff exchange, study) or domain (law 
enforcement,  judicial,  financial,  and  technical)  of  training  and  technical  assistance.  In  all 
cases,  the  general  lines  and  each  of  the  individual  projects  proposed  are  described  in  detail 
and discussed at OLAF’s Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group. 

EN 

- 11 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
With respect to driver 1, the following points describe the main problems and the envisaged 
strategy for facing them: 

Problem 1: Maintaining emphasis on EU Member States 

Within the European Union, Italy and Bulgaria are the two most high risk countries with 
respect to the protection of the euro. In particular: 

- 

- 

About 60% of all offset counterfeit euro notes circulating in Europe are suspected 
to be produced by organised crime groups in the south of Italy. In order to respond 
to  the  high  level  of  counterfeiting,  the  Pericles  programme  has  been  intensively 
used  by  the  Italian  law  enforcement  Authorities:  Carabinieri,  Interpol  Rome  and 
Ministry of Economy organise regular trainings and staff exchanges.  

In  Bulgaria,  there  is  a  high  quality  production  of  counterfeit  euro  banknotes. 
Among  other  events,  the  Bulgarian  authorities  participate  in  the  annual  Pericles 
Euro South East conference organised by the Bavarian Police (BLKA) and aiming 
at  improving  the  cooperation  among  the  countries  of  the  region.  Additional 
emphasis needs to be placed on that area. 

Problem 2: Reinforcing the protection of the euro in South East Europe 

The Balkan area and Turkey have been identified by Europol/Interpol as one of the most 
'at  risk'  areas  in  the  EU  neighbourhood.  OLAF  has  taken  a  number  of  initiatives  in 
Turkey,  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Serbia,  Albania,  Croatia  and 
Montenegro.  There  is  room  for  further  strengthening  OLAF  and  Member  State 
cooperation with these countries with a view to raising awareness for the protection of the 
euro  and  reinforcing  the  general  framework  for  the  protection  of  currency  against 
counterfeiting.  All  these  countries  have  a  strategic  geographical  position  and  considered 
both transit and production areas for counterfeit euro.  

Problem 3: Expanding coverage in South America 

Thanks  to  the  Pericles  trainings  and  staff  exchanges  organised  by  the  Spanish  central 
office, the Brigada Investigación del Banco de Espana, the protection of the euro in Ibero-
America has been continuous and strong since 2002. 

The closest relations have been built with Colombia, where the highest quality and largest 
quantity of counterfeit euros are produced. In particular, following the first Pericles action, 
a Central Office has been established in Colombia within the CTI (Technical Investigative 
Corp  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice).  This  office  carried  out  many  successful  operations 
against euro and USD counterfeiting. The Pericles programme directly contributed to the 
operational  success  of  the  Colombian  police  forces  by  delivering  training,  raising 
awareness and creating the basis for police cooperation as acknowledged by the Spanish 
National Central Office (e.g. official note distributed by the Brigada de Investigación del 
Banco  de  Espana  following  the  dismantling  of  an  illegal  print  shop  in  Bogota  on  7 
January 2010.) 

During the last years, euro counterfeiting activities increased in Peru and in Argentina.  

To  be  noticed  that  28  big  police  operations  took  place  in  South  America  from  2002  to 
2010. Most of these operations brought to dismantle illegal euro print shops and all were 
carried out by staff trained by Pericles. 

EN 

- 12 - 

   EN 

 
Both Colombia and Peru participate, on a regular basis, in the Pericles actions organised 
by  the  Brigada  Investigación  del  Banco  de  Espana.  In  addition,  a  specific  training  was 
held in 2010 in Buenos Aires and a second training will be provided in 2011 in Lima. 

Finally,  specific  attention  shall  be  given  to  Brazil,  based  on  the  fact  that  Portuguese 
experts  highlighted  on  several  occasions  that  Brazil  is  a  threat  for  possible  transit  or 
smuggling  of  counterfeits.  This  is  mainly  due  to  its  big  size  in  terms  of  territory  and 
population and the relevant amount of tourism from and to the euro area. The Portuguese 
Police is actively involving the Brazilian authorities in the training activities financed by 
Pericles. 

Driver 2: differences in incentives and capacities between countries impede equivalence 
in the protection of euro against counterfeiting 

With respect to driver 2, the following points describe the main problems and the envisaged 
strategy for facing them: 

Problem 1: How to reinforce weaker links 

Considering  that  the  euro  is  a  global  currency  and  its  protection  has  an  international 
dimension,  there  is  a  need  to  expand  the  geographical  coverage  of  the  Pericles 
Programme. Experts from EU countries and European/international institutions suggested 
a  number  of  areas  to  be  considered  in  view  of  their  size,  population,  tourism  flow  and 
level of the economy (e.g. Mediterranean area). Italy and France mainly take care of this 
area by organising specific trainings. 

Problem 2: How to face emerging risks 

The increasing involvement of other countries in counterfeiting the euro brings to the need 
for further extending the implementation of the Pericles programme outside the EU.  

In  particular,  the  economic  and  demographic  parameters  of  some  third  countries,  the 
growing number of tourists and immigrants together with the strong presence of organised 
crime in the region (including importantly all forms of counterfeiting) are parameters to be 
taken into consideration in order to assess the potential threat for the euro. In 2010 it was 
increased the involvement of Eastern Countries in the protection of the euro by organising 
the  Pericles  Euro  North  East  conference,  a  specific  training  aimed  at  reinforcing 
cooperation between Member States and North Eastern countries. 

Subsidiarity and EU added value  

The protection of money against counterfeiting is a continuous process including prevention 
and repression aspects together with organisational, structural and legislative frameworks. In 
compliance  with  the  Geneva  Convention  (1929)  and  the  relevant  European  legislation,  the 
Member States established the structures for combating counterfeiting and the procedures of 
cooperation at national and European level. In order to maintain efficiency and effectiveness 
of the system, each competent authority  within Member  States implements its own national 
training  plan.  These  plans  are  usually  limited  to  the  national  territory  with  a  limited  of 
involvement  other  competent  authorities  than  the  one  organising;  in  case  of  Member  States 
outside the euro-area, these activities are always mainly focused on national currency.  
Considering  the  wide  super-national  circulation  of  the  euro,  the  deep  involvement  of 
international  organised  crime  in  its  counterfeiting  and  the  importance  of  its  defence,  the 

EN 

- 13 - 

   EN 

 
described framework needs to be complemented in order to assure homogeneous national and 
international cooperation and face possible emerging risks coming from outside Europe.   
In  this  scenario,  the  EU  is  best  placed  to  complement  the  national  trainings  by  adding 
European and international elements to them. In particular, Member States profitably use the 
European  tool  for  organising  international  events  involving  various  countries  in  a  view  of 
exchanging  know-how  (mainly  with  other  Member  States),  raising  awareness  and  teaching 
methodologies of work (with third countries) and consequently strengthening cooperation for 
a  more  coordinated  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting.  The  fact  that  beneficiaries 
openly declare that they would not be able to organise international events without the support 
provided by Pericles (see annexed evaluation report) proof the need for a direct intervention 
of EU in this area.  
In the case of third countries, since the space for the euro protection is usually residual, the 
Pericles programme becomes the only tool for  enhancing the level of protection of the euro 
and  raise  awareness.  This  becomes  extremely  important  for  protecting  the  euro  in  sensitive 
third countries such as Turkey, Colombia and the Balkans. 

Areas of possible improvement 

The following areas of possible improvement were identified.  
The number of Pericles actions implemented in third countries increased during the year and 
passed from 15% in 2002 to 58% in 2010. In fact, while at the beginning priority was given to 
the  training  of  European  experts,  during  the  following  years  the  need  to  protect  the  euro 
outside the European borders became prominent. The wording of the financial provisions in 
the  Pericles  Decisions  didn't  change  during  the  years  and  still  reflects  the  situation  in  2002 
when the big majority of actions where taking place in the own country of the beneficiaries 
that were hosting the events in their own premises and using their own facilities. In particular 
at that time the discrimination between Community (e.g. travels) and non Community costs 
(e.g.  conference-rooms  rentals  and  interpreters  facilities, etc.) did not create any problem to 
the  beneficiaries  hosting  events  in  their  premises.  The  situation  changed  when  the 
beneficiaries started to organise events outside their countries and this discrimination of costs 
complicated the administrative management.  
Following the increasing involvement of third countries it became more and more evident that 
the Pericles Decision presents a shortcoming in that it does not provide for the possibility to 
finance  the  purchase  of  equipments  to  be  used  by  competent  national  (third  country)  anti-
counterfeiting agencies  for  protecting the euro against  counterfeiting. This  financing is  very 
useful  in  the  case  of  specialised  agencies  operating  in  sensitive  third  countries  having 
different priorities then fighting against euro counterfeiting. A clear example is Colombia: the 
Colombian  organised  crime  is  very  well  known  for  drug  trafficking  and  terrorism  and  the 
Authorities are very much engaged in contrasting these crimes. At the same time few people 
know that Colombia is the country where for many years the highest number of counterfeit 
US Dollars were being produced and where the highest number of euro print shops (outside 
Europe)  were  dismantled.  Since  the  Colombian  specialised  anti-counterfeiting  agencies 
receive  much  less  resources  compared  to  the  ones  specialised  in  drugs  and  terrorisms,  they 
often  rely  on  support  from  other  countries  (such  as  US  of  America  supporting  them  for  the 
fight against counterfeiting  of US Dollar). In this respect,  the possibility to provide a direct 
support  by  Pericles  to  these  specialised  agencies  would  avoid  the  risk  to  see  a  decreasing 
attention with respect to the counterfeiting of the euro and would contribute to keep the threat 
under control.  
Finally,  the  continuous  close  collaboration  between  OLAF  and  Member  States  in 
implementing  the  programme  highlighted  the  fact  that  currency  and  card  counterfeiting  are 
frequently  linked  to  each  other  and  in  many  Member  States  handled  in  the  same  national 

EN 

- 14 - 

   EN 

 
services,  as  is  also  the  case  in  Europol.  Consequently,  OLAF  faced  various  request  to  also 
include references to the protection against counterfeiting of other means of payments in the 
funded events. 
A need for more clarity in rules and procedures for submitting the final financial report was 
also  perceived;  consequently,  OLAF  organised  an  ad  hoc  Pericles  seminar  in  201115.  The 
final report on this event is annexed. 
In  addition,  there  is  a  need  to  address  the  problems  caused  by  the  exclusion  of  VAT  from 
eligible  costs  for  the  purpose  of  calculation  of  the  co-financing  percentage  where  national 
administrations are beneficiaries. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES, IMPACT AND INDICATORS 

4.1. 

General objective 

The general objective of the Programme shall be to prevent and combat counterfeiting and 
fraud thus enhancing the competitiveness of the European economy and securing the 
sustainability of public finances. 

4.2. 

Specific objective 

The specific objective of the Programme shall be to protect the euro banknotes and coins 
against counterfeiting and related fraud, by supporting and supplement the measures 
undertaken by the Member States and assisting the competent national and European 
authorities in their efforts to develop between themselves and with the European Commission 
a close and regular cooperation, also including third countries and international organisations.  
This objective shall be measured, inter alia, through the effectiveness of action by financial, 
technical, law-enforcement and judicial authorities, as measured through the number of 
counterfeits detected, illegal workshops dismantled, individuals arrested and sanctions 
imposed. 

4.3. 

Short-term objectives 

The short-term objectives of the Programme shall encompass:  

• 

raising awareness of the Union and international dimension of the euro; expanding general 
knowledge related to the protection of the euro; 

•  supporting the prevention and contributing to repression of euro counterfeiting and related 

fraud through specialised training and assistance in these areas; 

•  promoting  convergence  of  high-level  training  activities  for  trainers,  taking  into 

consideration national operational strategies; 

•  encouraging  closer  cooperation  between  the  structures  and  staff  concerned,  developing 
mutual trust and exchanging information, inter alia of methods of action, experience and 
work practices; 

•  supporting the development of specific legal and judicial protection of the euro; 

15 Following this request, OLAF organised one specific workshop "How to apply and report under Pericles"  that 

took place on 8 June 2011 in Brussels. 

EN 

- 15 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
• 

increasing the level of protection of the euro in those countries that have been evaluated as 
being at risk by supporting the purchase of specific equipments. 

4.4. 

Expected result(s) and impact 

The beneficiaries targeted by the proposal are exclusively the competent authorities of 
Member States for the protection of the euro. Target groups for the action of the Programme 
are all staff in public and private sector related to the protection of the euro. 
Effects shall comprise:  

•  positive impact on national and cross-border actions for prevention and repression of euro 

related counterfeiting and fraud; 

•  possibility  for  the  competent  authorities  of  Member  States  to  obtain  support  in  their 
efforts  to  achieve  and  maintain  a  high  and  equivalent  level  of  protection  of  the  euro 
banknotes and coins; 

•  benefit  for  relevant  staff  from  an  appropriate  dissemination  of  general  and  specific 
knowledge and the development of cooperation and dedicated networks for the protection 
of the euro banknotes and coins;  

•  assistance to Member States and third countries in improving their institutional and legal 
framework  to  a  harmonised  high  standard  for  the  protection  against  currency 
counterfeiting and related fraud. 

4.5. 

Indicators of results and impact  

Main indicators for monitoring the implementation of the specific objective: 

• 

level of counterfeit euro banknotes and coins;  

•  number of counterfeit workshops dismantled,  

• 

individuals arrested and  

•  sanctions imposed 

The work programmes will specify specific targets and key milestones for the implementation 
of the programme.  

5. 

DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS 

This section lists and briefly describes the options.   

5.1. 

Option 1: Baseline scenario. 

The  baseline  option  is  to  continue  the  programme  and  maintain  the  overall  spending  at  the 
current level.   

EN 

- 16 - 

   EN 

 
 
5.2. 

Option  2:  To  renew  the  Pericles  programme  with  improved  objectives  and 
methodology 

Based on the requests from the national experts and in consideration of the evolution of the 
threat  and  the  above  identified  areas  of  improvement  the  following  changes  would  be 
profitable: 

- adding flexibility  

by  including  more  flexibility  in  the  use  of  the  granted  amount.  In  particular,  the  only 
discrimination applied by the new Pericles will be the one between eligible and not eligible 
costs.  This  will  be  achieved  by  omitting  those  financial  provisions  in  the  Pericles  Decision 
obliging the Member States to bear some specific costs and OLAF others16. 

- widening the range of eligible actions  

by including the possibility to finance, by Commission initiative, the purchase of equipments 
to be used by specialised anti-counterfeiting agencies of third countries for protecting the euro 
against counterfeiting. 

- increasing the share of co-financing 

by  adding  the  possibility  to  increase  the  rate  of  co-financing  up  to  a  maximum  of  90%  of 
eligible  costs,  exceptionally,  in  duly  justified  cases.  This  should  be  a  response  to  a 
development which has become evident in the recent years,  namely that Member States are 
less able to co-finance projects due to the general lack of funds of public administrations. The 
higher rate of co-financing will particularly facilitate a more precise geographical location of 
activities by providing ampler possibility for Member States to apply. In addition, to increase 
co-financing up to 90%, in exceptional cases, will maintain coherence and homogeneity with 
the  other  programme  managed  by  OLAF  (Hercule),  for  which  a  similar  proposal  was 
submitted. 

5.3. 

Option 3: To merge Pericles with other Commission programmes 

Prevention and fight against crime (ISEC) is a large programme with a budget of 600 million 
for  the  period  2007-2013.  It  contributes  to  citizens’  security  by  preventing  and  combating 
crime  in  general;  the  main  focus  of  this  programme  is  on  terrorism,  trafficking  in  persons, 
child abuse, cybercrime, illicit drug and arms trafficking, corruption and fraud. 

The  Technical  Assistance  and  Information  Exchange  instrument  (TAIEX)  supports  partner 
countries  with  regard  to  the  approximation,  application  and  enforcement  of  EU  legislation. 
The  TAIEX  mandate  to  provide  assistance  only  covers  the  following  groups  of  beneficiary 
countries:  Croatia,  Iceland,  Turkey,  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Albania, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo (as defined in UN Security Council 
Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999), Turkish Cypriot community in the northern part of Cyprus, 
Algeria,  Armenia,  Azerbaijan,  Belarus,  Egypt,  Georgia,  Israel,  Jordan,  Lebanon,  Libya, 
Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia, Ukraine and Russia.  

It  could  be  considered  to  insert  a  specific  section  on  the  protection  of  the  euro  in  both 
programmes, with an overall increment in budget of 1 million euro per year. Considering the 

16 See articles 8-9-10-11 Council Decision 2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001. 

EN 

- 17 - 

   EN 

 
                                                 
specificity of this crime and the limited list of possible beneficiaries (competent authorities), 
this  section  would  require  separate  strategic  and  administrative  management.  A  close 
coordination with OLAF and its group of experts (Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group) shall 
be envisaged. 

5.4. 

Option 4: To discontinue the Pericles programme 

To  discontinue  the  programme  would  bring  back  to  the  situation  in  place  before  the 
circulation of the euro, when each Member State was organising trainings at national level for 
protecting  its  own  currency  without  a  harmonised  approach  and  systematic  cooperation  at 
European  level.  The  perspective  of  the  introduction  of  the  euro  illustrated  the  need  to 
strengthen  international  cooperation  also  in  training,  as  it  was  (and  still  it  is)  the  case  for 
another global currency: the US Dollar. In the case of the latter, one federal agency organises 
training all over the world in order to raise awareness and establish the basis for an effective 
international cooperation in protecting this currency against counterfeiting. 

Discarded options: 
Another  option,  which  could  in  theory  be  combined  with  any  other  option  except  total 
discontinuation,  could  be  to  combine  the  Pericles  and  Hercule  programmes  (Hercule  is  the 
programme  managed  by  OLAF  to  promote  activities  in  the  field  of  the  protection  of  the 
European Union’s financial interests). There would in principle be advantages of management 
and  synergy  for  the  Commission  and  Member  States  in  combining  Pericles  with  Hercule. 
However,  this  is  not  possible  because  of  the  different  legal  bases  in  the  Treaty  for  the  euro 
and  for  the  protection  of  the  Budget  (Art.  133  TFEU)  and  because  of  the  problems  which 
would arise from the need for separate legislative instruments for euro and non-euro Member 
States. This option is therefore not further considered. 

Finally, another option could be to increase the level of spending on Pericles 2020. Over the 
years since the introduction of the euro, there is a clear tendency for an increase of the number 
of  applications  received  under  the  programme,  actions  committed  and  countries  involved. 
This  is  a  consequence  of  the  success  of  the  programme  as  well  as  of  the  larger  number  of 
possible beneficiaries due to the enlargement of the EU that took place in the last years. As 
discussed at the 57th ECEG meeting on June 2011 (see annexed document), it happens more 
and  more  often  that  some  Competent  Authorities  cannot  present  applications  in  due  time 
because  of  lack  of  available  funds.  However,  this  would  be  inconsistent  with  decisions 
already  taken  on  the  Medium  Term  Financial  Framework  in  the  communication  ‘A  Budget 
for Europe 2020’ (COM (2011)500), and is therefore not further considered. 

6. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

6.1. 

Option 1 

This is the baseline option; continue with the same level of funding and the same approach to 
projects  as  at  present  under  the  current  Pericles.  The  impact  of  the  baseline  option  is  best 
assessed by reference to the existing programme.  

6.2. 

Option 2 

Advantages:  The  existing  methodology  will  be  improved.  With  respect  to  the  budget,  the 
relevance of the use of the granted amounts will be increased (at the moment, the programme 
limits the type of eligible costs that Commission/OLAF can bear). The possibility to fund the 
purchase  of  equipments  specifically  used  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  (e.g.:  investigative 

EN 

- 18 - 

   EN 

 
 
tools, GPS, IT devices, software, etc.) will provide Commission/OLAF with an effective tool 
to  enhance  the  protection  of  the  euro  in  those  third  countries  where  the  lack  of  resources 
limits the work of the competent national authorities. The consequence of an increase in the 
EU  share  of  financing  would  be  that  OLAF  will  have  more  flexibility  in  supporting  the 
actions  and  Member  States  will  be  facilitated  in  presenting  projects.  This  would  require 
prioritisation and tougher choices at the selection stage; at present most projects which meet 
the eligibility criteria are accepted.   

The  specificity  will  be  maintained.  The  progress  in  the  protection  of  the  euro  will  be 
continued.  Disadvantage:  relatively  big  administrative  overhead  for  a  small  programme. 
Budget wise, it is possible to maintain the current level of funding and consequently increase 
the effort of coordination and identification of the priorities. 

6.3. 

Option 3 

This  merger  would  result  in  loss  of  specificity  and  expertise  in  managing  the  programme. 
Money counterfeiting is such a specific kind of crime that Member States established highly 
specialised offices to fight it. The actual management of the Programme guarantees effective 
coordination  and  implementation  of  the  actions  by  profiting  from  continuous  discussions 
taking  place  at  the  meetings  of  national  experts  chaired  by  OLAF  (Euro  Counterfeiting 
Experts  Group).  The  merge  with  Programmes  in  other  DGs  would  definitely  result  in 
efficiency losses: with respect to coordination and evaluation capacity, flexibility of the tool 
and prompt reactivity to upcoming new threats, coordination of the measures at global level 
(in the case of TAIEX, the measures would be limited in terms of beneficiaries). 

6.4. 

Option 4 

To  discontinue  the  programme  would  reduce  expenditure  at  EU  level,  without  however 
creating  real  economies  and  offsetting  resources  at  national  level  or  in  the  framework  of 
another EU programme and therefore put at risk the effective and equivalent protection of the 
euro across the Member States and in third countries. 
In particular, there is a continuing threat for the euro at national and international level that 
requires  an  adequate  and  homogeneous  reaction.  A  harmonised  approach  can  only  be 
achieved  at  EU  level  and  not  by  each  Member  State  individually.  The  lack  of  support  to 
multinational trainings will push Member States to limit their trainings to the national level 
and  these  will  not  be  sufficient  to  protect  a  global  currency  against  international  organised 
crime.  

Finally,  there  is  a  risk  for  the  Commission  to  receive  certain  criticism  by  the  stakeholders 
given  the  positive  impact  they  gave  and  the  fact  that  the  totality  of  beneficiaries  (100%) 
requested a prolongation of Pericles beyond 2013. 

7. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

7.1. 

The situation 

The Pericles programme is the only specialised programme for the protection of the euro. The 
financial reference amount for the implementation of the Community programme of action for 
the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 was defined to be EUR 7 000 000. (art. 
1 Council Decision 2006/850/EC).  

EN 

- 19 - 

   EN 

 
Other  Commission  programmes  potentially  relevant  to  this  domain  include  the  general 
programmes against criminality, as well as the programmes for support to candidate and third 
countries. 

The  specificity  of  the  envisaged  actions  does  not  allow  the  consideration  of  entrusting  this 
activity to other services or organisations or to leave it to National Authorities. In particular, 
by creating this instrument and entrusting it to the EU Anti-fraud Office together with other 
activities in the same domain, the Commission has put emphasis on the protection of the euro. 
This could no longer be ensured if the programme were merged in a broader programme. 

Considering  the  protection  of  currency  against  counterfeiting  as  a  very  specific  field  it  is 
necessary to take into consideration the experience from Member States. All Member States 
have  specialised  offices  dealing  with  this  specific  issue:  National  Central  Offices  and  often 
special operational units within the police, National Analysis Centres for coins and banknotes 
in the Mints and Central Banks. In some cases there are also specialized prosecutors dealing 
with the crime of money counterfeiting (e.g. Spain). The situation is similar at European and 
international  level:  both  Interpol  and  Europol  have  specific  units  responsible  for  this  crime 
with  specific  supporting  tools17.  The  particularities  of  this  activity  reduce  the  number  of 
players at international level to a restricted circle of specialized staff that has its main strength 
factors in the continuous exchange of know how and in maintaining an effective network.  

Consequently,  the  effectiveness  of  the  protection  of  the  euro  can  be  assured  only  by 
maintaining  its  specificity  also  with  respect  to  the  supporting  tools,  such  as  the  Pericles 
Programme. The possible merging of Pericles in a broader programme would definitely risk 
to  compromise  the  flexibility  required  by  the  evolution  of  the  threat  and  to  significantly 
decrease  the  capacity  to  effectively  meet  the  specific  needs  of  the  beneficiaries.  These  two 
elements proved to be the key of success of this programme. 

7.2. 

Expected  positive  effects  of  continuing  the  programme  and  risks  in  case  of 
discontinuing 

The expected effects (value added) of continuing the programme can be listed as follows:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

increased number of people trained at national level;  

increased  quality  of  trainings  by  adding  an  international  and  multidisciplinary 
dimension; 

increased awareness; 

reinforced framework for the protection of the euro; 

establishment of a training framework complementary and additional to the national 
trainings; 

direct link with operational results, e.g. in the case of police activities, staff trained 
by Pericles gave its direct contribution to the most successful operations against euro 
counterfeiting; 

17  E.g.:  Europol  has  a  specific  budget  line  for  financial  support  to  police  operations  in  the  area  of  money 

counterfeiting 

EN 

- 20 - 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

continuous and flexible support to Member States activities; 

essential  instrument  to  provide  the  beneficiaries  with  the  ability  to  carry  on  the 
proper trainings. 

In case of discontinuing, these are the expected effects: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

decreasing  in  number  and  quality  of  training  actions  organised  by  Member  States 
(mainly the international aspect will disappear- see evaluation report); 

limitation  of  trainings  to  the  national  level  and  loose  of  international  coordination 
and consequent homogeneous level of protection; 

insufficient protection of the euro against international organised crime; 

risk of criticism by the stakeholders. 

In  addition,  to  merge  Pericles  with  other  Commission  programmes  (Option  3)  has  the 
advantage of reducing the overall number of such programmes, but this is the only clear value 
added  of  this  option.  Further  effects  of  this  option    would  result  in  loss  of  specificity  and 
expertise  in  managing  the  programme  and  consequently  in  loss  of  efficiency  and  coherence 
with  respect  to  coordination  and  evaluation  capacity,  flexibility  of  the  tool  and  prompt 
reactivity to upcoming new threats, coordination of the measures at global level. This would 
not  be  the  case  of  options  1  and  2,  both  considering  the  specific  management  of  the 
programme by OLAF in close contact with the experts of Member States. 

7.3. 

Envisaged improvements of the new Pericles 

It is envisaged to further improve the programme by  

• 

• 

simplifying  it  and  reducing  the  administrative  burden  (see  above  areas  of  possible 
improvement).  Based  on  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation,  the  programme  will 
improve  simplicity  in  the  preparation  of  applications  by  the  Competent  National 
Authorities. The calculation of the amounts to be granted will become clearer and the 
programme  will  become  more  users  friendly.  In  order  to  achieve  this  goal,  OLAF 
intends  to  simplify  the  legislation  and  include  more  flexibility  in  the  use  of  the 
granted  amount;  this  objective  will  be  achieved  by  omitting  those  financial 
provisions in the Pericles Decision obliging the Member States to bear some specific 
costs  and  OLAF  others18.  All  applicants  will  benefit  from  these  simplified 
procedures as well as the OLAF staff involved in the administrative management of 
the programme. 

including the possibility to purchase equipments specifically used for the protection 
of the euro against counterfeiting for competent authorities in third countries. Based 
on continuous contacts with experts from third countries, it is clear that the limited 
resources  at  disposal  of  some  competent  national  authorities  result  in  a  loss  of 
effectiveness of their work. This becomes quite dangerous when it happens in areas 
where there is a big risk for the euro, but the Authorities give priority to fight “more 
social alarming” kind of crime such as terrorism or drug trafficking. This could be, 

18 See articles 8-9-10-11 Council Decision 2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001 

EN 

- 21 - 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to  be  very  successful. 

for  instance,  the  case  of  South  America  in  general  and  Colombia  or  Peru  in 
particular.  In  order  to  avoid  the  risk  of  a  lower  attention  of  the  national  authorities 
with  respect  to  the  crime  of  money  counterfeiting,  the  US  Secret  Service19 
traditionally funds the purchase of equipments for protecting the US Dollar and this 
policy  proved 
this  goal, 
Commission/OLAF  intends  to  include  the  possibility  to  fund,  under  Commission 
initiative,  the  purchase  of  equipments  used  by  competent  national  authorities  in 
sensitive  third  countries  for  protecting  the  euro  against  counterfeiting.  These 
additional  eligible  actions  will  directly  benefit  the  specialised  agencies  in  third 
countries and indirectly the competent national authorities closely cooperating with 
them; finally the highest advantage will be the concrete increase in the level of the 
protection of the euro outside the EU. 

to  achieve 

In  order 

• 

introducing the possibility to increase the rate of co-financing up to a maximum of 
90% of eligible costs, exceptionally, in duly justified cases.  

Budget  wise,  maintaining  the  current  level  of  funding  would  result  in  a  need  for 
increasing  the  effort  of  coordination  and  identification  of  the  priorities.  This  in 
consideration of the fact that option 2 enlarges the possible means of support to the 
protection of the euro. In particular, the only additional budget spending item under 
option  2  is  the  “purchase  of  equipments”.  The  inclusion  of  equipments  entails  the 
risk of not having enough resources to face all needs, but in the meantime provides a 
very effective tool to enhance the protection of the euro in sensitive third countries. 
Considering the  importance of this  tool, it  can be taken in consideration to slightly 
modify the type of support to some third countries by substituting some training with 
the purchase of equipments. 

7.4. 

Comparative table on the different options. 

Options/effects 

Level  of  euro 
protection  

Effectiveness  of  
Management 

Flexibility of the 
programme  

Capability 
to 
meet  the  needs 
of stakeholders 

1 

2 

3 

4 

stable  

stable 

stable 

stable 

increasing  

stable  

increasing  

increasing 

decreasing 

decreasing 

 decreasing 

decreasing  

decreasing 

decreasing  

decreasing 

decreasing 

Option 2 presents the highest number of advantages. 

7.5. 

Preferred option 

In view of the past experience, which is closely linked to the activities of both the Member 
States  and  the  Commission  to  protect  the  euro  currency,  as  well  as  the  expected  impact, 
including  through  developing  actions,  option  2  (to  renew  the  programme  with  improved 
objectives and methodology) is the preferred option with a budgetary envelope in real prices 
which remains similar to the current envelope (approximately one million euro per year). This 

19 Agency in charge of the protection of the US Dollar against counterfeiting. 

EN 

- 22 - 

   EN 

 
                                                 
option  adds  flexibility  in  the  determination  of  the  amount  of  the  grant  by  simplifying  the 
determination  of  costs  to  be  borne  by  Member  States20;  it  broadens  the  range  of  eligible 
actions  by  including  the  possibility  to  finance  the  purchase  of  equipments  to  be  used  by 
specialised  anti-counterfeiting  agencies  of  third  countries  for  protecting  the  euro  against 
counterfeiting;  and  includes  the  possibility  to  increase  the  rate  of  co-financing  up  to  a 
maximum  of  90%  of  eligible  costs,  exceptionally,  in  duly  justified  cases.  This  should  be  a 
response  to  a  development  which  has  become  evident  in  the  recent  years,  namely  that 
Member States are less able to co-finance projects due to the general lack of funds of public 
administrations.  The  higher  rate  of  co-financing  will  particularly  facilitate  a  more  precise 
geographical  location  of  activities  by  providing  ampler  possibility  for  Member  States  to 
apply. 

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

8.1. 

Reports 

Annual  information  on  results,  including  consistency  and  complementarily  with  other  EU 
programmes will be provided to the European Parliament and to the Council; in addition, an 
independent assessment of the implementation of the objectives of the programme – mid term 
evaluation - is foreseen (no later than 31 December 2017). Also a final report to the budgetary 
authority will be made on the achievement of the objectives of the Programme by the end of 
2021. 

Overall, the implementation of the Pericles programme should be assessed on the basis of the 
following criteria: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

compliance with the geographical perspectives, as described in the Pericles strategy 
paper21; 

compliance with the Work Programme; 

diversification of type of action; 

maintenance  of  the  level  of  participation  at  least  at  the  current  levels  of  about  500 
participants a year, in a steady-state situation; and 

maintenance of the current high level of credit consumption – at least 80%. 

The internal reorganisation of OLAF at the beginning of 2012 will concentrate the 
management of Hercule (and Pericles) in a single unit in order to reinforce programme 
management skills, including capacity to evaluate. 

8.2. 

Feedback 

Feedbacks from participants and beneficiaries will be continuously discussed at the ECEG 
meetings. 

20  
21 Based on the discussion taking place with the experts at the ECEG meetings, OLAF prepares a yearly strategy 

See articles 8-9-10-11 Council Decision 2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001. 

paper containing a risk analysis for the euro and the priorities of the programme. 

EN 

- 23 - 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

ANNEXES 

Pericles Decisions 

Pericles Mid-term Strategy 

Pericles Mid-term evaluation 

Pericles tables of implementation (2002-2010) 

Reports of the Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group meetings (2006-2010) 

Annual report of the European Technical & Scientific Centre on euro coins (2010)  

Report of the Pericles Workshop on financial issues 

EN 

- 24 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I 

COUNCIL  DECISION  of  17  December  2001  establishing  an  exchange,  assistance  and  training 
programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme) 
(2001/923/EC) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:339:0050:0054:EN:PDF 

COUNCIL DECISION of 17 December 2001 extending the effects of the Decision establishing an 
exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against 
counterfeiting  (‘Pericles’ programme)  to  the  Member  States which  have  not  adopted  the  euro 
as the single currency 
(2001/924/EC) 
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/decision_en.pdf 

COUNCIL 
COUNCIL  DECISION  of  30  January  2006  amending  and  extending  Decision  2001/923/EC 
establishing  an  exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro 
against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme) 
(2006/75/EC) 
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2006/36-40.pdf 

COUNCIL DECISION of 30 January 2006 extending to the non-participating Member States the 
application of Decision 2006/75/EC amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing 
an  exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against 
counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme) 
(2006/76/EC) 
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2006/36-42.pdf 

COUNCIL  DECISION  of  20  November  2006  amending  and  extending  Decision  2001/923/EC 
establishing  an  exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro 
against counterfeiting (the Pericles programme) 
(2006/849/EC) 
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/decision1.pdf 

COUNCIL  DECISION  of  20  November  2006  extending  to  the  non-participating  Member  States 
the  application  of  Decision  2006/849/EC  amending  and  extending  Decision  2001/923/EC 
establishing  an  exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro 
against counterfeiting (the Pericles programme) 
(2006/850/EC) 
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/decision2.pdf 

EN 

- 25 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE  (OLAF) 

Operational & Policy Support  
Protection of the EURO; Hercule & Pericles Programmes  

Brussels,  
OLAF/YX/LUP  I(2010) 2074 

NOTE FOR THE FILE 

Subject:   Update on the Medium-term strategy for the Pericles programme  

This note updates the Pericles strategy note of 12 May 2009 (I 5534/2009). 
The strategy for implementing the Pericles programme is largely based on the deliberations of 
OLAF’s Euro Counterfeiting Experts’ Group (ECEG), bringing together experts from all MS 
and  relevant  disciplines,  as  well  as  Europol,  Interpol  and  the  ECB.  The  discussions  are 
generally based on notes prepared by OLAF and bilateral preparations with potential Pericles 
beneficiaries.  Discussions  focus  on  defining  the  specific  needs  for  training  and  technical 
assistance, as well as the geographical areas where action needs to be taken,  This ensures the 
efficient  implementation  of  the  Pericles  programme  in  the  EU  MS  most  affected  by  euro 
counterfeiting and the active support and involvement of other MS. 
With respect to areas outside the EU, priorities are also set on the basis of discussions in the 
ECEG, with references to risk assessments carried out by Interpol/Europol, as well as on the 
initiative  of  a  MS  or  OLAF.  Additionally,  OLAF  makes  bilateral  contacts  with  competent 
authorities  in  the  areas/countries  determined,  with  a  view  to  specifying  the  type 
(conference/seminar,  staff  exchange,  study)  or  domain  (law  enforcement,  judicial,  financial, 
technical) of training and technical assistance. In all cases, the general lines and each of the 
individual projects proposed are described in detail and approved by OLAF’s ECEG. 
The  present  note  describes  the  general  lines  of  the  Pericles  strategy  defined  in  that  way, 
mainly focusing on the geographical orientation. These ideas have generally been discussed 
and  approved  at  the  ECEG;  we  expect  they  will  be  globally  re-confirmed  at  the  next 
meeting, on 18 March 2010. 
1.  Maintaining emphasis on most sensitive EU Member States 

Within  the  European  Union,  Italy  and  Bulgaria  are  the  two  most  sensitive  countries  with 
respect to the protection of the euro. In particular: 
-  Italy is a big producer of counterfeit euro and law enforcement is also very active. In order 
to better understand the strategic importance of Italy in the fight against counterfeiting it is 
important  to  point  out  that  about  60%  of  all  offset  counterfeit  euro  notes  circulating  in 
Europe are part of the so called “Napoli Group” (from the suspected place of production). 
Pericles  is  systematically  used  by  the  Italian  Authorities:  Carabinieri,  Interpol  Rome  and 
Ministry of Economy organise regular trainings and staff exchanges. In addition, national 

EN 

- 26 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
training  plans  are  in  place.  The  high  level  of  participation  in  Pericles  by  Italy  will  be 
maintained  by  strengthening  cooperation  between  national  and  international  level  with 
specific  attention  to  multidisciplinary  aspects  (e.g.  a  joint  Franco-Italian  police  seminar 
will be organised in Sicily in 2010; financial intermediaries from Italy and Mediterranean 
countries will gather in Libya for an awareness-raising action; two police staff exchanges 
organised by the Italian authorities started in 2009 and will continue in 2010). The judicial 
and  financial  sectors  were  also  actively  involved  thanks  to  the  initiative  of  the  Italian 
Ministry  of  Finance  that  organised  the  Conference  “A  Community  strategy  for  the 
protection of the euro” in Rome in December 2009. 

-   Concerning Bulgaria, the situation is rather different: this country is much suspected to be 
producing high quality counterfeit euro banknotes, but, for the moment, it is very difficult, 
because of the turnover of staff, to find a reliable contact for developing a specific training 
approach in view of supporting police investigations. Particularly during the last months, 
further  personnel  changes  took  place  within  the  Ministry  of  Interior.  In  2009  Bulgarians 
participated in a staff exchange organised by the Italian Ministry of Interior, the 'Pericles' 
judicial seminar on the status of counterfeits in criminal proceedings, and – as usual – to 
the  annual  Pericles  Euro  South  East  conference  organised  by  the  German  BLKA. 
Considering that Germany seems to be in the best position for co-organising events in this 
country, Unit C5 is in contact with the BKA for organising a training in Sofia during 2010 
.  In  parallel  further  effort  is  made  in  order  to  involve  more  strongly  the  Bulgarian 
authorities in the protection of the euro events prepared under Pericles (Bulgarian staff will 
be invited to participate in Pericles actions in Skopje and Antalya).  

2.  Consolidating the protection of the euro in the Balkan area and Turkey 

The Balkan area and Turkey have been identified by Europol/Interpol as one of the most 'at 
risk'  areas  in  the  EU  neighbourhood.  OLAF  has  taken  a  number  of  initiatives  in  Turkey, 
Croatia  and  Montenegro,  as  well  as  numerous  other  contacts.  There  is  room  for  further 
strengthening  OLAF  and  MS  cooperation  with  these  countries  with  a  view  to  raising 
awareness  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  and  reinforcing  the  general  framework  for  the 
protection of money against counterfeiting. All these countries have a strategic geographical 
position and are considered both transit and production areas for counterfeit euro.  

2.1 Turkey 

Turkey  has  a  status  of  EU  candidate  country  and  is  making  effort  to  establish  a  legal 
framework for the protection of the currency similar to the European one. At the moment, 
the Interpol/Europol - Sirene Department has been  appointed as National Central Office 
(by reference to the Geneva Convention of 1929) but does not have the legal status and 
required prerogatives for being in line with Regulation 1338/2001. As a result, it can not 
effectively  centralise  all  information  related  to  seizures  carried  out  by  police  forces  in 
Turkey, because Turkish law enforcement has no formal obligation to immediately inform 
the Department about seized counterfeit money. Concerning the financial system, work is 
in  progress  at  Ministry  level  to  create  legislation  obliging  banks  to  withdraw  suspect 
money from circulation. 
One of the main areas where action in Turkey is necessary is improving cooperation, both 
among  Turkish  law  enforcement  agencies  and  with  the  rest  of  the  world  (in  particular 
Europe and neighbouring countries). Thanks to the Pericles actions addressed to Turkey, 
the relevant competent authorities are aware of the urgent need to improve cooperation at 
national and European/international level.  
The Pericles Programme will continue promoting the development of the Turkish Central 
Office  and  the  other  mechanisms  for  cooperation  by  providing  support  to  the  Turkish 
Authorities in preparing the necessary legislation and by strengthening contacts with EU 

EN 

- 27 - 

   EN 

 
Member States and European institutions. A Pericles conference initiated by the Bavarian 
Landeskriminalamt  was  carried  out  in  November  2009  in  Istanbul  and  a  study  visit  of 
relevant  Turkish  staff  to  the  BKA,  OLAF,  ECB  and  Europol  took  place  in  September 
2009 organised as a Commission initiative in the framework of the Pericles programme.  
In 2010, Unit C5 started a medium-term collaboration with the Turkish authorities with a 
view  to  complementing  their  national  training  programmes  by  organising  regional 
seminars covering specific regions of Turkey and neighbouring countries. The aim of this 
collaboration is to support the centralisation of operational information from Turkey and 
neighbouring countries within the Turkish Central Office. A first seminar will take place 
in Antalya in April 2010 and will see the participation of police and judicial staff from the 
South  West  of  Turkey  as  well  as  from  neighbouring  countries  as  Georgia,  Iran, 
Azerbaijan, Armenia, etc. 
In  addition  Turkish  officials  will  continue  to  take  part  in  staff  exchanges  and  seminars 
organised by MS in the framework of Pericles (e.g. as in 2008, also in 2009 Turkish staff 
is participating in staff exchanges organised by the Italian police authorities). 
Finally, in view of further strengthening cooperation, OLAF invited representatives of the 
relevant Turkish Authorities to participate in the ECEG meeting of November 2009. 
2.2 Balkan area 

o  Montenegro 

In  Montenegro  the  euro  is  the  only  official  currency  in  use.  During  the  last  years, 
Montenegro  proved  to  be  a  usual  transit  area  for  counterfeits  with  respect  to  Italy. 
Following  the  first  Pericles  action  focusing  on  police  officers  in  the  field,  a  second 
practical  training  has  been  delivered  in  July  2009  to  bank  cashiers.  The  activity  of 
Pericles in Montenegro aims at strengthening the know-how of front-line staff (police 
officers  and  bank  cashiers)  in  order  to  stop  the  possible  circulation  and  traffic  of 
counterfeits.  In  this  perspective,  an  operational  support  meeting  was  organised  and 
chaired  by  OLAF  in  September  2009  following  a  specific  request  from  Interpol 
Podgorica.  Staff  from  OLAF,  the  German  Police,  Europol  and  the  ECB  gathered 
together  with  the  Montenegrin  Authorities  and  made  an  evaluation  of  operational 
information in possession of the Montenegrin Police. As a result, a joint investigation 
team was established between Germany, Montenegro and Europol. 
OLAF  is  also  supporting  Montenegrin  authorities  in  establishing  a  comprehensive 
national training plan. In the framework of the prospects for accession of Montenegro 
to  the  EU,  further  actions  aimed  at  supporting  the  development  of  the  relevant 
Montenegrin legislative framework might be envisaged.  
In 2009 Montenegrin, Croatian and Slovak experts from the official Mints took part in 
a study visit to the ETSC. In the near future, Montenegro will continue to be invited to 
Pericles staff exchanges organised by the Member States. 

o  Croatia 

Pericles  adopted  a  direct  approach  to  Croatia  by  approaching  all  the  main  sectors 
relevant to the protection of the euro. Following a first awareness-raising conference 
celebrated  in  2008,  Unit  C5  organised  two  tactical/technical  trainings  addressed  to 
staff  working  in  the  field  and  being  in  the  first  line  against  euro  counterfeiting:  the 
first  action  (February  2010)  mainly  addressed  to  police  officers  and  prosecutors  and 
the second one (March 2010) to bank and motorways cashiers. 
The  participation  of  Croatian  Central  Bank  staff  in  the  ETSC  study  visit  and  in  the 
Technical  training  on  printing  techniques  organised  by  the  Dutch  police  in  2009  is 
complementary to the overall approach to the country.  

EN 

- 28 - 

   EN 

 
In  view  of  further  strengthening  cooperation,  OLAF  invited  representatives  of  the           
relevant Croatian Authorities to participate in the ECEG meeting of June 2009. 
In  2010,  Unit  C5  envisages  to  involve  Croatia  in  staff  exchanges  with  neighbouring 
MS, for instance Italy. 

o  Serbia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Kosovo  UNSCR1244  and  the  former  Yugoslav 

Republic of Macedonia 

OLAF  has  close  direct  contacts  with  the  relevant  authorities  of  all  aforementioned 
countries in view of implementing specific actions. The aim of these actions will be to 
support the creation and consolidation of National Central Offices and to establish a 
permanent  network  for  collaboration  among  Balkan  countries  and  European 
Institutions.  
Officials  from  Serbia,  B&H,  Albania  and  FYRoM  usually  participate  in  all  Pericles 
actions addressed to the Balkan area. 
Contacts  are  ongoing  with  the  Serbian  Authorities  (Interpol  Beograd,  Central  Bank 
and Prosecutor Office) in order to organise training in Serbia before the end of 2010. 
A technical-tactical training, organised by Unit C5, will take place in Skopje in April 
2010, mainly addressed to police officers from FYRoM and the Kosovo UNSCR1244 
(thanks  to  the  close  collaboration  ongoing  between  the  police  of  FYRoM  and 
Kosovo). In this area, Kosovo needs a special mention: as it is the case in a few other 
countries,  also  here  the  euro  is  the  only  official  currency  in  use.  The  information 
circulating  is  poor  and  the  political  situation  still  “under  construction”.  OLAF  will 
take  the  occasion  of  the  training  in  Skopje  for  further  developing  contacts  with  the 
Kosovan authorities. 
Albania will be the partner of German BLKA in the next Euro South East conference 

All  Balkan  countries  and  Turkey  participate  in  the  annual  Euro  South  East  conference 
organised by the German BLKA. 
3.  Expanding coverage in South America 

3.1 Promoting relations with Colombia, Peru and Argentina 

Thanks  to  the  Pericles  trainings  and  staff  exchanges  organised  by  the  Spanish  central 
office,  the  BIBE,  the  protection  of  the  euro  in  Ibero-America  has  been  continuous  and 
strong since 2002. 
The closest relations have been built with Colombia, where the highest quality and largest 
quantity of counterfeit euros are produced and discovered. In particular, following the first 
Pericles action, a type of 'Central Office' has been established in Colombia within the CTI 
(Technical  Investigative  Corp  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice).  This  office  carried  out  many 
successful  operations  against  euro  (and  USD)  counterfeiting.  The  Pericles  programme 
directly  contributed  to  the  operational  success  of  the  Colombian  police  forces  by 
delivering  training,  raising  awareness  and  creating  the  basis  for  police  cooperation  as 
pointed out in many official occasions by the Spanish NCO (e.g. official note distributed 
by  the  BIBE  following  the  last  dismantling  of  an  illegal  print  shop  in  Bogota  on  last  7 
January 2010.) 
According to intelligence gathered from Latin American Authorities, mainly thanks to the 
strong repression operated in Colombia, in the close future we could face a migration of 
counterfeiters  from  Colombia  to  other  American  countries  as,  for  instance,  Peru  and 
Argentina. 
Peru  is  also  very  active  in  the  protection  of  the  euro  and  is  the  only  country  having 
established a real National Central Office within the meaning of the Geneva Convention.  
Peru,  together  with  Argentina  and  Colombia,  participated  in  a  Pericles  staff  exchange 

EN 

- 29 - 

   EN 

 
organised by the Spanish Authorities in 2009. OLAF established a direct contact with the 
Peruvian NCO that is considered a good example for all Latin American countries (in the 
framework  of  the  above  mentioned  staff  exchange,  OLAF  staff  visited  the  Peruvian 
Authorities in Lima and Peruvian experts visited OLAF). 
Both Colombia and Peru participate, on a regular basis, in the Pericles actions organised 
by  the  BIBE.  Considering  the  strategic  importance  of  Latin  America,  and  particularly 
Colombia, for the protection of the euro, there is a need for OLAF to further strengthen 
direct  contacts    with  these  countries  in  order  to  have  the  possibility  to  complement  the 
actions organised by the Member States in this area when these show to be inadequate or 
insufficient  Moreover,  a  better  knowledge  of  the  existing  structures  will  facilitate  the 
identification  of  areas  for  effective  future  collaboration,  as  for  example  operational 
cooperation, with a possible use of Pericles in financing operational meetings and a direct 
technical support by ETSC experts in case of investigation on coins. 
Finally,  the  specific  situation  of  Argentina  must  be  mentioned.  In  this  country  a  real 
Central Office does not exist and there is not yet a known threat for the euro but recently 
Argentina started to have a certain number of operational links with Peru with respect to 
counterfeit  euro  investigations.  It  is  worth  monitoring  the  situation  and  being  ready  to 
intervene with Pericles when needed. 
Following  exchanges  of  views  with  OLAF,  the  Spanish  NCO  (BIBE)  expressed  the 
intention to organise three Pericles actions addressed to Latin America in 2010, namely: 
-  a  workshop  gathering  representatives  from  Latin  American  'Central  Offices'.  This 
action will probably take place in Colombia and aims at exchanging best practices and 
supporting Latin American countries in establishing National Central Offices with all 
the requirements of  the Geneva Convention; 

-  a staff exchange aiming at strengthening operational cooperation; 

-  a  training  seminar  mainly  addressed  to  Argentinean  and  Colombian  police  officers. 
This action will probably take place in Buenos Aires and aims at specialising police 
officers and strengthening operational links between Colombia and Argentina. 

In addition to the above mentioned actions, Unit C5 will start medium term collaboration 
with the Colombian authorities with a view of complementing the Spanish initiatives by 
organising “regional” technical-tactical trainings covering specific areas of Colombia. The 
aim  of  this  collaboration  is  to  train  police  officers  working  in  'at  risk'  areas  as  Cali, 
Medellin and Pereira. 
In view of further strengthening cooperation, OLAF invited representatives of the relevant 
Colombian Authorities to participate in the ECEG meeting of March 2009. 
In  all  Latin  America,  where  needed,  Pericles  is  ready  to  support  further  development  of 
relevant legislation and technical support (software, studies, etc.). 
3.2 Brazil 

Portuguese  experts  highlighted  on  several  occasions  that  Brazil  is  a  threat  for  possible 
transit or smuggling of counterfeits. This is mainly due to its big size in terms of territory 
and  population  and  the  relevant  amount  of  tourism  from  and  to  the  euro  area.  The 
participation  of  one  Brazilian  expert  in  the  trainings  organised  by  the  Spanish  BIBE  in 
Colombia  was  not  enough  for  establishing  effective  cooperation  with  the  national 
authorities  and  being  aware  of  what  happens  within  this  very  large  country:  Brazil 
deserves specific Pericles attention.  
The  Portuguese  National  Central  Office  and  National  Central  Bank  will  organise  a 
Pericles Seminar in Brasilia in March 2010. The action, the first in Brazil focusing on the 

EN 

- 30 - 

   EN 

 
protection of the euro, is mainly addressed to staff from the Brazilian Federal Police and 
the Brazilian Central Bank. Participation from other Portuguese speaking countries as well 
as  from  Italy,  France  and  Spain  is  envisaged  too.  The  intention  of  the  Portuguese 
Authorities  is  to  duplicate  the  strategy  already  used  in  Colombia  by  Spain:  to  start  by 
raising awareness and to continue by delivering training and creating the basis for possible 
future operational collaboration.  

4.  Reinforcing weaker links 

Considering  that  the  euro  is  a  global  currency  and  its  protection  has  an  international 
dimension,  there is a need to expand the geographical coverage of the Pericles Programme. 
The experts from EU countries and European/international institutions suggested a number of 
areas  to  be  considered  in  view  of  their  size,  population,  tourism  flow  and  level  of  the 
economy: China, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean area, as well as Russia. 

4.1 China 

The economic and demographic parameters of China, the growing number of tourists and 
immigrants together with the strong presence of organised crime in the region (including 
importantly  all  forms  of  counterfeiting)  give  to  this  country  a  prominent  place  as  a 
potential threat for the euro. Recent experience shows that China is indeed a threat for the 
euro:  in  2009,  the  Spanish  NCO  carried  out  a  successful  operation  involving  holograms 
produced  in  China  and  used  on  counterfeit  euro  notes.  The  participation    of  Chinese 
experts  in  Pericles  events  (e.g.  Rome  2008)  represents  a  first  bridge  to  the  Chinese 
authorities, but much more is needed in order to establish the right contacts for organising 
an  awareness-raising  event  also  in  China.  OLAF  together  with  France  and  The 
Netherlands  continue  to  support  the  Italian  NCO  in  its  efforts  for  organising  a  specific 
action  in  collaboration  with  the  Chinese  Government;  but  for  the  moment,  due  to  the 
complexity  and  slowness  of  the  Chinese  administration,  no  concrete  steps  forward  have 
been achieved in this area. 
4.2 Caribbean and Mediterranean  

Based on French initiatives, awareness on the protection of the euro has been raised in the 
Caribbean area and in the northern African / Mediterranean region. These two areas have 
not been identified as major risk areas for the protection of the euro; however, no action 
had been taken and the ECEG approved the French Pericles proposals, taking into account 
the geographical proximity and the strong tourism and trade links between these countries 
and  the  EU.  Thus,  during  the  last  three  years,  two  seminars  were  carried  out  in  the 
Caribbean  (2008  and  2009)  and  one  seminar  in  France  (2007)  involving  North  African 
states.  
The ECEG meeting in March 2009 concluded that the two Caribbean actions are for the 
moment  sufficient.  However,  action  concerning  sensitive  African  areas  should  continue, 
since  these  areas  are  known  to  be  areas  of  transit  and  relay  of  counterfeits.  In  this 
perspective,  more  added  value  comes  from  the  already  mentioned  Franco-Italian  police 
seminar  that  will  be  implemented  in  Sicily  in  2010  and  from  the  seminar  for  financial 
intermediaries from Italy and Mediterranean Countries planned by the Italian Ministry of 
Finance  (Libya,  2010).  Mediterranean  countries  are  also  the  focus  of  a  staff  exchange 
currently being run by the Italian Carabinieri. 
4.3 Russia 

The  Italian  NCO  is  currently  organising  a  Pericles  Seminar  in  Moscow;  the  action  will 
probably  take  place  at  the  end  of  June  2010  and  will  be  the  first  Pericles  action  mainly 
addressed  to  Russian  staff.  Until  now  no  Pericles  action  has  taken  place  in  Russia  and 

EN 

- 31 - 

   EN 

 
very  few  Russians  have  participated  in  Pericles  actions.  Russia  is  a  known  producer  of 
counterfeit  USD;  as  was  the  case  elsewhere;  counterfeit  euro  should  not  be  far  behind. 
None of the ECEG participants has developed ideas or contacts for organising awareness 
raising events in Russia but the issue was addressed at the meeting of March 2009. 

The  objectives  of  the  Pericles  programme  described  above  are  set  out  in  order  of  priority. 
Thus, it is highest priority to maintain the thrust on the existing MS, particularly the sensitive 
areas; then Balkans and Turkey; and subsequently South America.  
5.  Involving Member States that have not yet organised projects 

The  seven  years  of  Pericles  implementation  show  that  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the 
Programme  are  the  authorities  from  a  small  number  of  MS  with  a  strong  tradition  in 
protecting money against counterfeiting: Italy, France, Spain and Germany. A certain number 
of other countries directly benefited by the programme during the last years in a discontinued 
or sporadically way: Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Finland, Poland, Hungary and Austria. The 
rest  of  the  MS  never  applied  for  the  Programme,  although  they  frequently  participate  in 
actions organised by others (MS or Commission). According to the experts, the main reasons 
for this difference are shortage in money and staff: smaller MS have more limited financing; 
they are more averse to taking even small financial risks and have a limited number of staff 
dealing  with  money  protection.  This  situation  should  change  in  view  of  a  more  balanced 
sharing of responsibility in protecting the single currency. 
In  order  to  encourage  those  countries  to  get  more  involved  in  Pericles,  OLAF  needs  to 
improve  their  knowledge  on  how  to  manage  a  project  co-financed  by  Pericles  delivering 
examples of simple and effective projects having limited financial risks and staff needs. One 
example of such successful cooperation is the digital reproduction project currently elaborated 
by the Netherlands with OLAF cooperation. Further examples are staff exchanges in general: 
these  are  easy  to  organise  and  proved  to  be  relatively  less  expensive  and  effective  in 
supporting cooperation among different countries. Generally, a friendly and effective support 
to  the  financial  management  of  the  projects  by  MS  is  a  useful  method  for  increasing  the 
number of applicants. 
During  2009  the  implementation  of  the  Pericles  programme  included  again  the  active 
participation as beneficiaries of Belgium (for the second year in a row), The Netherlands and 
Portugal. 
6.  Further diversification of types of action 

In  view  of  enhancing  the  multidisciplinary  character  of  Pericles,  further  steps  for  further 
diversification in terms of type of actions and kind of participants will be taken.  
•  Actions 

The main part of Pericles actions consists of Seminar/Conference type of actions and staff 
exchanges. Only few studies were co-financed in the framework of the programme. This 
is mainly due to the fact that emphasis initially needed to be placed on seminars and staff 
exchanges; as a result, the technical assistance part was not as well understood by the MS. 
Currently, OLAF has undertaken an effort to increase the number of co-financed studies. 
This was recently the case for Belgium, which is now implementing a technical study on 
higher  security  features  for  future  euro  coins,  as  well  as  the  conductivity  study  on  the 
initiative  of  the  Commission.  The  conductivity  study  continued  to  be  financed  also  in 
2009.  
During the last 2 years Pericles financed the publication of the “Basic Manual: Counterfeit 
euro?  What  to  do”  and  the  “Counterfeit  Euro  Experts  Manual”.  Upon  MS  request,  the 
“Counterfeit  Euro  Experts  Manual”  is  now  getting  translated  into  four  more  national 
languages , using Pericles.  

EN 

- 32 - 

   EN 

 
In  the  near  future,  Unit  C5  is  planning  to  co-finance  a  study  on  links  between 
counterfeiting and major events (study proposed by Italy with the support of the ECEG) 
and,  possibly,  a  social  analysis  on  the  crime  of  counterfeiting  together  with  Europol  (in 
order  to  explore  the  key  factors  identifying  the  counterfeiter  and  the  reasons  behind  the 
different  modus  operandi).  In  addition  OLAF  sees  the  need  for  improving  databases  on 
counterfeit  banknotes  and  coins,  a  classification  assistant  specifically  for  coins,  a  coin 
authentication learning tool, a register for illegal mints etc. 
In 2009 a specific effort has been made in order to use the programme for a closer support 
to operations, as for the meeting organised in Montenegro (see 2.2); this particular use of 
the Programme showed to be effective but it is important to underline that the possibility 
to implement this kind of actions mainly depends on MS and third countries' initiatives. 
This again shows the actual need to establish even closer contacts between the OLAF and 
investigative units from 'at risk' countries; this could be possibly achieved by increasing 
the participation of OLAF staff in Pericles staff exchanges organised by the police or by 
organising  joint  missions  with  Europol.  The  important  role  played  by  the  Pericles 
programme  in  supporting  operations  is  underlined  in  an  official  information  note  issued 
by the Spanish NCO following the recent dismantling of an illegal print-shop in Colombia 
(Bogota, 7 January 2010 - see 3.1). 

•  Participants 

Due  to  reasons  of  priority,  in  the  seven  years  of  implementation,  the  large  majority  of 
participants  were  police  officers.  In  recent  years  an  increasing  number  of  staff  from  the 
financial and judicial sector is participating. Today we need an extra effort for involving 
also  other  staff  concerned:  further  diversification  of  participants  from  the  public  sector, 
through the involvement inter alia of customs officers, and fresh attention to the private 
sector. This was already the case for the last seminar organised by the German BKA with 
the printing industry and for the training for cashiers from private banks in Montenegro.  
Also  technicians  from  Mints  were  more  actively  involved  in  Pericles  2009:  the  Belgian 
CNAC  organised  its  second  Pericles  staff  exchange  (this  time  with  France),  while  the 
ETSC  organised  a  study  visit  involving  Croatia,  Montenegro  and  Slovakia  and  a 
workshop  for  technicians.      In  2010,  Pericles  will  be  further  diversified  by  delivering  a 
training  for  cashiers  in  Croatia  (March  2010),  co-organising  the  Italian  “financial 
intermediaries conference” in Libya (May 2010) and including a bigger number of judicial 
and financial staff in the events mainly addressed to police officers. 
Judicial staff was the special focus of the Pericles Seminar “Handling of evidence in the 
context of Reg. 1338/2001” celebrated in Brussels in November 2009.  
Both judicial and financial staff were the main audience at the Conference “A Community 
strategy  for  the  protection  of  the  euro”  organised  by  the  Italian  Ministry  of  Finance  in 
Rome in December 2009 (see 1.1.). 

7.  Performance indicators 

Overall, the implementation of the Pericles programme should be assessed on the basis if the 
following criteria: 

−  compliance with the geographical perspectives, as described above; 

−  diversification of type of action, as mentioned above; 

−  maintenance  of  the  level  of  participation  at  least  at  the  current  levels  of  about  500 

participants a year, in a steady-state situation; and 

−  maintenance of the current high level of credit consumption – at least 80%. 

EN 

- 33 - 

   EN 

 
The quality of implementation will be verified with a user satisfaction survey; this is planed 
for 2010. 
A  continuous  assessment  is  taking  place,  on  the  above  basis  at  each  of  the  meetings  of  the 
ECEG.  MS  have,  on  this  occasion,  systematically  expressed  satisfaction  on  the  effects  and 
management of the Pericles programme. 

Yannis XENAKIS  
Head of Unit 

Copies: N. Ilett, K. Larsson, S. Combeaud 

EN 

- 34 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE  (OLAF) 

Operational & Policy Support  
Protection of the euro; Hercule& Pericles Programmes  

NOTE TO FILE 

Subject : 

Pericles programme – Mid-Term Evaluation 2006-2010 

1.  Introduction 
The Pericles Programme was established in 2001 and was originally scheduled to run until 
2005. However, due to its success, its operation was extended until the end of 2013. 
A mid-term evaluation started in 2010 in order to assess the effectiveness of the Programme 
halfway through its 2007-2013 extension. A questionnaire was distributed to the beneficiaries 
of Pericles funds and the feedback will be used as a basis to identify the target areas for 
improvement and determine whether Pericles should continue beyond 2013. Considering that 
the last evaluation took place at the end of 2005, it was decided to evaluate the 
implementation of the programme starting from 2006.  

2.  Implementation 2006-2010 
From 2006 until 2010, 4422 actions were committed to: 38 of these actions were implemented 
in the period 2006-2010 and the remaining 6 are scheduled to be implemented in 2011.  
The organisers of these actions, co-funded under the Pericles Programme, have consisted of 
16 National Competent Authorities23 from 10 Member States.  

22 During the same period of time, The Commission/ OLAF organised 25 Pericles actions on its initiative. These 

actions are not included in this document.  

23  We  received  15  replies  (Polish  Police  is  missing,  they  presented  for  the  first  time  a  Pericles  application  in 

2010 for an action to be implemented in 2011) 

EN 

- 35 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Actions per Member States

Estonia, 1

Portugal, 2

The Netherlands, 1

France, 3

Poland, 2

Belgium, 5

Germany, 7

Italy, 16

Spain, 6

Hungary, 1

Italy implemented the highest number of actions: 36% of the total actions. 
The following chart shows a breakdown of the number of actions committed per year. 

Actions Committed per Year

2010: 12 actions

2006: 9 actions

2007: 7 actions

2009: 8 actions

2008: 8 actions

The following chart depicts the types of actions carried out, the most popular being staff 
exchanges and Seminar/Conferences (together almost 80% of the actions)  

Staff exchanges

42%

Seminar/ 
Conference
36%

Type of Actions

Study
2%

Training
20%

- 36 - 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Responses to the Questionnaire  
The statistical data gathered from the responses to the questionnaire are as follows: 

3.1.Coordination and Development 
How would you grade your level of involvement in establishing the priorities of 
Commission/OLAF training strategies? 

1. At the multilateral level (ECEG)? 
2. At the bilateral level? 

Non-
Existent 
124 
13 

Not 
Significant Significant 
23 
13 

6 
7 

Very 
Significant
6 
5 

All beneficiaries participating on a regular basis in ECEG meetings (more than 80%) replied 
that their level of involvement was significant or very significant both at the multilateral and 
the bilateral level.  

3.2.Commission/OLAF Support in Preparation and Evaluation 

1. Pre-application phases 
2. Timely evaluation and conclusion of 
contracts 

3. Timely final evaluation and payments 

Insufficient Sufficient  Good 
14 

3 

- 

14 
25 

- 
16 

5 

5 

Very 
Good 

11 

9 

7 

All beneficiaries considered the pre-application phases to be good or very good, with the only 
exception of Spain. The same applies with the timely evaluation and conclusion of contracts. 
3 beneficiaries (20%) would welcome shorter delays for the final evaluation and closure of 
the action. 
The overall negative evaluation of  OLAF support received by Spain follows the fact that: 
•  one application from BIBE was refused by the evaluation committee in 2009; 
• 

the  low  quality  of  the  financial  reports  received  from  Spain  obliges  Unit  D6  to  ask  for 
complementary documentation and delay the final payments. 

3.3.Efficiency and Effectiveness 
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 

1. The financial support provided by the 

Strongly 
Disagree Disagree  Agree 

- 

4 

Strongly 
Agree 
11 

24  This  is  the  case  of  those  beneficiaries  not  participating  in  the  Euro  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group  (ECEG), 

such as Bank of Italy, National Bank of Poland and Royal Mint of Belgium. 

4 ES - BIBE 
5 ES – BIBE, NL - Police 
6 PT – Policía Judiciaria 

EN 

- 37 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission/OLAF has been instrumental in 
giving my organisation the ability to carry out 
training activities with a European dimension 
aimed at the protection of the euro. 
2. With regard to the planning of the training 
action, the support provided by the 
Commission/OLAF in terms of 
coordination/organisation was satisfactory.  
3. (If applicable) Attendance at the action and 
coverage of issues by the Commission/OLAF was 
satisfactory. 
4. The support provided overall by the 
Commission/OLAF met expectations. 
5. (If applicable) The action improved the way in 
which my organisation works overall. 
6. The procedure for applying to Pericles is easy 
to carry out. 
7. Pericles legislation is sufficiently clear and 
coherent. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

17 

17 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

6 

5 

4 

5 

7 

5 

9 

8 

11 

7 

7 

7 

Do you intend to submit further applications for financing to the Commission/OLAF, 
under Pericles? 

Yes 12  Maybe 1   No 0  
80% of the beneficiaries are planning to submit further applications. 

no reply  2 

In your opinion, is there a need for the Pericles Programme to continue in the future?

Yes 15 
100% of beneficiaries recommend the continuation of the Programme beyond 2013 

No 0 

3.4.Further Comments 
Do you have any further comments in terms of the general implementation of 
Commission/OLAF training activities? If yes, please specify what we could change to 
further improve these activities. 

Simplification: greater flexibility/ discretion in using the granted amount 
The beneficiaries refer to the fact that the Pericles Decision provides for a rigid split between 
Community costs (to be covered by OLAF) and non-Community costs (to be covered by 
Member States). This split complicates the preparation of the budget when the actions are not 
implemented on the beneficiaries’ premises8. 
UCAMP, CCAFM , UCIFM, BIBE 
This request received from the most experienced users of Pericles shall be taken underserious 
consideration in view of the possible extension of the programme beyond 2013 

7 ES - BIBE 

8 This is the case of the large majority of the actions   

EN 

- 38 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Evaluation Committee: 
- To limit the evaluation to cost/effectiveness criteria  
- Need for more meetings of the Committee  
- More flexibility to increase the amount of the advanced payment 
BIBE 
With respect to the comments received by the BIBE, we notice that: 
- The criteria of evaluation are listed in the Financial Decision and in the Call for Proposals; 
-  The number of the evaluation sessions is strictly linked to the deadlines for submission of 
the applications; this number (3) cannot be further increased; 
- In the second half of 2010, OLAF increased transparency and flexibility in providing 
“increased” advanced payments when needed (the list of cases is within the Call for 
Proposals) 

Please add any further comments you would like to make. 
Need for clarification regarding the type of documents and final procedures in order to avoid 
long delays in closing the actions  
PJ, BIBE 
Some beneficiaries had the feeling that interpretation of financial rules changed during the 
years; therefore they would welcome a clarification in order to avoid financial risks and 
delays in final payment. In this respect a specific meeting in Brussels together with OLAF 
Budget Unit (D6)could be envisaged. 
-------- 
It should be avoided that overlapping with other actions of European institutions occurs in the 
field of protecting the Euro.  
BLKA 
The German colleagues underline the importance of coordination among European 
institutions in training: this is one of the main tasks for the ECEG. In the past some 
overlapping took place due to the fact that Europol didn’t inform about its plans in advance; 
in consideration of this,  OLAF already asked Europol to discuss all training activities in 
advance at the ECEG meetings. 
-------- 
“I would expect the specialised training on the different types of the printing machines used 
by counterfeiters”  
NBP 
To be discussed at the ECEG 

4.  Conclusions 
Based on the received replies, the following issues shall be pointed out. 

Beneficiaries’ satisfaction: 
•  The beneficiaries feel to be really involved in the implementation strategy of the Pericles 

programme and appreciate the support provided by OLAF; 

•  The Programme is instrumental in giving the beneficiaries the ability to carry out training; 
•  The Programme positively contributed in increasing the protection of the Euro; 
•  100% of beneficiaries recommend the continuation of the Programme beyond 2013. 

The above statements show high appreciation for the Programme and its management by 
OLAF. 

EN 

- 39 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Areas of possible improvement: 
• 

In  case  of  continuation  of  the  programme  beyond  2013  (as  suggested),  OLAF  shall 
consider a simplification of the legislation by including more flexibility in the use of the 
granted amount 

•  There is a need for more clarity in rules and procedures for submitting the final financial 

report; OLAF shall organise an ad hoc Pericles seminar in 2011. 

Next step: 
Given that discussion on the financial perspectives for 2014-2020 is due to begin in 2011, the 
outcome of this questionnaire will be discussed together with the Member States at the ECEG 
meeting and matched with the evaluations provided by participants in the events9.  
The outcome of this exercise will be used: 
•  as guidance for introducing possible modifications to enhance the effectiveness and quality 

of implementation of the Programme before 2013; 
to suggest improvements to the Programme in case it would be extended beyond 2013.   

• 

Copies: G. Kessler, C. Arwidi, Y. Xenakis, C. Chatzipazarlis, K. Ennis 

Luca Pierini 
(signed) 

9 these are included in the final technical reports provided by the beneficiaries 

EN 

- 40 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX IV 

Pericles tables of implementation (2002-2010) 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2006/award2002.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2006/award2003.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2006/award2004.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2006/award2005.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/award2006.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/award2007.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2009/table-2008.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2010/Pericles-implementation-2009.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/programmes/pericles/2011/Annex6-budget-implementation-
2010.pdf 

EN 

- 41 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V 

DRAFT REPORT  

55th Meeting of the “Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group” of 9 November 2010  

Attendance (See attached list):  

• 
Sweden excused)  
• 
• 
• 

41 participants: 23 from Member States (Luxemburg, Romania, Slovak Republic, and 

One external expert from Portugal  and three from Poland   
Representatives from the European Central Bank (ECB) (1) , Europol (1), Interpol (1)  
Six members of European Commission/OLAF staff   

This meeting took place in Brussels, Belgium and was chaired by Mr. Y. Xenakis, Head of Unit 
C.5, OLAF/European Commission.  

1 Approval of the agenda and the report of the previous meeting  

The Chairman welcomed the participants to the 55
 meeting of the Euro Counterfeiting Experts 
Group  (ECEG)  and  introduced  the  agenda,  highlighting  the  presence  of  guest  speakers  from 
Poland  and  an  external  expert  from  Portugal,  explaining  that  an  expert  from  Spain  was  not 
available for today’s meeting.  

th

th

The report of the 54
 meeting of the "Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group" of 26 June 2010 was 
approved  (the  latter  with  modifications  from  ECB  and  Europol).  The  final  report  of  26  June 
2010 is now available on the CIRCA Website.   

2 The effectiveness of anti-counterfeiting legislation:  

2.1 The state of play in Portugal  

Mr. V. Magalhaes (Portuguese State Prosecutor) introduced the legislation in place in Portugal 
aimed at combating currency counterfeiting. Moreover, he described the  

Commission  européenne,  B-1049  Bruxelles  /  Europese  Commissie,  B-1049  Brussel  -  Belgium.  Telephone:  (32-2)  299  11  11. 
Office: J-30 10/62. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 2993483. Fax: (32-2) 2921884.  

E-mail: yannis.xenakis@ec.europa.eu  

EN 

- 42 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
structures  in  place  in  Portugal  to  carry  out  investigations  and  technical  analysis  of  counterfeit 
banknotes and coins. Statistics regarding the quantity of counterfeits identified from 2002 to the 
present were also provided.   

The Chairman thanked Mr. Magalhaes, noting the significant figures: 11,000 cases investigated, 
81 closed. The Chairman invited the prosecutor to address the group at a future date on the topic 
of  sentencing  practices,  describing  major  sentences  imposed  and  the  average  lengths  of 
imprisonment. The presentation is found on CIRCA.   

‘Pericles’ Programme  

3.a. The implementation of 2010 budget – state of play  

The  Chairman  pointed  to  the  enthusiasm  of  applicants  in  2010,  highlighting  the  fact  that  the 
Pericles programme budget is likely to be committed in full again this year.   

Mr.  L.  Pierini  (OLAF/European  Commission)  gave  an  overall  description  and  appraisal  of  the 
projects in the pipeline for implementation in 2010. Underlining the fact that despite the reduction 
of the 2010 budget to 900,000 €, Mr. Pierini reported that 17 actions are nevertheless expected to 
be financed, the same number of actions as in 2009. The average cost of actions in 2010 was less 
than that of 2009. It has been necessary to postpone certain actions until 2011, due to the shortage 
of  2010  budget.  To  date,  14  actions  have  been  committed  and  three  are  in  the  pipeline. 
Applications from Portugal, Poland, and the Italian Carabinieri have been submitted for the last 
call  for  proposals.  The  total  number  of  approved  actions  is  expected  to  be  17.  The  amount 
committed for 14 actions is 725 021 €.  

A comprehensive list of approved actions is found on the CIRCA website. Mr. Pierini was pleased 
to  underline  that  two  new  member  states  have  submitted  applications,  Estonia  a  staff  exchange 
and Poland a seminar/staff exchange, noting, moreover, that the programme’s users are becoming 
more diversified, ensuring a more thorough protection of the euro.  

1. Belgium – Conclusions of the Staff Exchange between the Belgian NCO (police) and the 
CNAC (Mint) with Spain  

This was a coordinated action between Belgian police and Mint with the goal of observing how 
the  authorities,  the  NAC  and  the  NCO  in  Spain  work  together  and  to  learn  how  handling  of 
counterfeits, both banknotes and coins, is conducted. Belgian authorities plan to closely associate 
the NCO (Police) and NAC of the National Bank, by putting them in the same locale in order to 
improve  cooperation.  Observations  of  the  handling  of  counterfeit  coins  in  Spain  have  already 
been presented to the CCEG by the Royal mint.   

Mr.  Peeters  told  that  their  reception  by  Spanish  authorities  was  very  welcoming,  noting  all 
questions  were  answered  and  all  material  and  equipment  was  available  for  consultation.  Upon 
reflection, he mentioned that all material, equipment and trained personnel were in place, as were 
all procedures necessary for counterfeit detection. However, he observed that not all coins were 
tested,  not  all  sorting  machines  were  correctly  adjusted  and  seemingly  the  responsibility  for 
checks  was  not  clearly  defined.  It  is  his  opinion  that  the  new  European  regulation  introducing 
obligations  to  authenticate  euro  coins  and  penalties  would  assist  in  avoiding  this  difficulty. 
Transposing  the  European  regulation  into  a  precise,  comprehensive  and  practical  national  law 

EN 

- 43 - 

   EN 

 
outlining procedures and responsibilities concerning the authentication process would be useful. 
Lastly,  Mr.  Peeters  commented  on  the  constructive  working  relationship  between  the  Spanish 
police and analysis centre. Guidance provided by the scientific analysis to the police was integral 
to  focusing  investigations  and  assisting  with  priority  setting.  Noting  that  the  Spanish  NAC 
provided much more guidance to the police than in the case in Belgium, he found that the working 
relationship  impressive.  It  is  this  complementary  relationship  he  would  like  to  see  created  in 
Belgium  when  the  two  units,  NCO  and  NAC,  are  put  together.  The  Chair  commended  the 
excellent conclusions of the Belgian initiative and underlined that this was best practice to be used 
as an example of successful staff exchange.  

Action:  OLAF/Commission  will  ensure  that  the  conclusions  of  this  staff  exchange  are  put  on 

CIRCA  

2. Conclusions of the Seminar “Euro South East” Tirana, Albania (OLAF, BLKA, DE)  

The  Chairman  explained  that  BLKA  representatives  were  not  presented  at  the  ECEG  today 
because  they  were  celebrating  Mr.  Edi  Liedgens’  retirement.  On  behalf  of  the  group,  the  Chair 
acknowledged the enormous contribution that Mr. Liedgens made to the protection of the euro in 
terms of police action, prevention and also awareness-raising. He represented a voice of reason in 
the  group  and  will  certainly  be  missed  by  the  members.  Mr.  Xenakis  wished  to  express  his 
personal gratitude and expressed his hope that Mr. Liedgens visit the group in the future.  

Mr.  Pierini  presented  a  brief  summary  of  the  “Euro  South  East”  seminar  that  took  place  in 
Albania  from  18-22  October.  Roughly  70  participants  attended  from  southeast  Europe,  from 
Turkey,  Germany,  Austria,  Italy  and  the  Balkans.  The  action  was  very  successful  in  terms  of 
updating  the  status  of  the  protection  of  the  euro  and  the  enlargement  and  reinforcement  of  the 
network  of  professionals.  The  action  included  a  simulation  of  an  international  investigation. 
While  its  focus  was  German  or  Austrian  experience,  the  audience  benefitted  from  the 
observations and the simulated investigation. A fuller description of this successful event and the 
conclusions will be made at the next ECEG meeting in March.  

The Euro South East is strategically important ensuring the thorough protection of the euro while 
establishing  fruitful  working  relationships  among  police  authorities  of  the  region.  Despite  Mr. 
Liedgens’  retirement,  Commission/OLAF  counts  on  the  series  focusing  on  the  South  east 
continuing given its important strategic significance.   

The  Chairman  informed  that  the  euro  is  a  transaction  currency  in  Albania. 
Nevertheless, their legislation is has not yet been adapted to allow for the adequate 
protection of the euro. On an official level, the use of euro is not controlled or actively 
protected  against  counterfeiting.  While  appropriate  measures  are  taken  when  a 
counterfeit is identified, proactive measures to protect against counterfeiting are not 
taken.  Therefore,  given  that  authorities  did  express  eagerness  to  improve  the 
situation,  the  chairman  expressed  the  intention  to  invite  an  Albanian  delegation  for 
them  to  describe  the  current  legal  situation,  with  a  view  to  amelioration.    Mr  Pierini 
informed  that  Albania  will  be  listed  among  priorities  for  Pericles  implementation  in 
2011.  
3.  Conclusions  of  the  conference:  “Reinforcing  the  protection  of  the  euro:  a  shared 
responsibility” 28-29 October 2010, Brussels  

EN 

- 44 - 

   EN 

 
This  joint  conference  was  co-organised  by  Commission/OLAF,  European  Central  Bank  (ECB), 
the European Payments Council (EPC) and the European Security Transport Association (ESTA). 
70  participants  mainly  from  EPC  and  ESTA,  commercial  banks  and  cash-in-transit  industry,  as 
well  as  member  states  gathered  on  28-29  October in  Brussels. The  conference  was  viewed  as  a 
follow-up to that organised in 2005 and aimed to take stock of progress made in the protection of 
the  euro  and  to  identify  challenges  in  the  years  to  come.    The  two  day  conference  covered 
legislative  changes  aimed  at  the  protection  of  the  euro,  including  new,  legally  binding 
authentication  procedures 
its 
Recommendation  on  legal  tender  of  euro  banknotes  and  coins.  Europol  presented  technical  and 
law  enforcement  measures  to  protect  the  euro.  ECB  talked  about  the  second  generation  of  euro 
banknotes. Training aspects under the Pericles programme were summarised and success stories 
from the Italian NCO were also presented. Cash-in-transit issues focused on the need for greater 
support from law enforcement to prevent attacks. And DG ECFIN also summarised its proposal 
for a Regulation on cross-border transport of euro cash. The ECB gave enlightening presentations 
on the topic of communication with the public, discussing various awareness campaigns. Austria, 
Portugal  and  the  UK  added  to  the  communication  panel  outlining  measures  taken  in  their 
countries.   

for  euro  banknotes  and  coins.  DG  ECFIN  presented 

The  chair  wished  to  underscore  the  successful  cooperation  with  the  ECB  which  undertook  this 
joint  seminar  and  appointed  a  senior  advisor  to  deliver  the  opening  speech,  while  Mr  Nicholas 
Ilett,  acting  Director-General  of  OLAF,  delivered  the  closing  address.  This  type  of  inter-
institutional  cooperation  is  integral  to  promoting  a  cohesive  strategy  of  protecting  the  euro. 
Furthermore, the close engagement of the private sector is becoming ever more important as the 
authentication legislation involves their compliance. The private sector outlined concrete ideas for 
the future. These will be reported and shared with the group.  

3.b Pericles Programme - Perspectives for 2011  

Mr. Luca Pierini tabled  a room document outlining initiatives planned by Member States under 
the Pericles Programme in 2011, highlighting the need to maintain efforts in Italy and to involve 
Bulgaria  more  closely.  It  was  reported  that  Pericles’  2011  budget  should  be  1.000.000  €.  Other 
areas of concern continue to be the Balkan countries, Turkey and South America; weaker links in 
China and the Mediterranean remain to be reinforced. During a round table discussion, Member 
States  were  invited  to  comment  and  describe  the  focus  of  their  actions  in  order  to  ensure 
coherence and to avoid duplication especially in terms of subjects covered and participants. It was 
emphasised  that  the  Italian  action  foreseen  in  Turkey  in  2011  by  UCAMP  will  focus  on  the 
financial sector, compared to the police focus of the OLAF/Commission exercise in Antalya. This 
document  can  be  found  on  the  CIRCA  website.  He  emphasised  that  the  next  Pericles  call  for 
proposals  is  foreseen  for  1  April  2011.  OLAF  plans  to  organise  a  small  event  for  applicants  to 
provide guidance for applications and financing in the Pericles programme.    

The Italian Carabinieri and the Portuguese PJ described their lastest applications for 
staff  exchanges  underlining  the  strong  contribution  of  these  actions  to  their 
operational  work.  The  experts  gave  their  overall  agreement  on  the  perspectives  of 
Pericles implementation in 2011.  
Highlighting  inter-institutional  cooperation,  Europol  described  some  of  its  upcoming  initiatives 
and geographic areas of concentration. Europol will continue to give prominence to its WeBTEG 
initiative  (Western  Balkans  and  Turkey)  and  will  carry  out  an  international  conference  during 
2011,  a  biennial  event.  It  is  possible  that  these  operational  meetings  could  be  jointly  organised 
together  with  OLAF  and  financed  by  Pericles  in  the  future.  Commission/OLAF  conveyed  its 

EN 

- 45 - 

   EN 

 
willingness  to  co-organise  the  international  conference  with  Europol  and  ECB.  Moreover,  Mr. 
Buttenberg told of the specific focus of Europol on the following two schemes:    

Europol ‘Social Study of Counterfeiting’  

Work on the Europol ‘Social Study of Counterfeiting’ is planned to be carried out in conjunction 
with  Dutch  national  authorities:  the  Central  Bank,  the  NCO  and  the  Police  Academy.  It  is  now 
planned to conduct a first pilot phase in the Netherlands, to in order to gather information and to 
determine  feasibility.  After  the  first  stage,  the  scope  of  the  study  will  be  refined  to  carry  out 
European-wide  research.  Europol  will  keep  OLAF  informed  of  the  Terms  of  Reference  and  the 
advancement of the study.  

its  willingness 

Europol Bitmap Training  
Europol  would  like  to  continue  its  Bitmap  training  but  in  a  more  centralised  way.  Portugal 
expressed 
initiative  was  welcomed  by 
Commission/OLAF  and  Europol.  Europol  asked  to  the  German  BKA  to  play  a  role  as  possible 
organiser of a possible second level training and agreed to send a request to Commission/OLAF 
concerning  the  two  levels  of  training.  The  modalities  will  then  be  discussed  with  Portugal  and, 
possibly, the German BKA.   

to  host  a  basic 

training, 

this 

Action:  OLAF  will  circulate  an  e-mail  to  the  ECEG  to  request  interest  in  Bitmap  training  to 
establish the need to organise training in the short term.   

International conference on the protection of the euro  
The  chairman  requested  information  on  the  prospects  for  the  next  biennial  conference  on  the 
protection  of  the  euro.  He  opined  that  the  next  conference  be  organised  as  a  joint  initiative 
Europol/ECB/OLAF. The Europol representative will convey this idea to his hierarchy.  

3.c. Polish training activities in 2011 (Polish NCO)  

The Polish delegation reported on its upcoming training activity to focus on the protection of the 
euro in north east Europe. The action comprises three phases, first, in February 2011 a three day 
working group meeting for 27 people from Member States plus Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. A 
detailed questionnaire has been forwarded to all Member States in order to determine the level of 
protection of the euro in each state in order to identify best practices. Following an analysis of the 
responses, a seminar-type event will be held, with working group sessions aimed at discussing the 
application  of  Regulation  1338  and  other  methodological  themes  concerning  the  functioning  of 
NCOs. It will be followed in April-March by a staff exchange, first hosted in Warsaw involving 4 
persons each from: Lithuania, Spain, Slovakia, Ukraine and Germany to meet with representatives 
of  Polish  national  authorities.  Then  Polish  representatives  will  travel  to  Vilnius,  Madrid, 
Bratislava,  Kiev  and  Berlin.  Finally,  the  police  propose  to  produce  an  information  brochure  in 
Polish, German, Russian and English. The Chairman thanked Poland for its initiative noting that 
the focus will be on Eastern border countries. He requested that the questionnaire be modified to 
remove the elements that are already known and distributed to the ECEG group. Further, it was 
suggested that MS interested in participating in the action could contact the Polish NCO. Given 
the ambitiousness of the action, OLAF/Commission offered to collaborate closely with Poland for 
its implementation.   

Action: OLAF will prepare a new version of the Polish Questionnaire and circulate it by e-mail to 

EN 

- 46 - 

   EN 

 
the ECEG experts to request their comments.  

3.d. Euro Counterfeit Currency Manual  

The  finalisation  of  French,  German,  Italian  and  Spanish  versions  is  underway.  We  are  awaiting 
final approval from two Member States.   

4.  Organisational  and  methodological  developments  in  the  fight  against  counterfeiting 
(Carabinieri)  

Mr. Gentili gave a presentation entitled “Organisational and methodological developments in the 
fight  against  counterfeiting”.  It  has  been  uploaded  onto  the  CIRCA  website.  The  Chairman 
thanked the speaker for his presentation and expressed his wish for continuous close co-operation 
and coordination of training actions.  

5. Legislative issues  

a. Implementation of modified Regulation 1338/2001 – update  

i. Procedures for banknote authentication (ECB)  

The  ECB  reported  on  Decision  ECB/2010/14  of  16  September  2010  on  the  authentication  and 
fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes which has now been published. Ms. Sophie 
Bening gave a detailed presentation on the provisions which is now found on the CIRCA website.  

Following a question from Cyprus, the ECB confirmed that each MS is responsible to decide the 
amount of financial sanction to apply in case of non-compliance.   

ii. Progress with regard to coin authentication procedures (OLAF)  

The  Commission  (Ms.  Kanellopoulou)  reported  on  euro  coin  authentication  procedures.  This 
presentation is found on the CIRCA Website.  The Chairman  noted that the coin authentication 
regulation will be published before the end of the year. Addressing a question from France, the 
Commission revealed that work on guidelines for the implementation of authentication procedures 
will  commence  shortly.    ETSC  work  teams  have  been  established  to  undertake  this  project  and 
will meet for the first time on 30 November; discussions will take place within this framework. 19 
MS  have  requested  to  participate  in  these  work  teams,  to  treat  various  themes,  for  example, 
technical  instructions  or  training  needs.  Mr.  Mueller  believes  a  first  draft  will  be  ready  for 
circulation within Commission services by mid-April 2011, this is an informal deadline. However, 
it  is  still  to  be  determined  what  type  of  instrument  the  Commission  will  use  to  issue  the 
aforementioned guidelines.   

6. Status of euro counterfeits (ECB, Europol, OLAF/ETSC, Interpol)  

European Central Bank (ECB)  

EN 

- 47 - 

   EN 

 
 
Ms.  Bening  related  a  message  from  Mr.  McCallum  concerning  the  statistics  of  euro  banknote 
counterfeiting  based  on  the  two  page  table  furnished  to  the  group.  Counterfeiting  has  steadily 
declined over a one year period to a level of 762,480 or 63,500 per month. The main component 
of the fall is a decline in the counterfeiting of the 20-euro banknote however, counterfeiting of the 
50-euro note is the most numerous. The number of the high quality P3 remains at a much lower 
level than expected from the runs of the serial numbers. Over 2/3 of counterfeits belong to the so-
called  ‘Napoli’  classes.  Lastly,  counterfeit  recognition  training  has  taken  place  in  Estonia  to 
improve readiness for the introduction of the euro.  

European Technical and Scientific Centre (ETSC)  

The  ETSC  briefed  the  group  on  the  statistical  trends  of  counterfeit  euro  coins.  Mr.  Mueller 
informed  that  the  last  6  months  of  2009  and  the  first  six  months  of  2010  showed  a  level  of 
180,000 coins detected in circulation, up from the previous year of 170,000. It nevertheless seems 
significant  that  Germany  detects  more  counterfeit  coins  than  it  does  banknotes,  and  that  Spain, 
while  detecting  counterfeit  banknotes,  does  not  detect  coins.  The  counterfeit  50-cent  piece  is 
becoming  more  widespread,  matching  the  level  of  the  1euro  cent.  Significantly,  half  of  all 
counterfeit 50-cent pieces are detected in France, the reason for this is unknown. It is supposed 
that this is due to flows from Italy.   

Europol  

Mr.  Buttenberg  gave  handouts  of  tables  providing  a  statistical  overview  of  police  actions  from 
January-September  2010.  He  noted  the  two  peaks  during  the  year  which  corresponded  to  two 
significant  cases  in  Italy  and  Colombia.  Briefly  presenting  the  most  recent  case,  the  Italian 
Carabinieri shut down a printshop producing the 50P5 in August 2010 in Naples. This important 
operation  is  likely  to  aid  all  European  countries  affected  by  this  class  of  counterfeits.  There  is 
clear  evidence  that  the  dye  used  for  the  hologram  of  this  class  was  found  in  this  printshop. 
Another  major  case  was  the  discovery  of  the  printshop  for  the  100P15  class  in  Bulgaria.  The 
mother class has now been dismantled based on the material discovered. Europol is involved with 
three working groups: “Peninsula” involving Italy, France and Spain which has led to improved 
information flows and cooperation, ‘South America’ which supports staff exchanges and training 
measures,  and  the  ‘Balkan’  working  group  which  currently  focuses  on  measures  to  track  and 
prevent the production of the 100P12, P13, P15, and 50P26. The statistics provided by Europol, 
besides  outlining  major  initiatives,  describe  suspect  nationalities.  For  the  moment  most 
counterfeiters  are  born  in  Bulgaria  but  migrate  and  most  often  are  of  Italian  nationality.  This 
could  be  a  topic  of  the  upcoming  social  study.  Europol  told  of  the  increased  quantities  of 
counterfeits  in  Belgium,  the  creation  of  a  targeted  working  group  including  the  NCO  and  the 
National  Central  Bank,  and  its  ongoing  action  plan  of  awareness-raising.  It  is  hoped  the 
dismantling  of  the  print  shop  in  Italy  will  contribute  to  a  decrease  in  counterfeits  circulating  in 
Belgium.  

Interpol  

Ms. Dzidrovska reported on counterfeit euro notes reported by Interpol member countries for the 
period  2008-9,  the  period  of  2010  is  still  ongoing  and  will  be  reported  at  the  next  meeting.  Of 
respondents, 87 member countries answered 63 were non-European Union Member countries. In 
2008, 40 million counterfeit euros were seized, of these 11 million from Colombia and 900,000 
reported  by  Algeria.  Two  million  counterfeit  euros  were  reported  by  members  outside  the  euro 
zone  in  2009.  This  number  is  significantly  lower  than  the  previous  year  because  it  excludes 

EN 

- 48 - 

   EN 

 
Colombia, whose numbers have yet to be verified. In 2009, Serbia reported 500,000, followed by 
Switzerland  and  Peru.  Counterfeit  euros  registered  by  African  countries  include  180,000  by 
Tunisia, followed by Morocco and Algeria; in Asia 70,000 were reported by Jordan followed by 
Israel  and Hong  Kong. With  regard to  counterfeit  US dollars,  in  2009,  45  million  printed  notes 
with  a  value  of  64  million  have  turned  up.  In  2008,  this  number  for  US  dollars  was  72  million 
passed,  with  107  million  seized.  Significant  finds  were  reported  from  Portugal,  Belgium  and 
Russia.  As  for  Canadian  dollars,  counterfeits  were  found  by  Switzerland,  Poland,  Portugal  and 
Serbia.  

Commission/OLAF  

Ms. Korinthios presented a paper “Effectiveness of action against euro counterfeiting 2007-2009”. 
The objective of the brief report was to underline the effectiveness of law enforcement action in 
the  fight  against  euro  counterfeiting.  Three  indicators  were  analysed;  the  number  of  arrests,  of 
illegal print shops and mints discovered, and the number of counterfeits seized before circulation. 
It is evident that each year there has been progress in combating euro counterfeiting and removing 
counterfeiters from action. The Group agreed on the usefulness of the approach; consequently, the 
Commission will extend the scope of this study to all Member States and will refine methodology 
so as to ensure reliable conclusions.  

7. Miscellaneous  

The proposed dates for meetings in 2011:  15 March, 21 June and 10 November   

EN 

- 49 - 

   EN 

 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic  
Denmark  
Germany  
Ireland  
Estonia  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
The Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  

Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia   
Slovak Republic  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom  
Commission  
ECB  
Europol  
Interpol  

Mr. J. Peeters;  
Mr. K. Kostadinov;  
Mr. J. Moravec;  
Mr. R. Jensen; Mr. S. Jensen;  
Mr. D. Dominicus; Mr. F. Müller; Mr. O. Rump;  
Mr. D. Heneghan;  
Ms. K. Kirsel;  
Ms. D. Koutsotoliou;  
Mr. J.F. Bañuelos Fernández; Ms. L. Diz Lozano  
Ms. M. Carruba; Mr. J.-L. Perrier;  
Mr. F. Carpenito; Mr. A. Gentili; Mr. P. Marraffa;  
Mr. C. Ktoris  
Mr. E. Berzins;  Mr. A. Taurins;  
Ms. N. Baltruniene;  
excused  
Mr. T. Goricsan;  
Mr.K. Mifsud; Mr. I.J. Abdilla  
Mr. M. Naber;  
Mr. F. Hammerschmidt; Mr. G, Boden  
Ms. E. Szegidewicz, Ms. E. Kozlowska-Osuch; Mr. T. Malczyk; Mr. J. 
Dobrolecki  
Mr. V. Magalhaes; Ms. P. Silveira;  
excused  
Ms. I. Kure; Ms. N. Kupic;  
excused  
Mr. P. Somerkoski  
excused  
Mr. S. Norton  

Ms. S. Bening  
Mr. T. Buttenberg  
Ms. D. Dzidrovska;  

EN 

- 50 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE  (OLAF)  

Operational & Policy Support  
EURO Protection; Hercule & Pericles Programmes  

Brussels, 16 June 2010 (revision) 
D/004777 OLAF C5/KE D(2010) 4906  

DRAFT REPORT  

53rd Meeting of the “Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group” of 18 March 2010  

Attendance (See attached list):  

46 experts, 38 from Member States (Hungary, Ireland, Luxemburg, and the Slovak 

• 
Republic excused)  
• 
• 
• 

One expert from France and one from Italy  
Representatives from the European Central Bank (ECB), Europol and Interpol  
Seven members of European Commission/OLAF staff  

This meeting took place in Brussels, Belgium and was chaired by Mr. Y. Xenakis, Head of Unit 
C.5, OLAF/European Commission.  

1 Approval of the agenda and the report of the previous meeting  

The Chairman welcomed the participants to the 53
 meeting of the Euro Counterfeiting Experts 
Group (ECEG) and introduced the agenda, highlighting the presence of magistrates from France 
and Italy as guest speakers.  

nd

The agenda and the report of the 52
November 2009 were approved without amendments.  

st

 Meeting of the "Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group" of 10 

2 The effectiveness of anti-counterfeiting legislation:  

2.1 The state of play in Italy  

EN 

- 51 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Mr. A. Galanti (Ministry of Justice, Rome) introduced his findings on the state of implementation 
of  anti-counterfeiting  legislation  in  Italy.  The  presentation  has  been  uploaded  on  to  the  CIRCA 
website.  

2.2 The state of play in France  

Mr.  S.  Almaseanu  (Ministry  of  Justice,  DACG,  Paris),  provided  the  most  recent  data  available 
concerning  currency  counterfeiting,  convictions  and  sentencing.  “Effectiveness  of  anti-
counterfeiting legislation in France” is available on the CIRCA website.  

The  discussion  following  the  two  presentations  highlighted  the  need  to  raise  the  profile  of  the 
seriousness  of  currency  counterfeiting  among  justice  officials,  perhaps  through  the  training  of 
judges  and  magistrates.  Furthermore,  a  wider  understanding  of  sentencing  for  counterfeiting 
crimes is needed on a European level. A cooperative effort to render legally prescribed penalties 
for  counterfeiting  uniform  is  warranted.  To  progress  in  this,  the  involvement  of  Eurojust  in  the 
medium, if not short term should be envisaged. Since it is the integrity of the currency that is the 
object of protection, the ECB argued that different penalties should not be prescribed for it.  

Austria  volunteered  to  make  a  presentation  on  this  topic  in  June.  Finland  will  also  consider 
making a presentation in the future.  

‘Pericles’ Programme  

3.1.a The implementation of the 2009 budget  

Mr.  L.  Pierini  (OLAF/European  Commission)  presented  a  general  overview  of  the  projects 
financed by the ‘Pericles’ Programme in 2009. 17 actions were co-financed, 8 seminar/training, 5 
staff exchanges, 2 workshops, 1 study and 1 technical support meeting. 1,000,000 euro, or 100% 
of  the  budget  was  consumed.  The  actions  approved  have  covered  diverse  geographical  areas: 
Balkans  and  Turkey,  Russia,  South  America  and  the  Mediterranean,  including  North  Africa. 
Police forces remain the largest focus of Pericles actions, though a multidisciplinary approach is 
assured  by  including  representatives  of  financial  institutions  and  the  judiciary.  One  action 
specifically  oriented  to  the  judicial  sector  was  organised,  focusing  on  the  issue  of  handling 
evidence. In Croatia and Montenegro, seminars on the recognition of counterfeits were given to 
the financial sectors; a specific technical seminar was also organised by the ETSC on euro coins. 
The group expressed its approval of this report on the implementation of 2009. A complete list of 
2009 Pericles Programme is on the CIRCA website.  

3.1.b  Prospects for implementation of the 2010 budget  

identifying  ongoing  2009  actions  and 

A  document  was  prepared 
those  foreseen  for 
implementation in 2010, highlighting the current strategic framework. It is important to maintain 
emphasis on the most sensitive EU states of Italy and Bulgaria, especially to counter illegal print 
shops in the region. Turkey and the Balkan area are of strategic importance to the programme. In 
2009,  Montenegro  and  Croatia  have  been  the  focus  of  Pericles  actions  and  this  emphasis 
continues  in  2010.  Croatia  has  expressed  an  interest  in  participating  in  staff  exchanges  with 
member state national banks. Serbia, Bosnia Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia and Albania will be featured during 2010. Serbia will be highlighted for an action by 

EN 

- 52 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
the Dutch central bank.  

EN 

- 53 - 

   EN 

 
Albania has been selected by the BLKA as the centre of the Euro Southeast. Other geographical 
identified  by  Pericles  partners,  notably  Brazil  and  Russia,  Latin 
areas  have  been 
America/Columbia and China. Mr. Perini announced that the following applications had already 
been received and were due to be evaluated: Euro Southeast in Albania (BLKA), two applications 
from Belgium for staff exchanges in Spain, an awareness-raising action in Libya (UCAMP) and a 
staff exchange between BIBE and Peru, Colombia and Argentina.  

The Chairman noted that the Pericles budget for 2010 was slightly less, €900,000. A roundtable 
revealed the plans of members state applications: the BKA intends an action in Bulgaria; UCIFM 
plans an action in Russia, is holding meetings with Chinese officials, and foresees a study on the 
relationship between major events and counterfeiting; the Italian Carabinieri intend to carry out an 
exchange of officials for Malta, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.  

3.2 Conclusions of the Seminar “A Community strategy to protect the euro”  

This conference held in Rome 30 November – 1 December 2009 by UCAMP, was organised for 
magistrates, police forces and representatives of the national central bank. Participants came from 
Italy, Spain, Greece,  Malta  and  Cyprus  and  European  institutions.  82  participants  attended.  The 
main conclusions confirm the importance of effective cooperation between authorities protecting 
the euro. Central bank authorities noted that measures to authenticate the euro have led to good 
results.  Moreover,  analyses  of  concrete  cases  were  made,  focusing  on  judicial  decisions  and 
sentencing  in  France  and  Italy.  Participants  called  for  an  increase  the  opportunities  to  attend 
events, continued flows of information and, further training possibilities should be assured.  

3.3 Conclusions of the judicial seminar on the topic of the status of counterfeits as evidence  

Mr. Kasimis presented the conclusions of the seminar “Judicial Issues and Criminal Proceedings 
in relation to the Protection of the euro”. The event took place from 24 to 25 November 2009 in 
Brussels and was financed under the Pericles programme.  

The action brought together 20 experts (mainly magistrates with participation of police officials) 
from  10  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy, 
Luxemburg, Portugal and Spain), one representative from the European Central Bank (ECB) and 
4 officials from OLAF.  

The  main  objective  of  the  seminar  was  to  analyse  national  legislation  in  order  to  propose  a 
framework for making available counterfeits to ECB/ETSC while a penal procedure is pending, in 
view  of  achieving 
the  effective 
transmission/transport  of  counterfeit  notes  or  coins  to  the  competent  European  or  national 
authorities  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  coherent  and  efficient  functioning  of  the  criminal 
proceedings before the national courts.  

the  appropriate  balance  between,  on 

the  one  hand, 

The  Chairman  noted  that  the  ECB  and  European  Commission  could  envisage  a  draft 
communication which would formally inform the Presidents of each national Supreme Court of 
the requirements of Regulation 1338/2001. Eurojust and JLS could be asked to participate in the 
preparation of a text to be considered with national authorities, and then sent by the appropriate 
channels.  

EN 

- 54 - 

   EN 

 
3.4  Conclusions  of  the  Seminar  “Cooperating  in  the  protection  of  money  against 
counterfeiting” Brazil  

The Policia Judiciaria presented the conclusions of the seminar “Cooperating in the protection of 
money against counterfeiting”. The event took place from 8 to 12 March 2010 in Brasilia, Brazil, 
financed under the Pericles programme.  

The  action  brought  together  73  experts  (Brazil,  Portugal,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Angola,  Cape 
Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Saint Tome and Principe, Macau, Mozambique), one representative from 
the European Central Bank (ECB) and 2 officials from OLAF.  

Besides, awareness-raising, the issue of information centralisation remained the focal point of the 
seminar.  Contact  between  Polícia  Judiciária  and  the  Departamento  de  Polícia  Federal  do  Brasil 
(DPF) and Banco Central do Brasil (BCB) revealed that Brazil does not have a centralised system 
for the gathering and treatment of information related to money counterfeiting. The police forces 
started to cooperate and exchange information immediately.  

The  other  Portuguese  speaking  countries  represented  at  the  seminar  were  very  active  in  the 
debates, expressing their will to start cooperating with the Portuguese and European authorities in 
the  fight  against  money  counterfeiting.  As  a  direct  result  of  the  seminar,  a  common  paper  was 
signed between the four entities that organized and co-organized the seminar (Polícia Judiciária, 
Banco  de  Portugal,  Departamento  de  Polícia  Federal  do  Brasil  and  Banco  Central  do  Brasil) 
expressing  their  intention  to  increase  the  level  of  cooperation  and  the  information  exchange 
between them. The paper also referred to the other CPLP countries, encouraging them to provide 
more  detailed  information  concerning  the  situation  of  euro  counterfeiting  in  those  countries  in 
order to elaborate a threat assessment and consider possible needs for action.  

3.5 Euro Counterfeit Currency Manual  

The English version of the Euro Counterfeit Currency Experts’ manual has now been distributed. 
260 manuals were delivered to those countries/institutions requesting copies. 40 have been kept 
by OLAF. Plans are being made to produce the French and German, Italian and Spanish versions, 
as well as the electronic English version.  

3.6 Europol proposal for a social analytical, multidisciplinary study of counterfeiting  

Recognising  that  banknote  counterfeiting  is  increasing  and  that  distribution  of  banknotes  is 
largely  a  phenomenon  associated  with  France,  Spain  and  Italy,  Europol  proposes  to  study  the 
factors  surrounding  this  phenomenon.  Also  noteworthy  is  the  significantly  large  numbers  of 
detected counterfeit coins in Germany compared to other similarly large countries. The objective 
of  the  study  is  to  enhance  the  knowledge  of  counterfeiting  and  the  factors  that  facilitate 
distribution  in  some  countries,  while  not  in  others.  Social  analysis  will  be  used  to  obtain 
quantitative  evidence,  using  political,  economic,  social,  technical  and  legal  information  to  draw 
conclusions.  It  was  noted  that  the  idea  of  the  study  was  positively  received  by  the  Steering 
Committee of the ECB, Europol and OLAF. Overall, the group agreed to the need for a scientific 
approach  to  gain  a  better  understanding  of  the  situation  with  regard  to  counterfeiting.  The 
Chairman  proposed  that  Europol,  the  ECB  and  OLAF  meet  to  formulate  a  draft  Terms  of 
Reference with a view to presenting a more concrete proposal to the ECEG in June.  

EN 

- 55 - 

   EN 

 
4. Dismantling of an illegal print shop for Algerian Dinars in France  

Mr. Perrier described an investigation which involved the production of counterfeit 1000 Algerian 
dinars in Lyon. This seizure involved authentic paper that was stolen from a lorry in Marseille in 
2006;  18,000  tons  (44  bobbins)  disappeared,  of  which,  probably  38  are  still  missing.  Dinars’ 
security  depends  largely  on  authentic  paper.  Criminals  in  Naples  were  discovered  in  2008 
producing  dinars  and  stopped.  In  2009  the  police  from  Lyon  discovered  that  criminals  bought 
paper  from  Marseille  and  were  working  in  an  official  commercial  print  shop  to  produce  false 
dinars.  14  people  were  arrested  in  Lyon,  and  criminals  in  Marseille  were  also  apprehended  for 
stolen papers, though many got away probably to Italy.  

This  case  involved  a  four  colour  printing  offset  and  a  scanner/computer  which  made  plates 
directly without having to produce films. This is  the first time in France that this technique has 
been  seen.  It  enables  counterfeiters  to  speed  up  production  significantly  and  renders  film 
redundant. These machines are not expensive, approximately €25,000, and are widely available. It 
is impossible to distinguish between the offset print and the inkjet print without careful scrutiny 
with  a  microscope.  This  is  a  new  phenomenon  in  counterfeiting.  A  complete  visual  report  was 
shown of the investigation site.  

5. Legislative issues  

a. Implementation of modified Regulation 1338/2001 – update  

i. Procedures for banknote authentication  

The  ECB  reported  that  lawyers  have  now  proposed  the  final  draft  of  the  two  instruments  with 
which  the  ECB  intends  to  implement  the  framework  as  a  binding  legal  act  to  the  banknote 
committee. The framework is known, exceptions for remote branches and extreme circumstances 
will  be  included.  In  order  to  re-circulate  euros  there  will  be  an  obligation  to  use  machines 
successfully  tested  by  the  ECB;  there  will  also  be  a  mechanism  for  surveillance  of  these 
obligations. The timeframe of spring/summer 2010 still stands for approval, at the very latest by 
the end of the year. Responding to a question from the chairman, the ECB noted that annexes to 
these legal texts exist.  

ii. Progress with regard to coin authentication procedures  

The Commission reported that a proposal was adopted and presented to the Council in November 
2009.  It  was  discussed  with  the  Swedish  presidency  of  the  Council  and  is  currently  under 
discussion with the Spanish presidency in collaboration with the Bank of Spain. An unexpectedly 
large  number  of  modifications  were  proposed.  Now  it  is  in  discussion  with  the  European 
Parliament,  under  the  ordinary  procedure  of  co-decision.  It  will  be  a  Regulation  of  both  the 
European Parliament and the Council. Final adoption is expected for the second half of this year.  

EN 

- 56 - 

   EN 

 
b.  Monitoring  of  sanctions  under  framework  decision  of  29  May  2000  and  Article  6  of 
Regulation 1338/2001 - update  

Referring  to  the  presentations  of  the  morning,  Mr.  Kasimis  noted  that  all  countries  have 
legislation pertaining to the crime of unintentionally receiving counterfeit euros and subsequently 
returning them into circulation. OLAF/Commission views it appropriate to focus efforts on raising 
awareness of ‘intermediaries’, both financial and individual, that this is a crime of counterfeiting. 
Intermediaries behave in this manner to avoid financial loss nevertheless, it is also appropriate to 
consider raising sanctions associated with this behaviour. The group will revisit this topic.  

6. Status of euro counterfeits  

Interpol briefed the group on two projects: ‘S- print’ by which second-hand intaglio printers are 
tracked worldwide, and security substrates, in cooperation with the printing industry. Interpol is 
organising two conferences, one on counterfeit documents another on financial crimes.  

Mr. McCallum presented a room document of the usual data on counterfeits, noting its availability 
on the CIRCA website. The general monthly trend has been going down since September 2009; 
the actual number of counterfeits has stabilised, though at a higher number than previously. The 
total figure ending 15 March 2009 for the running year was 861,628, a bit down from the end of 
2009. Approximately one-third comes from France, one-third from Italy and Spain together, and 
the last one-third from the rest of Europe combined. Unfortunately, the last few weeks have seen 
more activity in the high quality class of the 200P3A. A new print run has been produced with 
new  plate  numbers  and  serial  numbers.  It  is  still  called  variant  A,  because  it  is  not  technically 
different from the previous print run. It seems that there are 80,000 which have been produced, 
possibly more.  

Europol informed that Council Decision establishing European Police office entered into force on 
1 January 2010, replacing the Europol Convention. Its mandate has been extended to include not 
only  organized  crime,  but  also  all  forms  of  serious  crimes  affecting  member  states.  A  new 
structure  and  new  financing  provisions  are  in  place.  The  forgery  of  money  unit  has  not  been 
affected and is operating as usual.  Recent operations have included the seizure of 25,000 pieces 
of  counterfeit  notes  in  France  and  the  dismantling  of  a  print  shop  in  Colombia  together  with 
Spain’s  BIBE  and  Europol  resulting  in  the  seizure  of  22,000  pieces  of  50€  notes  and  15,000 
Colombian pesos.  

The Chairman thanked Europol for its report and requested that for the next meeting, in order to 
have  more  global  data  and  to  trace  general  trends,  that  Europol  present  a  table  highlighting: 
number of arrests/year, number of illegal workshops dismantled/year, number of banknotes seized 
before circulation/year for each year 2002-present. The Commission emphasised it was requesting 
only  non-personal,  non-operational  information  not  related  to  current  cases.  If  this  information 
could  be  gathered  and  shared,  it  could  be  useful  for  the  group  to  support  legislative  initiatives. 
Europol will attempt to prepare a table for discussion at the ECEG.  

EN 

- 57 - 

   EN 

 
The  ETSC  briefed  the  group  on  the  statistical  trends  of  counterfeit  euro  coins.  There  is  a  shift 
within the denominations that is being observed, with a decrease in 2€ coin counterfeiting, while a 
slight  increase  of  50-cent  and  1  €  coins.  Nevertheless,  the  2€  coin  remains  the  most  frequently 
counterfeited.  Also,  it  remains  significant  that  most  coins  are  detected  in  Germany,  while  not 
nearly so many are detected in Italy and Spain, whereas Italy and Spain detect many counterfeit 
banknotes.  

The Chairman addressed a question relating to discrepancies of data between Europol and ETSC. 
He  explained  that  Europol  relies  on  the  CMS  database  for  figures,  whereas  ETSC,  in  order  to 
avoid  revisions,  contact  CNACs  in  order  to  foresee  the  numbers  which  will  later  appear  in  the 
CMS after classification.  

7. Miscellaneous  

The next meeting will take place 24 June, the following is pencilled for 9 November.  

EN 

- 58 - 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE  (OLAF) Operational & Policy Support  

Protection of the EURO  

Brussels,  30.04.2008    (update  D003534) 
OLAF C5/KE D(2008) 3229  

DRAFT REPORT  

Subject: 47th Meeting of the “Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group” in the framework of 

the Anti-Fraud Advisory Committee (Cocolaf) of 13 March 2008.  

Participants:  Y.  Xenakis  (Chairman  Commission),  38  experts  from  22  Member  States 
(Estonia,  Luxemburg,  Portugal,  Hungary  and  Romania  excused);  two 
representatives  from  the  ECB,  one  from  Europol  and  one  from  Interpol 
attended. See attached list.  

1. Approval of the agenda and report of the previous meeting  

The  Chairman  briefly  introduced  the  agenda  which  was  approved  by  the  group.  The  draft 
report of the ECEG meeting of 13 December 2007 comprising modifications submitted by the 
ECB was also approved.  

2. ‘Pericles’ Programme  

 Implementation 2007 (OLAF) Ms. Skocinska presented a general overview of Pericles 2007 
implementation. The Pericles call for proposals was extended until 31 March 2008 in order to 
avoid an uncovered period, while awaiting publication of the new financial decision. Twelve 
actions were organised under the 2007 budget including 7 conducted by Member States and 5 
Commission initiatives. One additional application for a staff exchange by the Belgian CNAC 
was submitted and is expected to be approved. The members of the ECEG accepted this report of 
the Pericles 2007 implementation. A more detailed report outlining participants and other facts 
will be presented at the June meeting.  

• 

Conclusions of the Euro-Caribbean seminar, Guadeloupe (France)  

The  action  in  the  French  department  of  Guadeloupe  focused  on  awareness-
raising  of  the  crime  of  counterfeiting  in  the  region.  The  aim  was  to  study  the 
circulation  of  counterfeit  money,  eventual  links  between  counterfeit  distribution 
and  other  crimes  such  as  drugs  and  human  trafficking,  in  order  to  obtain  an 
evaluation  of  the  threat  to  the  euro  in  the  region,  and  to  the  local  economies. 
Considerable  discrepancies  between  countries  were  reported  by  the  various 
delegations.  Some  countries  reported  having  much  experience  protecting 
currency,  such  as  the  tourist  destinations  of  the  Dominican  Republic  and  St. 

EN 

- 59 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Martin’s and producer regions such as Guyana and Guadeloupe, others admitted 
less  experience.  Discussions  included  a  wide  range  of  topics;  speakers  from 
Colombia  and  Venezuela  even  addressed  the  issues  of  manufacture  and 
distribution in their respective countries. Improvements in cooperation among the 
various countries in the region has already been noted following the seminar, and 
contacts  with  European  counterparts,  the  Netherlands,  Spain,  the  UK,  Italy, 
Portugal  and  France  have  been  enhanced.  Further  training  on  operational  and 
technical issues was requested by the participants and it is thought that ideas for 
improving structures in the judiciary, central bank and police would eventually be 
sought.  

France  announced  its  intention  to  build  upon  this  programme  to  organise  a  second  seminar, 
focussing  on  technical  and  operational  training,  in  conjunction  with  Dutch  colleagues.  In 
preparation to its introduction of the euro, and in its capacity as a maritime and aviation hub, the 
venue would be St. Martin’s.  

 European Counterfeit Currency Manual (state of play)  

Progress on the layout of the Experts’ manual has encountered some delays due to end of the year 
budget  procedures.  We  now,  however,  have  the  approval  for  work  to  begin  with  the  printing 
services of the Commission (OPSCE) and have allocated a budget of nearly €  
60.000  to  assist  with  layout  and  production  into  EN,  FR  and  DE.  We  expect  that  work  on  the 
layout  of  this  manual  will  advance  to  a  point  that  we  can  hold  a  first  meeting  for  revision  and 
editing in June, possibly 11 or 12 June.  

Due to various technical difficulties, OPSCE has had many hurdles dealing with the production of 
the  Basic  Manual.  Progress  has  been  made  in  the  French,  German  and  English  versions.  At  the 
last minute, however, it has been thought prudent to make slight modifications to the text, adding 
additional  references  to  euro  coins.  Slight  delays  have  occurred  due  to  this,  though  they  are 
manageable.  

 Workshop on judicial issues and criminal proceedings  

The  Commission  reported  on  the  responses  to  its  questionnaire  regarding  Art.  4  and  5  of 
Regulation 1338/2001. The responses revealed that legislation in MS does not explicitly give the 
possibility  to  magistrates  to  liberate  counterfeits  from  criminal  procedures  for  technical 
processing. There is a need to verify the approach in MS to this problem.  

The  ECB  requests  that  there  is  a  harmonisation  of  the  manner  in  which  evidence  is  treated  in 
criminal proceedings, allowing for the analysis of counterfeits. The ECB would favour a seminar 
or workshop on the topic – it being understood, however, that such a seminar alone is merely a 
first step towards the above-proposed solution.  

Italy,  Germany  and  Belgium  favoured  a  workshop.  Belgium  insisted  that  direct  dialogue  is 
necessary as a follow up to a workshop.  

The  Commission  intends  to  present  a  report,  at  the  June  ECEG  meeting,  to  be 
considered for the organisation of the workshop leading to best practices in handling 
evidence; this might be in the second half of the year.  

EN 

- 60 - 

   EN 

 
 Seminar in Croatia The Commission is organising a seminar in Zagreb the month of June. 
Contacts with the Central Bank of Croatia, the Ministry of Justice and AFCOS have been made. 
We will inform of further details.  

• 

Seminar in Montenegro  

Montenegro  has  been  highlighted  by  Europol  as  a  priority  in  the  fight  against  counterfeiting. 
Based  upon  the  threat  posed  by  the  Western  Balkans,  the  Commission  is  supporting  a  Pericles 
action  for  training  in  Montenegro.  Both  Interpol  and  Europol  voiced  their  support  of  this 
initiative.  Europol  suggested  that  the  event  should  be  extended  to  at  least  three  days,  given  the 
numerous 
technical  knowledge  and 
investigative/operational  information.  The  ECB  mentioned  its  interest  to  take  part  in  this  event 
and would encourage contacts with the national central bank. It also mentioned that in following 
up  a  High  Level  Group  action  point,  the  ECB  recently  undertook  an  evaluation  of  the  legal 
framework of protection from currency counterfeiting in the western Balkans, (incl. Montenegro) 
which it would communicate in due course to the Commission and Europol.  

to  cover  and  discuss,  both 

terms  of 

topics 

in 

Mr. Leidgens (BLKA) mentioned that through the Euro-Southeast, a lot of information regarding 
the Western Balkans has already been garnered. Useful facts and contacts are already known or 
have been made; he suggested close contact with the Commission/OLAF in order to structure the 
upcoming event. He reiterated that the event should be longer in length and should allow time for 
in depth explanations.  

The  Netherlands 
cooperation/training event at the Dutch Central Bank in the autumn.  

the  group 

informed 

that  Montenegrin  authorities  will  attend  a 

The  Chairman  summarised  that  there  is  an  urgent  need  for  an  operational  training  of  police. 
Moreover,  a  need  for  a  medium  to  high  level  awareness-raising  training  also  exists.  The 
Commission/OLAF  will  revise  the  agenda,  lengthening  the  event  and  taking  into  consideration 
advice from the BLKA. Further developments in will be communicated to the group.  

 Pericles Programme 2008 – Prospects  

A list, updated following the ECEG meeting is attached in annex. Fourteen actions are foreseen.  

Germany will continue its Euro East South-east programme, its sixth event will be held in Cyprus 
tentatively scheduled for 22 September.  

Spain  confirmed  two  actions,  its  sixth  training/seminar  in  Colombia  is  planned  for  December 
2008,  and  a  staff  exchange  with  experts  from  Latin  America  (Argentina,  Colombia,  Peru  and 
Venezuela) should take place at the end of 2008 or beginning 2009.  

France  voiced  its  intention  to  carry  out  a  second  Euro-Caribbean  seminar  in  March  2009  in  St. 
Martin. And it confirmed its intention to study the production of a police kit for counterfeits.  

EN 

- 61 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
Italy (UCIFM) mentioned its ongoing consideration of holding an awareness raising and training 
event in China for trainers of police and bank operators. Official letters have been sent to China, 
Italy  is  awaiting  a  response  from  Chinese  authorities.  If  approved,  the  hope  is  to  organise  the 
event in time for the Olympics. This timing seems tenuous.  

Based  upon its  recent  threat  assessment,  Interpol  voiced  its  support  for  such  an  event  in  China. 
Though China does not provide statistics concerning the level of counterfeiting, evidence gathered 
from ICPO members of seized counterfeit notes suggests that counterfeits from China could pose 
a threat. Europol noted that China has not agreed to have a Europol liaison officer; it supports the 
initiative to conduct a training event. The ECB reported that it has conducted training of cashiers 
from the People’s Republic of China on the recognition of counterfeits which was well received 
however it has not had contact with law enforcement authorities.  

Spain  supported  an  initiative  in  China  citing  that  China  produces  technology  which  produces 
counterfeit  holograms.  France  noted  that  on  a  monthly  basis,  counterfeit  Yuans  taken  from 
circulation are increasing.  

The Commission welcomed the idea.  

Italy (UCAMP) intends to hold a seminar focused on Central Bank officials and the processes of 
counterfeit  withdrawal  from  circulation.  It  hopes  to  involve  Spain,  France,  Greece,  Malta  and 
Cyprus to participate in this seminar highlighting an exchange of experience.   

Italy (CCAFM) will hold a training seminar on technical and operational activities such as phone 
tapping  and  gathering  evidence  based  on  best  practices.  It  would  like  to  involve  scientific 
investigators from other countries.  

The Netherlands police will organise a training series on digital technologies. It should consist of 
three three-day sessions beginning in September 2008. It aims to highlight cooperation between 
public and private sectors in the fight against counterfeiting.  

The Commission/OLAF also announced its plan to organise a seminar in Turkey later in the year. 
This is based on direct contacts made concerning the new Turkish lira. A study visit to Brussels 
will also be organised for Turkish representatives.  

The Chairman welcomed the various projects and agreed the prospects for Pericles 2008.  

3. Authentication of euro coins (OLAF)  

 Progress in implementation procedures National Central Banks agreed on a common European 
procedure for testing coin processing machines. These procedures were harmonized for coin 
processing devices during the workshops of December 2007/January 2008. A modified test set, 
now including all known classes, was approved and applied to machines. Advances were made 
with cooperation from the private sector.  

 List of coin-processing machines online A list of coin-processing machines successfully tested 
is now available on-line on the OLAF website. The list indicates the type of machine, the date of 
its test and the length of the validity of the testing. The ETSC would appreciate feedback on the 
list.  

• 
• 

Functioning of the Commission recommendation  
A review of the current Recommendation will eventually be made with a view 

EN 

- 62 - 

   EN 

 
4. Database on illegal print shops and mints (Europol and Italy)  

The  Europol  representative  gave  an  update  of  the  action  implemented  through  the  ETSC  work 
team,  underlining  its  intention  to  expand  existing  Europol  databases  on  counterfeit  currency  in 
order to include data on illegal print shops and mints. The next meeting of the work team will be 
held at The Hague on the 18 March 2008.  

Mr.  Marraffa  of  UCIFM  presented  Italy’s  information  on  illegal  mint  discoveries.  It  includes 
summaries of cases, lists of materials discovered as well as a geographical analysis of discovered 
sites.  

The  presentation  was  appreciated  by  the  members  of  the  ECEG  and was  cited  for  its  very high 
quality and practical usefulness. Questions arose, however, concerning possible users and access; 
in particular, it was underlined that these data should be available not only to police, but also to 
other  disciplines  concerned  such  as  central  banks  and  ministries.  Suggestions  were  made  for 
improvements such as more precise descriptions of the counterfeits, the police operation and more 
‘soft  data’.  The  Italian  representative  noted  that  the  database  summarises  operational,  non-
personal, information and that this data can be had immediately. Following Italy’s suggestion, the 
ECEG agreed that this information should be uploaded onto CIRCA. If an NCO would like to use 
or update data, they are able to access via CIRCA. It is not overlapping with the Europol work 
team project.  

Europol stated that the task of preparing a proposal for a database on illegal mints and print shops 
has been entrusted to the specific work team (functioning in the context of the ETSC work team) 
under the leadership of Europol. The presentation of Italy should be considered in the context of 
the next meeting of the work team.  

Following discussions, the chairman concluded that the ETSC work team should indeed take up 
the issue using the Italian raw data, in the CIRCA, as a basis for the preparation of the eventual 
database.  

5. Legislative issues  

– Update on the proposal for modification of Council Regulation 1338/2001  

The ECB declared that its position has been adequately summarised in previous meetings of the 
ECEG and is well known.  

The Commission/OLAF related the various steps which will be taken for the adoption 
of  these  modifications  and  the  calendar  involved,  to  the  best  of  its  knowledge.  The 
opinion  of  the  European  Parliament  is  provisionally  scheduled  to  be  voted  at  the 
plenary of 2 September 2008. Subsequently, assuming the EP issues a final opinion 
on  the  matter,  it  will  be  taken  up  by  the  groups  of  the  Council.  At  the  Council, 
adoption  could  be  made  rapidly,  perhaps  by  the  end  of  the  year,  or  it  could  be 
delayed  by  discussions  and  agreements  to  negotiate  on  contentious  points.  One 
such  point  that  could  require  further  elaboration  is  whether  there  efforts  to  detect 
counterfeit  euros  should  be  taken  up  by  noneuro  area  Member  States  in  which  it 
circulates  nevertheless.  Further  developments  will  be  communicated  in  the  next 
meeting of the ECEG.  

EN 

- 63 - 

   EN 

 
 
– Prospects for publication of an updated list of Competent National Authorities according to Art. 
2 of Regulation 1338/2001 (OLAF) Mr. Kasimis (OLAF) reported that most information for a list 
has been communicated to the Commission/OLAF, though eight MS have not yet responded to 
requests. The Commission requested that all Member States verify the list and provide the name 
of the national organisation, address, phone, fax and e-mail address contacts.  

– Prospects for modification of Regulation 2182/2004 concerning medals and tokens similar to 
euro coins (OLAF)  

Outlining  the  current  features  of  the  legislation,  Ms.  Raiah  (OLAF)  explained  that  it  currently 
bans production and distribution of medals and tokens similar to euro coins, banning the use of 
the words ‘euro’, ‘euro cent’ and the ‘€ symbol’. At the same time, bans are placed on coins or 
tokens  having  a  similar  size  or  design  to  euro  coins.  Nevertheless,  possibilities  for  derogations 
exist, authorised by the Commission.  

Plans are in place to amend the Regulation and agreements have been made between OLAF and 
the Mint Directors’ Working Group to modify three areas. The modified Regulation will clarify 
the  word  ‘design’  by  defining  characteristics  to  be  banned,  such  as  the  use  of  twelve  stars 
representing the EU and geographical representations of the EU, as well as effigies, coats of arms, 
mint works and other features of sovereignty. A second step would be to specify the derogation 
procedures  by  the  Commission  in  conjunction  with  the  Counterfeits  Coin  Experts  Group.  The 
third category of amendments addresses commercial characteristics, number produced, price and 
way they are presented to the public.  

These amendments are at the stage of internal discussions, and the amendment procedure has not 
yet been formally launched.  

The  Chairman  noted  that  this  legislation  pertains  to  coins,  and  while  coins  are  not  directly  the 
responsibility of the ECEG, it seems important nevertheless to inform all parties concerned with 
legislative developments. These proposed amendments will be discussed with the Euro Coin Sub 
Committee.  

Czech Republic requested if the Collector Coin sub-Committee was informed on these changes. 
The  Commission/OLAF  noted  that  its  input  had  been  sought  and  assured  that  it  would  be 
consulted at the text developed.  

Italy requested that final decisions be communicated. This was noted by Commission/OLAF.  

1

6. Currency Counterfeiting at international level (INTERPOL)  
The  CSDB  of  Interpol  will  be  welcoming  a  new  seconded  official  in  April  2008  from 
Peru.
 This colleague is a forensic expert and a law enforcement official. The CSDB 
team will now consist of a team leader plus four professionals. As a point of interest, 
please  consult  the  public  web  pages  and  the  secure  web  pages  for  recently  made 
updates and updated fact sheets.  
Following the agreement on coordination and communication between the two organisations, Mr. 
Krivak  announced  that  the  message  flow  between  Interpol  and  Europol  in  2007  increased.  The 
message flow increased 165%, 70% of this had to do with counterfeit currency issues.  

Reporting on the trends of US currency activity, Mr. Krivak reported that in 2007, 765 billion US 
banknotes were in circulation worldwide, up 15 billion from 2005. Of these he reported, 66% of 
all US banknotes are held abroad. More specifically, 75% of all 100 US dollar bills are overseas. 
One  in  12,000  US  dollar  notes  are  counterfeit.  2007  was  characterised  by  an  increase  in 

EN 

- 64 - 

   EN 

 
 
counterfeit notes in circulation, with face value up to nearly 150 million worldwide, whereas from 
2003-2006 it was around 100 million yearly.  

It is important to note that 2007 counterfeiting of the USD was up, domestically, overseas and in 
Europe. In 2007 seizures of US counterfeit currency seizures before circulation jumped in Europe, 
especially with important seizures in Germany, Turkey, Russia and Portugal. This indicates that 
efforts  to  curtail  the  professional  grade  counterfeits  emanating  from  Europe  and  Colombia  are 
working  and  there  are  reasons  to  be  cautiously  optimistic.  Cooperation  and  work  with  law 
enforcement,  the  security  printing  industry  and  National  Central  Banks  on  the  protection  of 
currency seems to be fruitful.  

Regarding  the  IPCO  community,  other  global  currencies  that  are  counterfeited  outside  their 
boarders exist, the top four currencies are the Canadian dollar, the British pound, the Turkish lira 
and the Chinese yuan. The Canadian authorities agreed to share information; the high of nearly 
600,000 pieces in 2004 has now dropped to just under 175,000 pieces. The Bank of England is 
also experiencing a slow down in counterfeiting, indicating a decrease of 28% from 2006 to 2007. 
Australia  has  experienced  counterfeiting  outside  of  its  borders.  Generally  they  experience  very 
little  counterfeiting,  with  6  piece  per  million,  but  sometimes  a  large  seizure  will  increase  the 
numbers.  In  2007,  the  counterfeiting  was  nevertheless  low  for  the  Australian  dollar.  Interpol 
hoped  to  highlight  that  the  measures  are  in  place  and  are  working  to  protect  international 
currencies.  

7. Status of euro counterfeits (ECB, OLAF/ETSC)  

The  ECB  announced  that  the  annual  total  of  counterfeits  recovered  remains  around  570,000 
pieces or 48,000 pieces per month. A new development, however, appears to be occurring:  the 
face value has increased slightly, due to counterfeit 200€ banknotes in some countries. In previous 
years,  the  annual  face  value  for  counterfeiting  was  between  €  30-32m,  whereas  now  it  is  about 
€40m.  Certain  countries  in  particular  are  faced  with  this  rise  in  200€  counterfeits,  Austria, 
Belgium and Germany. While for these countries, the 200€ is not the most numerous counterfeit, 
it is nevertheless, significant, second only to counterfeit 50€ notes.  

1  As  of  30  April  2008,  due  to  financial  and  administrative  reasons,  the  seconded 
forensic expert and law enforcement official from Peru has yet to arrive in France in 
order to start work at IPSG-CSDB.  
The  evolution  of  counterfeiting  on  a  monthly  basis  averaged  over  six  months 
demonstrates that the number of pieces generally remains under 50,000. The graph 
similarly  shows  that  the  counterfeit  200€  is  growing  in  significance.  While  in  2004-
2005 the class of 200P3 was the most significant, it is now the 200P3A and 200P4. 
There is little report with regard other new classes.  
The  Chairman  asked  about  the  ‘double  mountain’  effect  of  the  graph,  notably  that  20€ 
counterfeits increase every two years. The ECB maintained that one cannot generalise, but noted 
that just five high volume classes together account for over half of all the counterfeits received. 
When the print shop for one of these classes is closed down, or a new production commences, the 
effect on the counterfeit statistics is readily perceptible.  

The  ETSC  presented  its  new  format  of  reporting.  Overall,  the  number  of  counterfeit  coins 
detected  in  circulation  in  2007  increased  significantly  compared  to  2006.  It  noted  that  in  2007, 
more than 85% of all counterfeit coins seized were 2€ coins. The detection of class 24 saw a steep 

EN 

- 65 - 

   EN 

 
increase in 2007. At the same time, counterfeiting of the 50 cent piece is increasing. Detection has 
been  increasing  throughout  the  year  in  most  Member  States.  However,  the  amount  seized  in 
illegal  mints  remains  low.  72  classes  and  variants  have  been  created  in  2007.  Nevertheless,  the 
main  classes  of  counterfeits  from  previous  years  continue  to  represent  the  large  majority  of 
counterfeits fount in circulation.  

8. Miscellaneous  

– Communication among ECEG members (CIRCA forum) Ms. Skocinska noted that the system is 
in place and working. Access is based on a transaction number and a logon password. The 
Commission will communicate details.  

– Next Meeting  

Following serious  hesitations  to hold  the  next  ECEG  meeting  in  July,  it  is now  rescheduled  for 
Wednesday 25 June.  

EN 

- 66 - 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE  (OLAF) Operational & Policy Support  

Protection of the EURO  

Brussels, OLAF C5/KE D(2008) 656  

DRAFT REPORT  

Subject: 46th Meeting of the “Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group” in the  

framework of the Anti-Fraud Advisory Committee (Cocolaf) of 13  
December 2007.  

Participants: Y. Xenakis (Chairman Commission), 37 experts from 24 Member States  

(Poland, Portugal, and Romania excused); two representatives from the  
ECB, one from Europol attended. See attached list.  

1. Approval of the agenda and report of the previous meeting  

The Chairman briefly introduced the agenda which was approved by the group. The draft report 
of  the  ECEG  meeting  of  2  October  2007  comprising  modifications  from  the  ECB  was  also 
approved.  

2. ‘Pericles’ Programme  

 Implementation in 2006 – final report (OLAF)  

Ms. Skocinska presented complete statistics of Pericles 2006 implementation.  

94% of Pericles budget for 2006 was committed and twelve training actions were cofinanced or 
financed.  Out  of  them  9  emanated  from  Member  States  (Belgium,  Germany,  Spain,  Hungary, 
Italy and Poland) and 3 were organised by ETSC and OLAF.  

Six actions were seminar/conference type, two -trainings, two -staff exchanges and two studies. 
Five  actions  were  fully  implemented  in  2006  and  seven  in  2007  (three  actions:  Study  on 
reinforcing  the  security  characteristics  of  future  euro  coins by  Belgium,  conductivity  study  and 
ETSC work team meetings for technical investigation are still ongoing).  

632  people  benefited  from  the  Programme  training  actions:  most  of  them  were 
representatives  of  law  enforcement  services  (495),  64  representatives  of  judicial 
sector,  45  representatives  of  national  central  banks,  19  mint  and  9  people  coming 
from ministries of finance. Out of 632 participants, 190 came from Euro zone Member 
States,  221  form  non  Euro  zone  Member  States  and  221  came  from  non  EU 
countries  (mostly  Latin  American,  Balkan  and  Mediterranean  Counties  and  Eastern 

EN 

- 67 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
Europe).  

-Implementation in 2007  

Regarding  the  Pericles  2007  budget,  eight  actions  have  been  committed  for  a  total  of 
approximately €574.000. Five of them have been completed and others will be carried out in the 
first  months  of  2008.  UCIFM  (IT)  and  BKA  (DE)  express  the  willingness  to  send  grant 
applications in December or January 2008.  

In  order  to  assure  continuity  of  training  actions  the  necessary  funds  will  be  already  committed 
from the remaining Pericles 2007 budget.  

 Implementation and prospects (OLAF)  

– Conclusions of the Euro North-East conference in Tallinn, Estonia (Germany, BKA)  

This action took place in Tallinn from 8-11 October 2007 in cooperation with the Estonian 
Criminal  Police  which  provided  exceptional  support.  Counterfeit  experts  from  the  police, 
judiciary and banking sectors from Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Norway,  Poland,  Sweden,  Russia  and  Belorussia  attended.  The  intention  was  to  invite 
participants  from  countries  who  may  in  the  future  introduce  the  euro  and  to  highlight  the 
problem of counterfeiting in border countries. The North-East area of the European Union 
is a focal point for efforts to combat counterfeiting since cross-border activities are highly 
influenced  by  organised  crime.  Preventative  strategies,  aims  to  align  police  measures, 
training  and  information  exchange  were  highlighted  during  the  conference.  In  addition  to 
national  participants,  OLAF,  Europol,  Interpol,  Eurojust  and  the  US  Secret  Service 
participated.  

High  level  dignitaries  and  Ministers  of  Estonia,  BKA  and  OLAF  attended  and  made 
presentations.  Interesting  aspects  of  security  features  were  highlighted  and  skilfully 
presented.  The  ECB  introduced  the  latest  trends  in  counterfeiting  and  related  technical 
information. Various case scenarios were treated including judicial aspects of cross-border 
investigations and joint investigations teams.  

This action led to the commitment of Estonian authorities to align legislation regarding the 
implementation of the Framework Decision on criminal sanctions for counterfeiting.  

–  Conclusions  of  the  seminar  on  use  technical  and  personal  databases  in  combating  euro 

counterfeiting in Rome (Italy, UCIFM)  

This  seminar  took  place  29-30  October  in  Rome.  Focusing  on  technical 
databases,  UCIFM  concentrated  on  inviting  participants  from  the  Western 
Balkans. Italian, Spanish and French authorities cooperated quite effectively to 
demonstrate the workings and advantages of using technical databases related 
to counterfeiting. Databases function in the euro zone at national level, and that 
generally, their structure is similar. It has become apparent that the NCOs could 
benefit from a direct link to the Europol database.  
For  actions  during  2008,  UCIFM  is  considering  focusing  on  China,  given  the  upcoming 
Olympics.  

EN 

- 68 - 

   EN 

 
Responding  to  French  comments,  the  Chairman  noted  that  perhaps  the  Commission  would 
consider an obligation to create and maintain national databases, especially since it is a useful tool 
for monitoring and investigations.  

– Conclusions of the 5th seminar for Latin American countries in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia 

(Spain, BIBE)  

This event took place from 26-30 November and included representatives from police and Central 
Banks  from  eighteen  Latin  American  countries.  This  series  of  seminars  in  Colombia  has  been 
running since 2002 and has underpinned improved communication and cooperation between the 
EU, the United States and Latin America in efforts to prevent currency counterfeiting. This year 
the seminar concentrated on the practical dimension of conducting investigations. On the last day 
of the seminar the Colombian authorities described some of their operations which had been the 
focus  of  media  attention.  This  presentation  concentrated  on  a  number  of  large  seizures  of 
counterfeit  euros  and  dollars  and  resulted  in  the  destruction  of  printing  and  production  centres. 
Mention was also made of discoveries of large quantities of Spanish two-euro counterfeit coins, 
illustrating  the  extent  to  which  the  euro  has  spread,  and  the  attempts  counterfeit  it.  Participants 
reacted positively to the event and emphasised the relevance of the seminar given the increasingly 
frequent use of the euro.  

The  Chairman  noted  that  the  BIBE  actions  in  Colombia  have  resulted  in  concrete  structural 
reforms  in  Latin  America,  aiding  in  the  establishment  of  National  Central  Offices,  Colombia, 
Peru, Uruguay, for example. The overall level of awareness of the euro and of counterfeit euro has 
been  raised  considerably  throughout  the  region.  The  need  for  a  continued  effort  remains  with 
regard security characteristics, investigation practices and operational methods.  

– Conclusions of study visit for coin experts from Cyprus, Greece and Portugal in Pessac 
(OLAF/ETSC) This three day event included two police officers from Cyprus and Greece and one 
representative of the Central Bank of Portugal. The technical visit is to train technicians to carry 
out technical analysis and detailed classification of counterfeit coins. The participants seemed to 
benefit greatly from the explanations and practical exercises provided by ETSC. A basic training 
for technical analysis aimed at law enforcement officers exists and is also available and carried 
out, in general, once a year. The ETSC welcomes expressions of interest for such trainings, either 
specific or basic and will attempt to fulfil requests.  

– Conclusions of the ETSC workshop on authentication of euro coins and handling euro unfit for 
circulation in Mainz, Germany (OLAF/ETSC)  

From  23-25  October  a  workshop  on  euro  coin  authentication  took  place  in  Mainz, 
Germany. The aim of the workshop was to solicit feedback on the implementation of 
the 2005 Recommendation on authentication and handling of unfit euro coins with a 
view to reviewing the various provisions as well as to oversee a similar procedure for 
sorting  machine  testing.  During  the  workshop  four  different  sorting  machines 
produced by different manufacturers were tested. The conclusions were reassuring; 
comparing  the  results,  they  were  all  capable  of  detecting  counterfeits  with  similar 
precision. A list of tested machines is available to the CNACs and will be published. 
This  work  was  carried  out  in  cooperation  with  the  private  sector  to  encourage  the 
production  of  machines  which  are  able  to  detect  even  the  most  sophisticated 
counterfeits.  To  date  this  work  is  quite  encouraging.  Additionally,  the  group  went 
forward  with  the  revision  of  the  Recommendation  by  identifying  areas  in  need  of 

EN 

- 69 - 

   EN 

 
 
particular attention.  

– Conclusions of TAIEX seminar on operational issues related to money counterfeiting in Ankara, 
Turkey (OLAF) This seminar, financed by the TAIEX programme involved 120 Turkish police 
officers from the Turkish ‘KOM’ service focusing on financial crime. The focus of the seminar 
was on operational issues involving the counterfeiting of the euro and Turkish Lira; Member 
States, the Commission, the ECB and Europol all participated. The evaluation was favourable.  

– Prospects for seminar in Croatia (OLAF) OLAF will consider future actions with Europol 
following contacts with the Minister of Interior of Croatia. The Western Balkans is considered a 
very sensitive area for the threat of counterfeiting.  

– Workshop on judicial issues and criminal proceedings –state of play (OLAF)  

Mr. Kasimis presented a brief table indicating the progress made in establishing the foundations 
for  this  workshop.  The  Commission  issued  a  questionnaire  to  all  MS  in  October  2007.  The 
answers  to  this  questionnaire  will  provide  the  basis  for  discussion  and  topics  of  an  eventual 
workshop. The Commission noted that most MS replied, but in some cases the contact person 
was  lacking  or  the  questionnaire  had  only  brief  answers.  The  Commission  encouraged  all 
delegations to provide details of an appropriate contact person.  

Action: the Commission will resend its e-mail to NL and Finland.  

– European Counterfeit Currency Manual -state of play (OLAF)  

Basic Manual  

The Commission/OLAF has foreseen a commitment of 105.000€ for production and 
distribution  costs  under  the  Pericles  budget.  Pre-ordered  manuals  for  26  Member 
States amount to 415.000 units.  To date, Commission/OLAF has sent the following 
languages  to  the  printer  for  layout:    EN  (UK,  IE),  DE  (DE,  AT,  LX),  FR  (FR).  First 
versions of the lay-out were received. But technical problems due to the cover-page 
have  caused  some  unexpected  and  lengthy  delays.  ‘OK  to  print’  orders  have  been 
received  from  the  UK  and  Ireland.  Once  the  difficulties  with  the  cover-page  are 
resolved, other languages will be sent for lay-out and production.  

Experts Manual  

The Editorial Board requested that the Commission/OLAF assume the task of final editing and 
coordinating the lay-out of the contributions into a coherent Experts’ Manual. During the last 
meeting  of  the  Editorial  Board,  2  October  2007,  most  chapters  were  approved  in  terms  of 
content.  OLAF  has  begun  this  editing  and  work  on  is  ongoing.  OPSCE  will  provide  an 
estimate for production costs of the Experts’ Manual.  As a first run, we have estimated for 300 
EN, 100 DE and 100 FR versions. These will be produced in full-colour, A4 paper with a CD-
Rom annex. A preliminary budget of 250,000 has been foreseen.  

 Prospects for 2008 (roundtable)  

– Cyprus Staff Exchange – Cyprus will need to consider whether this can be carried out.  
– Cooperation in the fight against counterfeit currency (Turkey) Responding to a request from 
Turkey, this Commission initiative will be carried out with considerable involvement from 

EN 

- 70 - 

   EN 

 
 
Europol. A number of police forces within Turkey; it could be foreseen that MS make 
presentations on the communication and responsibilities between police offices at national level 
and the creation and functioning of National Central Offices.  

– Seminar in Croatia  

The Commission requests assistance with making appropriate contacts with Croatia. Europol, as 
the European Central Office is keen to participate in third countries and has permanent contacts 
with Croatia on the operational level. This event can be prepared jointly.  

The  Commission  noted  that  the  elections  have  stalled  preparations  for  this  event,  but  when  the 
time  is  appropriate,  contacts  will  be  resumed.  Perhaps  an  on-site  visit  can  be  carried  out  in 
cooperation with Europol.  

– Seminar in Montenegro The Commission would like to carry out a joint activity with Europol. 
Europol has recently participated in an awareness raising activity in conjunction with the anti-
money laundering programme and learned of the clear need for training and of the willingness on 
the part of the Montenegran authorities to support training on euro counterfeit prevention. The 
Commission would like to move rapidly on this and would like to support a preparatory visit.  

– Workshop on the authentication of euro coins  

Each area previously identified will be treated and a report submitted by April or May in order to 
streamline procedures for authenticating coins.  

Further Prospects 2008 (Roundtable)  

– Italy Italy will organise a seminar involving Malta and Cyprus in preparation for the upcoming 
adoption of the euro.  
– Germany  
BKA will hold a seminar on cooperation with print-shops; monitoring will be the 
theme. It will be planned for the second half 2008. The aim is a practical event 
planned for representatives of police, judiciary and relevant banks. The focus will be 
the production of banknotes. The idea is to establish new starting points for 
investigations from monitoring numbering and types of paper used, etc. The ECB 
welcomes this initiative.  
BLKA  will  organise  the  6
Euro  South-East  Conference  together  with  Cypriot  colleagues  in 
Cyprus during the second half of 2008. It will involve representatives of police, judiciary, CNACs 
and  NACs;  around  twenty  countries  are  expected  to  attend.  The  focus  will  be  the  means  of 
production of counterfeits and how correct analysis, research and technical interpretation can lead 
to  a  good  investigation.  This  is  especially  important  for  prosecutors  to  understand  because  it 
occurs that improper decisions are made based on a lack of knowledge of the topic.  

th 

– France  

France will consider opportunities to conduct an action in China perhaps in cooperation with Italy. 
The  Euro-Carribean  seminar  will  take  place  in  January.  This  is  the  first  attempt  to  conduct  an 
awareness raising activity in this region. It will be conducted with the support of the Netherlands 
and our British colleagues who are widely present in the region.  

France  also  voiced  the  intention  to  produce  a  police  kit  to  detect  counterfeit  euro  coins  in 
collaboration  with  industry.  The  Chairman  noted  that  Pericles  could  finance  conception  work, 

EN 

- 71 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
study and prototype, but not production of such a kit.  

The  Chairman  noted  the  various  expressions  of  interest  regarding  counterfeiting  in  China  and 
added  that  we  should  study  the  need  for  increased  attention.  Germany  added  that  the  BKA  has 
liaison offices in China and to date has only registered one case of counterfeiting of the euro. It 
noted that China applies the death penalty for counterfeiting.  

– Spain  

Spain will organise the 6th seminar in Cartegena, Colombia in October 2008 as a continuation of 
its series of cooperation with Latin America.  

3. Legislative issues  

 Update on the proposal for modification of Council Regulation 1338/2001  

The Chairman presented a working document concerning the Commission’s proposal 
for  a  modification  of  this  Council  Regulation  on  17  September  2008.  The 
modifications  proposed  aim  to  ensure  that  euro  banknotes  be  authenticated  in  all 
countries where it circulates within the EU. This proposal still has to be approved by 
the Council. It was noted, however that concerns have been voiced by non-euro zone 
countries that measures to ensure authentication could incur considerable costs. The 
Czech  Republic  requested  that  the  last  sentence  of  the  second  paragraph  be 
deleted,  the  sentence  referred  to  ‘Thus…is  not  founded.’  He  noted  that  the  euro  is 
protected  according  to  the  Geneva  Convention  and  according  to  Regulation  1339 
and  that  employees  of  commercial  banks  and  exchange  offices  are  trained  for  the 
recognition  of  counterfeit  euro.  It  also  questions  the  effectiveness  of  these 
modifications.  Discussion  showed  a  possibility  for  non-euro  area  MS  to  consider 
practical ways of complying with the obligation to ensure authenticity, in line with the 
circulation of the euro in these countries.  
The  ECB  requested  that  such  documents  be  circulated  prior  to  meetings  to  allow  for  reflection. 
The  ECB  questions  whether  modifications  should  be  made  and  whether  the  utility  of  such 
changes has been established. It requested that the last paragraph of the introductory paragraph be 
deleted  ‘This  is  compounded…Member  States.”  It  noted  the  general  agreement  that  the  euro 
should  be  protected;  however,  a  qualitative  difference  must  be  made  according  to  the  notion  of 
legal  tender  in  euro  zone  and  non-euro  zone  countries.  In  non-euro  zone  countries  such  as  the 
Czech Republic, the National Bank does not have the information to allow it to authenticate the 
euro, noting as well that the Czech Republic need not authenticate euros because it is not obliged 
to accept euro as payment. Accordingly, the ECB stated that the euro should not be authenticated 
in the countries outside the eurosystem.  

The ECB further disagreed with paragraph 3 “these articles establish a dynamic evolution of the 
euro…”, stating the Treaty of Lisbon demonstrates a clear retrench, the euro is the single currency 
of the Euro Monetary Union, not the European Union. It further outlined that the protection of the 
euro  is  ensured  through  the  protocols  of  the  Geneva  Convention,  the  free  movement  of 
counterfeits, cooperation between judicial and police authorities and through training. The notion 
of legal tender precludes more stringent measures such as authentication. Finally, the ECB wanted 
to  stress  that  it  does  not  recommend  machines  for  verification  and  requested  that  the  last 
paragraph be revised.  

EN 

- 72 - 

   EN 

 
 Prospects for publication of updated list of national Competent Authorities according to art. 2 of 

Regulation 1338/2001  

The  Commission  would  like  to  ensure  the  most  complete  details  and  will  resend  the  request  to 
Member States.  

4. Status of euro counterfeits (ECB, OLAF/ETSC)  

The  ECB  noted  that  the  trends  have  remained  remarkably  stable,  though  increasing  slightly. 
50,000 units per month has been typical for four years. The tables distributed indicate counterfeits 
by country and denomination. The ECB will issue its press release on 10 January. Certain waves 
seen  in  the  charts  are  accounted  for  by  the  rise  and  fall  of  particular  classes.  Print  shops  are 
dismantled, stop production, then reappear and commence production this was true of the 20P2.  

The ETSC noted an increasing amount of counterfeit coins throughout 2007. Over 180,000 units 
will  be  seized  in  2007.  The  2€  remains  the  most  common  counterfeit.    Since  the  authentication 
procedures which began in mid-2005 there has been a pronounced increase in the identification of 
counterfeit coins especially in Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands and more recently France. The 
Commission would like to see better implementation by Spain.  

France  requested  that  information  regarding  the  capacities  of  the  machines  be  diffused.  The 
CNACs want to know that sorting machines can detect even the most sophisticated variants. The 
Commission noted this and reiterated that this capability is very recent and is a result of the work 
conducted at Mainz.  

The BLKA requested that information regarding the number of seizures and confiscations also be 
made available to the group in order to provide a more complete overview of the counterfeiting 
situation. Europol stated that it could provide this at the next meeting.  

5. Miscellaneous  

 Communication among ECEG members (CIRCA forum) – state of play Ms. Skocinska reported 
that documents related to the ECEG have been uploaded to the Circa forum, and that an 
explanatory e-mail will be sent to explain access to members.  

• 

ECEG meetings for 2008: 13/03; 4/07 to be reconsidered, 20/11  

EN 

- 73 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 

- 74 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI 

Brussels, 04

th 

May 2011 OLAF/C5/  

THE PROTECTION OF EURO COINS IN 2010  

EN 

- 75 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  

1. Introduction 3  

2. Situation with regard to counterfeit euro coins 3  

2.1 Counterfeit coins seized in circulation 3  

2.2 Counterfeit coins seized before circulation 5  

2.3 Common classes (stamped counterfeit coins) 6  

2.4 Local classes (cast counterfeit coins) 9  

3. Regular activities of the ETSC 9  

3.1 Counterfeit Coin Experts Group (CCEG) 9  

3.2 Other groups 10  

4. Specific initiatives concerning the protection of euro coins 11  

4.1 Pericles actions for the protection of euro coins 11  

4.2 Coin-related legislative developments 12  

4.3 Cooperation with third countries 12  

4.4 Other potential threats to euro coins 12  

5. Conclusions 14  

EN 

- 76 - 

   EN 

 
 
1. INTRODUCTION  

This report presents the activities of the European Technical & Scientific Centre (ETSC) and of 
the situation as regards coin counterfeiting.  

The  report  is  structured  according  to  the  above-mentioned  double  requirement.  Section  2  gives 
first  a  detailed  overview  of  the  evolution  of  euro  coin  counterfeiting  in  2010.  Sections  3  and  4 
then present the regular and specific activities that the ETSC has carried out in 2010 in order to 
reinforce the protection of euro coins.  

2. SITUATION WITH REGARD TO COUNTERFEIT EURO COINS  

A distinction that has to be made on counterfeit euro coins between those detected in circulation 
and those seized before circulation. The counterfeit coins detected before circulation are usually 
seized  by  police  before  causing  financial  damage,  whereas  the  counterfeit  coins  detected  in 
circulation are generally detected in coin sorting centres, operated by National Central Banks or 
private sector CIT (cash-in-transit) companies.  

2.1 Counterfeit coins seized in circulation  

The  total  number  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  removed  from  circulation  in  2010  reached  186 
000, an increase of about 8% from 2009.  

The breakdown by denomination of counterfeits found in circulation for the last four years is 
shown below:  

1-euro 
31 000 
2010  
26 500 
2009  
24 500 
2008  
16 200 
2007  
* The figures comprise both stamped counterfeits (common classes) and cast counterfeits (local 
classes).  

50-cent  
25 100  
18 100  
16 600  
13 000  

2-euro 
129 700 
127 500 
154 800 
181 900 

Total  
185 800  
172 100  
195 900  
211 100  

When compared to 2009, among the 3 highest coin denominations, the number of 2-euro 
counterfeits  increased  by  over  2%.  Is  spite  of  rapid  increase  in  numbers  of  counterfeit 
coins of 50-cent and 1-euro (38% and 16% respectively), 2-euro remains by far the most 
counterfeited  euro  coin,  constituting  85%  in  value  terms.  Overall,  nearly  1.150.000 
counterfeit euro coins have been removed from  circulation since the introduction of the 
euro coins in 2002.  

EN 

- 77 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The  evolution  since  the  introduction  of  euro  coins  in  2002  is  given  in  the  following 
chart:  

Progress  shown  in  removing  counterfeit  euro  coins  from  circulation  reflects  the 
efforts  made  by  Member  States  to  authenticate  euro  coins.  To  assist  in  these 
efforts,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  the  Regulation  No 
the 
1210/2010  of  15  December  2010
authentication of euro coins. This Regulation was published on 15 December 2010 
and  sets  out  the  rules  for  financial  institutions  to  ensure  that  all  euro  coins  which 
they put back into circulation are genuine.  

the  Commission  on 

proposed  by 

1 

In  2010,  countries  with  the  highest  level  of  detected  counterfeits  (Germany  and 
France) , registered a slight fall in quantities. At the same time, countries where the 
stricter  controls  had  been  imposed  (Portugal,  Spain,  Italy)  showed  a  sharp  rise  in 
quantities.  

Counterfeit  euro  coins  were  found  in  all  Member  States  of  the  euro  area  in  2010, 
with the exception of Cyprus. Germany remains the country where most counterfeit 
coins  are  found.  Its  share  had  come  down  the  last  years  to  36%  due  to  progress 
made in other countries. Small numbers of counterfeit euro coins were also detected 
in Member States which do not belong to the euro area and third countries.  

Overall, the number of counterfeit coins detected in circulation in 2010 remains very 
small  by  comparison  to  the  total  of  92  billion  genuine  euro  coins  in  circulation 
including 16 billion of the three highest denominations.  

1 

Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Commission, Parliament and of 
the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and 

EN 

- 78 - 

   EN 

 
 
handling of euro coins unfit for circulation  

EN 

- 79 - 

   EN 

 
2.2 Counterfeit coins seized before circulation  

In  addition  to  the  counterfeit  euro  coins  removed  from  circulation,  counterfeits  are  regularly 
seized  before  they  enter  into  circulation,  mainly  in  the  framework  of  police  operations  and 
investigations.  These  activities  include  dismantling  of  clandestine  mints,  but  also  seizures  of 
significant  quantities  from  individuals,  that  might,  in  one  way  or  another,  be  involved  in  the 
distribution  of  counterfeit  coins.  These  seizures  occur  irregularly  therefore  the  number  of 
counterfeits seized before circulation varies significantly from year to year.  

The number of counterfeit coins seized before circulation in 2010 was under 600. The breakdown 
per  denomination  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  found  before  circulation  for  the  last  four  years  is 
shown below:  

1-euro 
14 
2010  
2 579 
2009  
2 
2008  
66 700 
2007  
* The figures comprise both stamped counterfeits (common classes) and cast counterfeits (local 
classes).  

50-cent  
0  
5  
1  
8  

2-euro 
555 
8 477 
11 200 
23 200 

Total  
571  
11 061  
11 203  
89 908  

For  the  second  consecutive  year  no  illegal  mint  has  been  dismantled  by  law 
enforcement, neither large seizures were made. Overall, about 290.000 counterfeit euro 
coins have been seized before circulation since 2002.  

The development of the number of counterfeit coins detected before circulation since the 
introduction of euro coins in 2002 is presented in the following chart:  

EN 

- 80 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3 Common classes (stamped counterfeit coins)  

Counterfeit  coins  detected  in  the  Member  States  are  analysed  by  the  Coin  National  Analysis 
Centres  (CNACs).  They  are  classified  by  reference  to  already  identified  counterfeit  types. 
Counterfeits that cannot be classified to one of the already identified types are sent to the ETSC in 
order to create a new class or variant.  

A distinction is made between common classes and local classes. Local classes correspond to cast 
counterfeit coins, usually produced in smaller quantities. These are dealt within the next section.  

Common classes are counterfeits made with a stamping process, similar to the one used in official 
minting.  With  such  processes,  larger  amounts  of  counterfeits  can  be  produced  and  this  is  the 
reason  for  which  a  monitoring  on  the  EU  level  has  been  applied.  Stamped  classes  usually  bear 
defects which are characteristic of the tools used to produce them. Stamped counterfeit coins are 
classified  into  classes  and  variants  according  to  these  defects,  because  similar  defects  may 
indicate that the counterfeits have been produced by the same tools, indicating possibly the same 
illegal  mint.  New  variants  of  classes  indicate  a  development  in  production  tools.  Variants 
therefore provide useful indications of the development in counterfeiting activity.  

EN 

- 81 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
2.3.1 Overall analysis  

Creation of common classes  

The total number of families of counterfeits (common classes) created by the ETSC continued to 
rise in 2010, indicating a potential increase in the number of illegal mints producing counterfeit 
euro coins. In particular, 11 common classes were created in 2010, the lowest number since 2002, 
which reflects the fact that most of the classes that had been created are still in circulation and the 
efficient  deterring  does  not  “encourage”  the  creation  of  the  new  mints  or  tools.  The  number  of 
common classes created by the ETSC each year since the introduction of euro coins is indicated in 
the table below:  

2002  
2003  
2004  
2005  
2006  
2007  
2008  
2009  
2010  
TOTAL  

Number of newly identified common classes  
2-euro    
1-euro 
50-cent 
5    
5 
1 
5    
4 
6 
8    
3 
11 
6    
3 
9 
3    
5 
6 
2    
6 
7 
4    
2 
6 
8    
5 
3 
2    
3 
6 
43    
36 
55 

TOTAL 
11 
15 
22 
18 
14 
15 
12 
16 
11 
134 

The total number of classes has now risen to 134. Despite the large number of common 
classes,  the  bulk  of  counterfeit  coins  is  still  concentrated.  In  particular,  one  common 
class  (2-euro  class  6)  represented  in  2010  more  than  31%  of  the  total  number  of 
registered 2-euro counterfeits (a drop from 41% in 2009). For the 50cent denomination, 
almost  half  of  the  counterfeits  found  in  circulation  belongs  to  a  single  class  (common 
class  1).  In  total,  six  classes  are  responsible  for  around  half  of  the  total  number  of 
counterfeits found in circulation. Except for the 50-cent common class 1, no illegal mint 
has been dismantled for any of those classes.  

Of the total number of classes, 17 were proven to be connected to the clandestine mints 
that have been dismantled until now. For the remaining classes, evidence was found for 
seven  classes,  following  their  creation,  demonstrating  that  they  are  linked  to  another 
class. This leads to the conclusion that there are illegal mints that are producing or have 
produced  up  to  111  classes  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  and  that  remain  undiscovered  to 
date.  

EN 

- 82 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE  (OLAF) 

Operational & Policy Support  
EURO Protection; Hercule & Pericles Programmes 

NOTE TO FILE  

Subject: 

Pericles programme- Workshop “How to Apply and Report under 
Pericles”, 8 June 2011, Brussels  

OBJECTIVES 
The mid-term evaluation of the Pericles Programme25 which was carried out during the last at 
the end of 2010, revealed a need for more clarity and simplification with respect to procedures 
and  rules  for  submitting  applications  and  preparing  final  financial  reports  for  Pericles.  The 
above-mentioned  seminar  was  geared  for  experts  from  Member  States  dealing  with  the 
preparation of Pericles grant applications and final financial reports.  

The experts, at the 56th Meeting of the "Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group", last 22 March, 
welcomed  the  idea  of  organising  a  specific  seminar  on  this  issue.  A  similar  workshop  took 
place  in  2006  to  explain  the  new  rules  of  Pericles  2007-2013,  it  was  considered  useful  and 
successful. Since 2006, a high turnover of staff within the National Competent Authorities has 
had an impact on the quality of Pericles applications and of the final financial report. Member 
States  voiced  eagerness  for  clarification  and  for  closer  contact  especially  with  the  financial 
unit.   

The main objectives of the seminar were: 

- to facilitate the preparation of Pericles applications in order to further increase the quality of 
the implementation, 

25 see note No ARES(2011) 331408 of 25/03/2011 

EN 

- 83 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- to avoid misunderstandings regarding financial issues, and 

-  to  further  improve  the  effective  cooperation  between  OLAF  and  Competent  National 
Authorities from Member States with respect to the management of Pericles. 

CONDUCT OF THE ACTION 
Unit  C5  presented  four  presentations,  simulating  applications  of  a  staff  exchange  and  an 
international seminar, and the final technical report. Unit D6 focused on the contents of the 
grant  agreement,  eligible  costs  and  final  financial  report26.  Budget  issues  were  taken  up 
throughout the seminar. Question and answer periods were lively and added to a productive 
information exchange. The content of the presentations and concrete examples were prepared 
based on frequently seen errors, and were also geared to address frequently asked questions 
by Member States. 

EVALUATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS  
43 participants (representatives from Member States’ Competent National Authorities – list 
attached) attended.  Participants overwhelmingly reported high satisfaction, most indicated 
‘very good’ and three participants indicated ‘good’ regarding content, documentation and 
method of answering questions. Quite a few evaluations indicated that the workshop was 
better than expected.  
Below is a chart of the responses of questions 1-8. 

   Insufficient 

   Sufficient 

       Good 

Very good 

1.  Welcome  

2.  General organisation 

3.  Accommodation 

4.  Food and beverages 

5.  Language facilities 

6.  Relevance 

of 

the 

subject matter 

7.  Documentation 

8.  Overall  impression  of 

the seminar 

TOTAL: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

7 

10 

9 

16 

8 

4 

6 

8 

31 

31 

27 

18 

30 

34 

32 

30 

58 

230 

CONCLUSIONS 
Four issues emerged for further consideration:  

26 See agenda in attachment 

EN 

- 84 - 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

OLAF  will  verify  the  daily  allowance  limits  indicated  in  the  Call  for  Proposals  in 
order to possibly update them. 

In order to speed up and simplify the management of applications, OLAF will require 
electronic versions of applications to be sent on the date of the postal deadline. 

The issue of VAT tax needs to be reworded in the call. A public body must provide 
proof that it cannot recuperate VAT in order to request it in the budget. 

The Final Financial excel-sheet prepared by D6 will be posted on the internet as soon 
as approval is had. 

Overall, the Pericles event was carried out successfully, the relevant goals completely 
achieved and its results were in line with the Pericles criteria and strategy.  

Kristin Ennis 

EN 

- 85 - 

   EN