REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2014/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: activity report, application of EU law, counterfeiting, euro, fight against crime, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, monetary union, penalty

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 9.7.2019  COM(2019) 311 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2014/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA   
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Background 

Directive  2014/62/EU 1 (hereafter  the  'Directive')  on  the  protection  of  the  euro  and  other 
currencies  against  counterfeiting  by  criminal  law,  was  adopted  on  15  May  2014.  Member 
States  had  to  bring  into  force  the  necessary  national  measures  in  order  to  comply  with  the 
Directive by 23 May 2016.   

The  Directive  was  adopted  under  Article  83(1)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, which provides the legal basis for establishing 'minimum rules concerning 
the  definition  of  criminal  offences  and  sanctions  in  the  areas  of  particularly  serious  crime 
with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a 
special need to combat them on a common basis'.  

The  Directive  replaces  Council  Framework  Decision  2000/383/JHA 2  (hereafter  the 
'Framework  Decision')  on  increasing  protection  by  criminal  penalties  and  other  sanctions 
against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro.  

The  Framework  Decision  aimed  at  supplementing,  on  the  territory  of  the  European  Union, 
the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1929. The Geneva Convention lays down rules to 
ensure  that  severe  criminal  penalties  and  other  sanctions  can  be  imposed  for  counterfeiting 
offences and also contains rules on jurisdiction and cooperation. Following the ratification of 
the  Geneva  Convention  agreed  on  20  April  1929,  a  certain  degree  of  approximation  of 
national legislation against counterfeiting of currency has since taken place.  

1.2.  Purpose and main elements of the Directive 

The  Directive  supplements  and  facilitates  the  application  of  the  Geneva  Convention  by  the 
Member  States  whereas  it  builds  on  and  updates  the  Framework  Decision  with  further 
provisions on the level of sanctions, on investigative tools and on the analysis, identification 
and detection of counterfeit euro notes and coins during judicial proceedings.  

Denmark and the United Kingdom did not take part in the adoption and are not subject to the 
application of the Directive, according to Protocol 22 and 21 respectively. Ireland did opt in 
to the Directive.  

The Directive is applicable not only to the euro but also to other currencies, whereas some of 
its elements are only applicable to the euro (Article 8(2) and Article 10).  

The main elements of the Directive are: 

1 OJ L151, 21.5.2014, p. 1. 
2 OJ L140, 14.6.2000, p. 1.  

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 

 

 
 

 

the  criminalisation  of  basically  three  types  of  conduct,  namely  the  ‘production’, 
‘distribution’  and    ‘preparatory  offences’,  like  the  production  of  security  features 
(Article 3);  
the provisions on penalties introducing a maximum sanction of at least five years for 
distribution and maximum sanction of at least eight years for production of counterfeit 
currency (Article 5); 
the principle of territoriality and the extraterritorial jurisdiction (Article 8); 
the  provision  obliging  Member  States  to  provide  for  the  possibility  to  use  certain 
investigative tools (Article 9); 
the  provision  obliging  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the  National  Analysis  Centres 
(NACs)  and  the  Coin  National  Analysis  Centres  (CNACs)  can  analyse  euro 
counterfeits  also  during  on-going  judicial  proceedings  for  the  purpose  of  detecting 
further counterfeits (Article 10).  

1.3.  Scope of the report 

The  report  assesses  the  application  of  the  Directive  in  accordance  with  Article 12  of  the 
Directive  which  provides  that  the  Commission  shall  submit  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken 
the necessary measures in order to comply with the Directive. 

The  description  and  analysis  in  this  report  are  primarily  based  on  the  information  that 
Member  States  provided  to  the  Commission  through  the  notification  of  national  measures 
transposing the Directive3.  

The  report  focuses  on  the  measures  Member  States  have  taken  so  far  to  implement  the 
Directive  through  a  transposition  in  their  national  law.  It  assesses  whether  Member  States 
have implemented the Directive within the given timeframe, and whether national legislation 
achieves the objectives and fulfils the requirements of the Directive. 

At  the  time  of  drafting  this  report,  all  Member  States  have  notified  transposition  except 
Ireland. 

2.  GENERAL ASSESSMENT 

The  Commission’s  main  objective  is  to  ensure  that  all  Member  States  transpose  the 
requirements  of  the  Directive  in  their  national  law  to  guarantee  that  effective  and  efficient 

3 Following  the  transposition  deadline  of  23  May  2016,  there  were  nine  Member  States  that  had  either  not 
communicated  any  transposition  measures  or  that  had  communicated  only  partial  transposition.  Thus,  the 
Commission sent to these Member States Letters of Formal Notice for either non-communication or for partial 
communication.  

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
criminal  law  measures  protect  the  euro  and  any  other  currency  whose  circulation  is  legally 
authorised in an appropriate way in all Member States.  

The Commission started to assess the compliance of national measures with the Directive as 
soon as Member States communicated them.  

The majority of the Member States transposed in a conforming manner Article 3 and 4 of the 
Directive  on  criminalisation  of  certain  offences,  the  provisions  of  Article  5  on  penalties 
introducing a maximum sanction of at least five years for distribution and maximum sanction 
of  at  least  eight  years  for  production  of  counterfeit  currency  as  well  as  the  provision  of 
Article  9  obliging  Member  States  to  provide  for  the  possibility  to  use  certain  investigative 
tools.  

However, a number of recurrent transposition issues were noted: 

  With respect to Article 3(1)(d) of the Directive on preparatory offences, preparatory 
offences were not transposed into national law as self-standing (sui generis) offences. 
Instead,  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  preparatory  offences  were  regarded  as 
attempted production offences. This would imply the intent to commit the production 
offence  as  an  additional  constituent  element  of  the  preparatory  offences.  The 
Directive does however, not require this element.  

  Another  -  less  frequent  but  important  -  recurrent  issue  occurs  with  respect  to  the 
transposition  of  Article  5  of  the  Directive  on  minimum  maximum  sanctions  for  the 
offences defined in Articles 3 and 4. Some Member States have established – contrary 
to  the Directive  –  separate categories of minor/petty/or non-aggravated forms  of the 
offences  defined  under  Articles  3  and  4  of  the  Directive,  where  penalties  remained 
below the level required by the Directive.  

  Further,  a  large  majority  of  the  Member  States  whose  currency  is  the  euro  did  not 
transpose Article 8(2)(b) of the Directive requiring Member States whose currency is 
the  euro  to  establish  jurisdiction  in  cases  where  the  counterfeit  euro  notes  or  coins 
were  detected  on  their  territory,  but  the  offences  defined  in  Articles  3  and  4  are 
committed outside their territory.  

  Further, a large majority of the Member States did not adequately transpose Article 10 
of  the  Directive  on  transmission  of  seized  counterfeit  currency  to  the  National 
Analysis  Centre  (NAC)/Coin  National  Analysis  Centre  (CNAC).  In  particular,  the 
delays for the transmission of counterfeit samples, the identification of the authority 
obliged to transmit them, and the purpose of the transmission (to analyse, identify and 
detect further counterfeit currency) were often not properly transposed.  

  Article  11  of  the  Directive,  on  statistics,  was  in  almost  all  Member  States  not 

transposed at all; 

Given the above mentioned issues of compliance and the ones mentioned under section 3, the 
Commission  will  take  every  appropriate  measure,  including  where  necessary  initiating 

3 

 
 
 
infringement  proceedings  pursuant  to  Article  258  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, to ensure conformity with the Directive throughout the European Union. 

In section 3, there is an assessment with regard to transposition issues solely for the elements 
of the provision itself. Indirect transposition issues occurring with regard to cross-referenced 
provisions, like the reference in Articles 4 and 5 to Article 3, are dealt with under the cross-
referenced provisions. 

3.  SPECIFIC POINTS OF ASSESSMENT 

3.1.  Definitions (Article 2) 

Article 2 defines the terms ‘currency’ and ‘legal person’ for the purposes of the Directive. All 
Member States are conforming to the definitions of these terms. Where explicit definitions do 
not  exist in  national  law, the term  “currency” or “money” is  used in  national  legislation. A 
number of Member States use the term “money” instead of “currency”. Similarly, with regard 
to the term “legal person” this concept exists in all Member States and most Member States’ 
national  law define the term explicitly. A majority of the Member States explicitly exclude 
states, public bodies in the exercise of State authority and public international organisations 
from the definition of a “legal person”, in conformity with the Directive.   

3.2.  Offences (Article 3) 

Article  3  obliges  Member  States  to  ensure  the  criminalisation  of  the  three  main  types  of 
offences, if committed intentionally:  

1)  ‘Production’  offences:  Article  3(1)(a)  the  fraudulent  making  of  currency  and  the 

fraudulent altering of currency. 

2)  ‘Distribution’ offences: Article 3(1)(b) the fraudulent uttering of counterfeit currency; 
and (c) the import, export, transport, receiving or obtaining, with regard to counterfeit 
currency  committed  with  a  view  to  uttering  the  same  and  with  knowledge  that  it  is 
counterfeit. 

3)  ‘Preparatory’ offences:  Article 3(1)(d) making, receiving, obtaining or possession of 
(i) means peculiarly adapted for the counterfeiting or altering of currency (ii) security 
features. 

All  Member  States’  national  law  demands  intent  for  the  commitment  of  a  crime  under  the 
Directive.  The  Directive  does  not  require  Member  States  to  render  punishable  negligent 
forms  of  the  offences.  No  Member  State’s  national  law  includes  negligent  forms  of  the 
offences described under the Directive.   

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.1.  Production offences — Article 3(1)(a) 

Article 3(1)(a) stipulates that the fraudulent making or altering of currency, whatever means 
are employed, is punishable as a criminal offence.  

The majority of the Member States transposed this provision in a conforming manner. Most 
Member States did not explicitly transpose the wording of the Directive: for the first element, 
“making”  the  following  synonyms  were  used:  forges,  counterfeits,  draws  false  currency, 
produces, imitates and reproduces. The element “altering” was in some cases transposed as: 
falsifies, forges, counterfeits. In some cases, only one general term was used comprising both 
actions such as counterfeiting, manufacturing.  

Some Member States added an element  of direct intent  for further action to  the  constituent 
elements  of  the  national  criminal  act.  These  Member  State  demand  -  next  to  the 
counterfeiting of currency -  the intent of “putting the counterfeit currency into circulation as 
real  and  unaltered”,  “uttering  (the  counterfeit  currency)  as  genuine  or  valid”,  “passing  it  as 
legal tender”, “uttering (the counterfeit currency)”, “using those as seemingly legitimate and 
authentic”, “putting it in circulation” and “putting into circulation”. 

Two  transposition  issues  have  been  identified:  one  Member  State  only  criminalised  large-
scale  values  of  counterfeit  currency  (a  value  of  10  times  more  than  the  monthly  minimum 
wage in that Member State). Another Member State only criminalised the altering of currency 
where this results in a higher value.  

3.2.2.  Distribution offences — Article 3(1)(b) 

Pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) the fraudulent uttering of counterfeit currency is punishable as a 
criminal offence if committed intentionally. 

The large majority of the Member States have transposed this provision of the Directive. In 
many Member States, the terminology used in the transposing laws slightly differs from the 
Directive: instead of “uttering” frequently, the term “putting” or “bringing into circulation” is 
used.  Other  Member  States  used  the  terms  “deals  with”  and  “distributes”,  “transfer”, 
“distribute” or “use”.  

Transposition issues occur in two Member States: one Member State limits criminalisation to 
cases where the counterfeit currency that is put into circulation and the perpetrator knows he 
obtained counterfeit currency before putting it in circulation. This is an additional condition 
limiting  the  scope  of  the  provision  that  can  also  not  be  justified  as  being  covered  by  the 
option under Article 5(5).  In another Member State, criminalisation is  conditional upon the 
value of distributed counterfeits that must amount to at least 10 minimum salaries. 

5 

 
 
 
 
3.2.3.  Distribution offences — Article 3(1)(c) 

Pursuant to Article 3(1)(c) the import, export, transport, receiving or obtaining of counterfeit 
currency  with  a  view  to  uttering  the  same  and  with  knowledge  that  it  is  counterfeit,  is 
punishable as a criminal offence if committed intentionally. 

The large majority of the Member States transposed this provision. The many elements of the 
provision  are  not  always  literally  or  explicitly  transposed.  Instead,  in  many  instances, 
different language is used or broader terminology comprising several of the individual actions 
described in the Directive.  

Issues  of  conformity  arise  in  three  Member  States  where  the  elements  of  import,  export, 
receiving and obtaining are not covered at all.  

The requirement of committing ‘with the knowledge that it is counterfeit’ has been explicitly 
transposed in two Member States. In the other Member States this element is inferred by the 
broader context taking account also the general provisions of national penal law.   

3.2.4.  Preparatory offences — Article 3(1)(d) 

Pursuant  to  Article  3(1)(d)  the  fraudulent  making,  receiving,  obtaining  or  possession  of  (i) 
instruments,  articles,  computer  programs  and  data,  and  any  other  means  peculiarly  adapted 
for  the  counterfeiting  or  altering  of  currency;  (ii)  or  security  features,  such  as  holograms, 
watermarks or other components of currency which serve to protect against counterfeiting, is 
punishable as a criminal offence if committed intentionally. 

The Directive requires the preparatory offences under Article 3(1)(d) to be transposed as self-
standing  offences,  which  means  they  cannot  be  covered  by  a  general  provision  on  aiding, 
abetting, attempt or incitement or by reference to the main offences laid down in Article 3 of 
the Directive. Twelve Member States did not transpose any of the offences listed in Article 
3(1)(d)  of  the  Directive  as  self-standing  offences,  but  require  that  the  main  offences  of 
production and distribution laid down in Article 3 are also committed. One Member State did 
not transpose Article 3(1)(d) at all.  

With  regard  to  the  “fraudulent  making,  receiving,  obtaining  or  possession”,  issues  occur  in 
two  Member  States  as  in  one  case,  the  elements  “receiving  and  obtaining”  are  not  fully 
covered by the  term  “procuring  for oneself” and in  the second case, these elements  are not 
mentioned at all in the national legislation and could not be inferred.  

Besides  the  issue  of  not  having  transposed  Article  3(1)(d)  of  the  Directive  as  self-standing 
offences, some Member States have further issues with regard to indent (i) of Article 3(1)(d). 

3.2.5.  Use of legal facilities - Article 3(2) 

Pursuant to Article 3(2) the criminal liability of conduct as referred to under Article 3(1)(a), 
(b),  (c)  is  extended  to  cases  where  legal  facilities  or  materials  are  used  to  manufacture 
currency, but rights or conditions under which competent authorities may issue notes or coins 
have been violated. 

6 

 
 
 
While  a  majority  of  the  Member  States  transposed  this  provision,  mostly  explicitly,  four 
Member States did not transpose this provision. A number of other Member States’ national 
transposition measures lack clarity as no reference is made to the violation of the rights or the 
conditions under which competent authorities may issue notes or coins or without reference 
to all conduct specified in Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Directive. Some Member States – 
contrary  to  the  Directive  –  limit  criminal  liability  to  the  conduct  of  persons  who  are 
authorised to produce legal currency.  

3.2.6.  Not yet issued notes and coins - Article 3(3) 

Under Article 3(3) all forms of conduct specified in Article 3(1) and (2) of the Directive shall 
be  also  punishable  with  regard  to  notes  and  coins  not  yet  issued,  but  designated  for 
circulation as legal tender. 

The majority of the Member States transposed this provision, mostly explicitly. Five Member 
States did not transpose this provision at all.  

3.3.  Incitement, aiding, abetting, attempt (Article 4) 

Article 4(1) stipulates to criminalise incitement, aiding and abetting in relation to all offences 
under Article 3 of the Directive.  

Pursuant to Article 4(2) attempt shall also be punishable as a criminal offence but only with 
regard to production and distribution offences, thus not for preparatory offences.  

The majority of the Member States’ general part provisions of their respective criminal codes 
comply  with  these  requirements.  Few  Member  States  have  inserted  a  specific  reference  to 
criminalise attempt under every individual offence as described under the Directive.  

3.4.  Sanctions for natural persons (Article 5) 

Article  5(1)  obliges  Member  States  to  ensure  effective,  appropriate  and  dissuasive  criminal 
sanctions on all forms of the offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive. 

Under  Article  5(2),  the  offences  referred  to  in  point  (d)  of  Article  3(1)  (preparatory 
offences), in Article 3(2) and in Article 3(3) in relation to point (d) of Article 3(1), shall be 
punishable by a maximum sanction which provides for imprisonment. 

Under Article 5(3), the offences referred to in point (a) of Article 3(1) (production offences)  
and  in  Article  3(3)  in  relation  to  conduct  referred  to  in  point  (a)  of  Article  3(1)  shall  be 
punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years. 

Under Article 5(4), the offences referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) (distribution 
offences)  and  in  Article  3(3)  in  relation  to  conduct  referred  to  in  points  (b)  and  (c)  of 
Article 3(1) shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
3.4.1.  Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions - Article 5(1) 

Compliance with Article 5(1) was measured against:  

a)  the level  of sanctions  of equivalent  criminal  offences such as counterfeiting of non-

cash means of payment or money laundering; 

b)  other types of offences in the respective national law that provide for the same level 

of sanctions. 

All Member States were in line with these general evaluation criteria. Effective, proportionate 
and dissuasive sanctions under the Directive require, however, also compliance with the level 
of sanctions as defined under Articles 5(2) to (4).  

3.4.2.  Maximum sanction of imprisonment for preparatory offences - Article 5(2) 

Almost all Member States provided for imprisonment as a sanction for preparatory offences.  

3.4.3.  Minimum maximum sanction of eight years - Article 5(3) 

With  regard  to  Article  5(3)  –  (production  offences),  thirteen  Member  States  have  correctly 
transposed the Directive, i.e. these Member States have provided for a maximum term of at 
least eight years of imprisonment for some of the cases set out by the Directive in the national 
law.  

Transposition issues occur in a number of Member States providing for a maximum sanction 
of at least eight years only for “severe” forms of the production offence and/or providing for 
maximum  sanctions  below  eight  years  for  “minor”  cases  and/or  for  cases  where  mitigating 
circumstances  apply.  Definitions  of  what  is  a  “severe”  or  a  “minor”  case  respectively  in 
which  case  mitigating  circumstances  apply,  exist  in  some  of  these  Member  States,  and  in 
others not. In any event, the Directive does not restrict the maximum sanction of eight years 
to only certain (severe or not minor) categories of the offences referred to in Article 5(3). 

3.4.4.  Minimum maximum sanction of five years - Article 5(4) 

With regard to  Article 5(4)  – (distribution offences), eleven Member States  have complied 
with the provision, i.e. they have provided for a maximum term of five years of imprisonment 
for the referenced distribution offences. 

In a number of Member States, similar transposition issues as described above under Article 
5(3)  occur:  some  Member  States  provide  for  maximum  terms  of  less  than  5  years  of 
imprisonment,  or  provided  for  less  than  five  years  of  imprisonment  for  “minor”  or  “very 
minor” cases or under “mitigating” circumstances. One Member State applies lower than five 
years  imprisonment  of  a  maximum  sanction  for  offences  related  to  the  distribution  of 
counterfeit metallic coins as low as a maximum of six months or a fine and a maximum of 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
one  year  of  imprisonment.  One  Member  State  does  not  provide  for  imprisonment  for  the 
receipt of counterfeit currency.  

3.4.5.  The optional clause (received without knowledge/ passes on with knowledge) - 

Article 5(5)  

Pursuant to Article 5(5), with regard to the offences referred to in point (b) of Article 3(1) – 
(distribution  offences),  Member  States  may  provide  for  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive  criminal  sanctions  other  than  that  referred  to  in  Article  5(4)  of  this  Article, 
including  fines  and  imprisonment,  if  the  counterfeit  currency  was  received  without 
knowledge but passed on with the knowledge that it is counterfeit. Eighteen Member States 
made use of this option.  

Among  those  Member  States  which  applied  this  option,  various  sanctions  may  be  applied 
instead  of  those  imposed  in  paragraph  4,  such  as  different  (lower)  terms  of  imprisonment, 
fines or other forms of restrictions. 

3.5.  Liability of legal persons (Article 6) 

Article 6(1) sets out the obligation for the Member States to ensure legal persons can be held 
liable for the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4, if committed for their benefit by persons 
holding particular responsibilities within the legal entity namely: 

a)  power of representation of the legal person 
b)  an authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person 
c)  an authority to exercise control within the legal person. 

Article 6(2) stipulates liability of the legal person also when the offence under Article 3 and 4 
was made possible by a lack of control or supervision by a person referred to in Article 6(1).  

Article  6(3)  stipulates  that  criminal  liability  of  a  legal  person  shall  not  exclude  criminal 
liability of a natural person having committed an offence under Articles 3 and 4.  

3.5.1.  Liability of legal persons - Article 6(1) 

All Member States have schemes in place ensuring that legal persons can be held liable for 
these criminal offences.  

The large majority of the Member  States restricted the criminal  liability of legal  persons to 
offences committed by persons holding certain responsibilities within the legal entity, in line 
with  the  Directive.  While  a  number  of  Member  States  transposed  the  Directive  literally  or 
almost  literally,  others  –  instead  of  describing  the  responsibilities  –  chose  to  describe 
positions  and  functions  within  the  legal  entity  (such  as  a  manager,  board  or  statutory  body 
member, senior official or similar). In these cases, according to the respective national laws, 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
the  relevant  positions  are  paired  with  a  right  or  power  to  represent  the  legal  person 
respectively to take decisions and exercise control within the legal person.  

Few  Member  States  chose  very  general  terms  like  “rulers”,  “persons  in  charge”,  “persons 
acting  on  behalf  of  the  legal  person”  or  applied  a  “doctrine  of  reasonable  attribution”  to 
establish the liability of the legal persons.  

3.5.2.  Criminal liability of legal persons in cases of lack of supervision or control - 

Article 6(2) 

The majority of the Member States transposed Article 6(2).  

3.5.3.  Criminal liability of legal persons not to exclude liability of natural persons - 

Article 6(3) 

The large majority of the Member States transposed Article 6(3).  

3.6.  Sanctions for legal persons (Article 7) 

Article 7 stipulates that Member States shall establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive 
sanctions for legal persons that shall include criminal or non-criminal fines. Member States 
may  provide  for  other  non-pecuniary  sanctions.  The  Article  contains  in  its  letters  (a)  to  (e) 
non-exhaustive options for such additional sanctions. 

Compliance with Article 7 was measured against: 

a)  the level  of sanctions  of equivalent  criminal  offences such as counterfeiting of non-

cash means of payment or money laundering  

b)  other types of offences in the respective national law that provide for the same level 

of sanctions. 

With regard to a) the level of sanctions of equivalent offences should be in the range of the 
counterfeiting offences under the Directive. With regard to b) offences providing for the same 
level of sanctions as the counterfeiting offences under the Directive should be equivalent or 
similar  to  counterfeiting  offences  with  respect  to  the  gravity  or  danger  to  public  goods  or 
interests. 

Where – as in most Member States – the level  of fines was not linked to the benefit of the 
crime or to the turnover of the legal entity, and where the level of fines was considered to be 
low, the optional sanctions were taken into account. Where further cumulative sanctions (e.g. 
exclusion from entitlement to public benefits, judicial winding-up etc.) other than fines were 
provided for in the respective national law, the sanction system in that Member State was – in 
principle – considered to be in conformity with the requirements of the Directive. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
Against  these  criteria,  the  large  majority  of  the  Member  States  transposed  Article  7  of  the 
Directive.  Only  one  Member  State  did  not  link  the  level  of  fines  to  the  benefit  obtained 
through the criminal offence and did not provide for cumulative sanctions other than fines.  

3.7.  Jurisdiction (Article 8) 

Article  8(1)  obliges  Member  States  to  establish  jurisdiction  over  offences  referred  to  in 
Articles 3 and 4 according to:  

a)  the principle of territoriality (offences committed in whole or in part on  the territory 

of the Member State)  

b)  the  active  personality  principle  (offences  committed  by  a  national  of  the  Member 

State) 

Article  8(2)  provides  for  extraterritorial  jurisdiction  and  obliges  Member  States  whose 
currency  is  the  euro  to  establish  jurisdiction  also  when  the  offence  is  committed  abroad,  at 
least if the offence relates to the euro and  

a)  if the offender is found on the territory of the Member State and not extradited 
b)  if the counterfeit currency is found on the territory of the Member State 

Article  8(2)  second  sub-paragraph  provides  that  with  regard  to  production  offences 
(Article 3(1)(a)) and offences related to production offences (under Article 3(2) and (3) and 
Article 4), these Member States shall ensure that their extraterritorial jurisdiction is not made 
conditional on the criminalisation of the acts at the place where they are committed. 

3.7.1.  Territoriality principle - Article 8(1)(a) 

All  Member  States  established  the  principle  of  territoriality  as  set  out  in  Article  8(1)(a)  by 
explicit  general  provisions  that  criminal  offences  committed  in  whole  on  their  territory  fall 
under  their  jurisdiction.  Most  Member  States’  national  law  contain  explicit  provisions 
extending  jurisdiction  also  to  offences  committed  “in  part”  on  national  territory.  In  other 
Member States, not distinguishing between “whole” or “part”, coverage of both alternatives 
could be inferred.  

Almost all Member States transposed correctly the active personality principle as set out in 
Article 8(1)(b). Generally, Member States require the offender to be a national at the time of 
the offence being committed. Some Member States extend their jurisdiction also to persons 
who acquired their nationality after the criminal offence had been committed.  

Issues with regard to Article 8(1)(a) occur, for example, where according to the transposing 
law, acts committed partly on national territory are excluded from national jurisdiction if the 
offender is present abroad.  

11 

 
 
 
 
3.7.2.  Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Article 8(2) 

The  large  majority  of  the  Member  States  whose  currency  is  the  euro  transposed 
Article 8(2)(a). Most Member States have explicitly referred to all elements of the Directive’s 
provision  including  the  fact  that  the  offender  is  not  extradited.  In  the  other  Member  States 
existing  jurisdictional  provisions  are  considered  broad  enough  to  comprise  all  elements  of 
Article 8(2)(a).  

The large majority of the Member States did not transpose Article 8(2)(b) at all. 

The  majority  of  the  Member  States  transposed  Article  8(2)  second  subparagraph.  Either, 
jurisdiction  is  established  (explicitly  or  not)  irrespective  of  whether  the  offence  is 
criminalised in the state where the offence was committed, or an explicit exception from the 
general principle of double criminality has been made for criminal offences referred to in the 
Directive and transposed into national law. 

Transposition  issues  occur  in  some  Member  States,  which  apply  the  double  criminality 
principle to the offences under the Directive, i.e. always require that the acts constitute also 
an  offence  at  the  place  where  they  were  committed.  In  another  Member  State,  the  double 
criminality  requirement  is  only  exempted  where  the  offence  violates  the  Member  States’ 
interests or where the offender cannot be extradited. 

3.8.  Investigative tools (Article 9) 

Article  9  obliges  Member  States  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  effective 
investigative tools, such as those that are used in organised crime or other serious crime cases, 
are  available  to  persons,  units  or  services  responsible  for  investigating  or  prosecuting  the 
offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.  

In  most  Member  States,  it  depends  on  the  level  of  penalties  available  for  a  certain  crime 
category whether or not the most intrusive investigative measures can be used. Other Member 
States’ legislation explicitly refers to crimes to which certain investigative measures apply.  

Investigative measures available for serious crimes in all Member  States are interception of 
communications,  secret  surveillance  including  electronic  surveillance,  monitoring  of  bank 
accounts  and  other  financial  investigations.  There  are  other  investigative  tools  available  in 
individual or several Member States, according to their national law.  

The  majority  of  the  Member  States  transposed  this  provision.  Issues  occur  where  certain 
investigative  tools  are  applicable  to  credit  institution,  payment  service  providers  and  other 
economic  operators  referred  to  in  Article  6(1)  of  Regulation  1338/2001  but  not  to  other 
“persons” (e.g. natural and legal persons).  

In  some  Member  States,  the  preparatory  offences  in  Article  3(1)(d)  of  the  Directive  do  not 
qualify  for  serious-crime-investigative  measures  at  all  or  qualify  for  only  some  of  the 
available  serious-crime-investigative  measures.  Few  Member  States  have  –  contrary  to  the 

12 

 
 
 
Directive – introduced “petty” forms of the crimes under the Directive that do not qualify  – 
according to their national law – for the use of investigative tools used for serious crime cases.  

3.9.  Obligation to transmit counterfeit euro notes and coins for analysis 

and detection of counterfeits (Article 10)  

Article  10  requires  competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States  to  permit  during  criminal 
proceedings  without  delay  the  examination  of  counterfeit  euro-notes  and  coins  by  the 
National Analysis Centres (NACs) and Coin National Analysis Centres (CNACs) for analysis, 
identification and detection of further counterfeits. The competent authorities should transmit 
the  necessary  samples  without  delay  and  at  the  latest  once  a  final  decision  concerning  the 
criminal proceedings would have been reached.   

Only  seven  Member  States  transposed  this  provision  into  their  national  law.  The  large 
majority  of  the  Member  States  did  not  adequately  transpose  this  provision.  While  some 
Member States did not transpose this provision at all, most Member States had issues with the 
complete transposition of the individual elements of the provision. Most transposition issues 
occur with regard to (i) the delay in which counterfeit currency must be transmitted and (ii) 
the  purposes  (analysis,  identification  and  detection  of  further  counterfeits)  for  which  the 
counterfeit currency should be examined.  

3.10.  Statistics (Article 11) 

Article  11  sets  out  the  obligation  for  the  Member  States  to  transmit  statistical  data  to  the 
European Commission at least every two years.  

The  large  majority  of  the  Member  States  did  not  transpose  this  provision  at  all  or  not 
adequately.  In  2018,  at  the  request  of  the  Commission  the  majority  of  the  Member  States 
transmitted  statistical  material  –  as  contained  in  their  national  databases.  In  some  Member 
States the accuracy of the statistical data as well as the coordination among different Member 
States' authorities to collect these data could be further improved.  

4.  CONCLUSIONS 

The Directive was introduced with a view to reinforcing the legal framework with provisions 
on  the  level  of  sanctions,  on  investigative  tools  and  on  the  analysis,  identification  and 
detection of counterfeit euro notes and coins during judicial proceedings.  

Overall, the Directive provides EU added value by raising the level of protection not only of 
the  euro  but  also  of  other  currencies  against  counterfeiting  by  criminal  law  measures  with 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
enhanced  provisions  on  the  level  of  sanctions,  on  investigative  tools  and  on  the  analysis, 
identification and detection of counterfeit euro notes and coins during judicial proceedings.   

The majority of the Member States transposed in a conforming manner Articles 3 and 4 of the 
Directive  on  criminalisation  of  certain  offences,  the  provisions  of  Article  5  on  penalties 
introducing a maximum sanction of at least five years for distribution and maximum sanction 
of  at  least  eight  years  for  production  of  counterfeit  currency  as  well  as  the  provision  of 
Article  9  obliging  Member  States  to  provide  for  the  possibility  to  use  certain  investigative 
tools.  

The  assessment  shows  that  there  is  currently  no  need  to  revise  the  Directive  but  that  its 
application  should  be  improved.  In  general,  the  majority  of  the  Directive’s  provisions  have 
been transposed by the majority of the Member States. However, almost all Member States 
have transposition issues with one or several provisions, as indicated in the previous sections.  

The Commission will continue to assess Member States' compliance with the Directive and 
will take every appropriate measure to ensure conformity with its provisions throughout the 
European Union. 

14