Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on combating corruption, replacing Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2023-05-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: European official, civil servant, corruption, criminal procedure, fraud against the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, penalty, private sector, public service

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.5.2023  COM(2023) 234 final 2023/0135 (COD)  Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on combating corruption, replacing Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

Corruption  is  highly  damaging  to  society,  to  our  democracies,  to  the  economy  and  to 
individuals.  It  undermines  the  institutions  on  which  we  depend,  diluting  their  credibility  as 
well as their ability to deliver public policies and quality public services. It acts as an enabler 
for  organised  crime  and  hostile  foreign  interference.  Successfully  preventing  and  fighting 
against  corruption  is  essential  both  to  safeguard  EU  values  and  the  effectiveness  of EU 
policies, and to maintain the rule of law and trust in those who govern and public institutions. 

Corruption  is  an  impediment  to  sustainable  economic  growth,  diverting  resources  from 
productive  outcomes,  undermining  the  efficiency  of  public  spending  and  deepening  social 
inequalities.  It  hampers  the  effective  and  smooth  functioning  of  the  single  market,  creates 
uncertainties  in  doing  business,  and  holds  back  investment.  Corruption  is  by  its  nature 
difficult to quantify, but even conservative estimates suggest that it costs the EU economy at 
least  EUR 120  billion  per  year1.  The  negative  effects  of  corruption  are  felt  worldwide, 
undercutting efforts to bring good governance and prosperity, and to meet the United Nations 
Sustainable Development Goals.  

The Eurobarometer survey data of 2022 suggests that 68 % of people in the EU and 62 % of 
companies based in the EU consider that corruption is widespread in their country2. The 2022 
State  of  the  Union  address  puts  the  fight  against  corruption  high  on  the  European’s 
Commission’s  agenda  highlighting  the  need  to  tackle  it  both  at  the  EU  and  at  the  national 
level.  The  European  Parliament  has  also  repeatedly  called  for  more  EU  action  to  combat 
corruption3.  The  Council  made  similar  calls,  in  particular  in  the  context  of    cooperation  to 
fight organised and serious international crime4. 

The existing EU legal  framework on  combating  corruption  needs to  be updated to  take into 
account  the  evolution  of  corruption  threats  and  the  legal  obligations  on  the  Union  and 
Member  States  under  international  law,  as  well  as  the  evolution  of  national  criminal  legal 
frameworks.  Council  Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA5  lays  down  requirements  on  the 
criminalisation of corruption concerning the private sector. The 1997 Convention on the fight 

1  This estimate is based on the work of specialised institutions and bodies, such as the International Chamber of 
Commerce, Transparency International, UN Global Compact, World Economic Forum, and Clean Business is 
Good Business, which suggest that the loss of economic wealth due to corruption amounts to 5% of GDP at 
world level. Another estimate suggested that the costs of corruption were between EUR 179 billion and EUR 
990 billion per year in the EU (The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption study by RAND Europe, 
2016). 

2  See:  https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/citizens-and-businesses-have-spoken-corruption-remains-serious-

problem-eu-countries-2022-07-13_en. 

3  For example: Resolution of 25 October 2016, Fight against corruption and follow-up of the CRIM resolution, 
2015/2110(INI), and  European Parliament recommendation of 17 February 2022 to the Council and the Vice-
President  of  the  Commission  /  High  Representative  of  the  Union  for  Foreign  Affairs  and  Security  Policy 
concerning corruption and human rights (2021/2066(INI)).   

4  Council  conclusions  of  9  March  2023  setting  the  EU's  priorities  for  the  fight  against  serious  and  organised 

5 

crime for EMPACT 2022-2025. 
 Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private  sector 
(OJ L 192/54, 31.7.2003). 

EN 

1 

  EN 

                                                 
against corruption involving EU officials or officials of EU Member States6 addresses certain 
acts  of  corruption  involving  those  officials  in  general.  These  instruments  are,  however,  not 
sufficiently comprehensive, and the existing rules in the Member States need to be developed 
further to  ensure a more coherent  and effective response in  the Union. Enforcement  gaps  at 
national level and obstacles in the cooperation between the competent authorities in different 
Member States have also emerged. Authorities in the Member States face challenges linked to 
the  excessive  length  of  prosecution,  short  statutes  of  limitations,  rules  on  immunity  and 
privileges, limited availability of resources, training and investigative powers to name a few. 

The EU is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)7, which is 
the most comprehensive international legal instrument in this field, combining a wide range of 
measures  to  prevent  and  fight  corruption.  This  legislative  proposal  will  update  the  EU 
legislative framework, including by incorporating international standards binding on the EU, 
such  as  those  in  the  UNCAC.  The  aim  is  to  ensure  that  all  forms  of  corruption  are 
criminalised  in  all  Member  States,  that  legal  persons  may  also  be  held  responsible  for  such 
offences, and that offences incur effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. In addition, 
the proposal includes relevant measures to prevent corruption in accordance with international 
standards and facilitate cross-border cooperation, as required by the UNCAC. 

To  root  out  corruption,  both  preventive  and  repressive  mechanisms  are  needed.  Member 
States are encouraged to take a wide range of preventive, legislative and cooperative measures 
as part of the fight against corruption. Failings in integrity, undisclosed conflicts of interests 
or  serious  breaches  of  ethical  rules  can  lead  to  corrupt  activities  if  left  unaddressed.  The 
prevention of corruption mitigates the need for criminal repression and has wider benefits in 
promoting public trust and managing the conduct of public officials. 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

• 
The proposal for a Directive complements the EU Security Union Strategy (2020-2025)8. In 
April  2021,  the  Commission  also  adopted  the  2021-2025  EU  Strategy  to  tackle  Organised 
Crime9 with dedicated measures to combat corruption as an enabler of organised crime. As a 
follow up, the Commission assessed the current  state of play of both  the legislative and the 
operational  dimension  in  preventing  and  fighting  corruption  in  the  context  of  an  external 
study, which was finalised at the end of 202210. 

The  EU  Strategy  on  Combatting  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (2021-2025)11,  adopted  in 
April  2021,  is  closely  interlinked  with  the  EU  Strategy  to  tackle  Organised  Crime.  It 
highlights  that  organised  crime  groups  involved  in  trafficking  in  human  beings  increasingly 
exploit legal businesses in their operations and are involved in other serious crimes, such as 
corruption,  to  support  their  core  activities.  Corruption  may  further  hinder  detection  of 

6  Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against 
corruption  involving  officials  of  the  European  Communities  or  officials  of  Member  States  of  the  European 
Union (OJ C 195, 25.6.1997, p. 2). 

7  United  Nations  2003,  United  Nations  Convention  Against  Corruption,  Treaty  Series  2349  (October):  41, 

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/. 

8  Communication of 24 July 2020 on the EU Security Union Strategy, COM/2020/605 final. 
9  Communication of 14 April 2021 on the EU strategy to tackle organised crime 2021-2025, COM(2021) 170 

final. 

10  European  Commission,  Gaglio,  I.,  Guzzon,  J.,  Bartz,  K.,  et  al.,  Strengthening  the  fight  against  corruption. 
Assessing the EU legislative and policy framework: final report for acceptance, Publications Office, 2023. 
11  Communication  of  14  April  2021  on  the  EU  Strategy  on  Combatting  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  2021- 

2025, COM/2021/171 final. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

                                                 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  for  instance  if  the  authorities  responsible  for  identifying  the 
victims are involved in corruption. 

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

Rule of law toolbox 

Since  2020,  the  Commission  has  been  monitoring  anti-corruption  developments  at  national 
level  as  one  of  the  central  pillars  of  the  annual  Rule  of  Law  Report  cycle.  Since  2022,  the 
reports also include recommendations for each country, with the objective to support Member 
States  in  their  efforts  to  take  forward  ongoing  or  planned  reforms,  to  encourage  positive 
developments,  and  to  help  identify  where  improvements  or  follow-up  to  recent  changes  or 
reforms  may  be  needed.  Anti-corruption  measures  are  also  part  of  the  work  with  Member 
States  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Semester  and  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans. 
The European Semester has assessed challenges in the fight against corruption, such as public 
procurement,  integrity  in  public  administration,  the  business  environment  and  healthcare 
sectors. Country-specific recommendations under the Semester have guided concrete reforms 
and investments to improve the capacity to fight corruption in several Member States. These 
are reflected in concrete milestones in the national Recovery and Resilience Plans . 

Under  the  Regulation  on  a  general  regime  of  conditionality  for  the  protection  of  the  Union 
budget (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092), the Commission can propose that the Council 
of the EU imposes budgetary measures on EU Member States where breaches of the rule of 
law  principles  –  including  corruption  –  can  affect,  or  seriously  risk  affecting,  the  sound 
financial  management  of  the  Union  budget  or  of  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  in  a 
sufficiently direct way. 

Corruption is  also  a tool for  foreign interference in  democratic processes, the core target of 
action  now  being  developed  in  the  Defence  of  Democracy  package  also  included  in  the 
Commission Work Programme 2023. 

Confiscation and asset recovery 

Directive  2014/4212  established  rules  on  freezing  and  confiscation  of  instrumentalities  and 
proceeds  of  crime  to  effectively  deprive  criminals  of  their  illegal  assets.  It  included  in  its 
scope offences covered by the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials13 
as  well  as  the  Council  Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  on  combating  corruption  in  the 
private sector14.  In May 2022, the Commission presented a proposal for a new Directive on 
Asset  Recovery  and  Confiscation15,  building  upon  the  previous  legislation16.  The  proposal 

12  Directive  2014/42/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  on  the  freezing  and 
confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ L 127/39, 29.4.2014). 
13  Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against 
corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of the Member States of the European 
Union (OJ C 195, 25.6.1997). 

14  Council Framework  Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private  sector 

(OJ L 192, 31.7.2003). 

15  Brussels, 25 May 2022, COM/2022/245 final. 
16  Directive  2014/42/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  on  the  freezing  and 
confiscation  of  instrumentalities  and  proceeds  of  crime  in  the  European  Union  (OJ  L  127/39,  29.4.2014); 
Council  Decision  2007/845/JHA  of  6  December  2007  concerning  cooperation  between  Asset  Recovery 
Offices  of  the  Member  States  in  the  field  of  tracing  and  identification  of  proceeds  from,  or  other  property 
related  to,  crime  (OJ  L  332/103,  18.12.2027);  Council  Framework  Decision  2005/212/JHA  of  24  February 
2005  on  Confiscation  of  Crime-Related  Proceeds,  Instrumentalities  and  Property  (OJ  L  68/49,  15.3.2005); 

EN 

3 

  EN 

                                                 
provides for a new and strengthened asset recovery framework to ensure that crime does not 
pay. It would give authorities better tools to deprive organised crime groups of the financial 
means to carry out further criminal activities, including corruption. 

Anti-money laundering 

Corruption  and  money  laundering  are  intrinsically  linked.  Similar  to  other  proceeds-
generating crimes, corruption offences are committed with the objective of obtaining a private 
gain. Combating money laundering is the cornerstone of the broader agenda to fight serious 
crime,  including  corruption,  by  depriving  criminals  of  their  ill-gotten  gains  and  by 
prosecuting those who assist in the laundering of such gains. 

The Directive on combating money laundering by criminal law (EU) 2018/167317 establishes 
ground rules on the criminalisation of money laundering and sets out that corruption must be a 
predicate  offence  to  money  laundering.  In  July  2021,  the  Commission  adopted  legislative 
proposals  to  strengthen  the  Union’s  rules  to  combat  money  laundering  and  the  financing  of 
terrorism  (AML/CFT)18,  in  particular  by  strengthening  the  ability  of  Financial  Intelligence 
Units (FIUs) to detect, analyse and disseminate financial intelligence related to the laundering 
of  proceeds  of  crime.  This  is  a  key  prerequisite  for  effectively  investigate  and  prosecute 
corruption offences. 

Trafficking in cultural  goods is a lucrative business for organised crime. Beyond trafficking, 
criminals can abuse even legally acquired cultural goods, for money laundering and sanctions 
evasion.  On  13  December  2022,  the  Commission  adopted  the  EU  Action  Plan  against 
Trafficking in Cultural  Goods19 which provides a comprehensive  framework for the EU and 
the Member States to advance prevention, detection and criminal justice response to cultural 
goods trafficking and related crimes, including corruption. 

Protection of whistleblowers 

Directive  (EU)  2019/1937  on  the  protection  of  persons  who  report  breaches  of  Union  law 
(‘the  Whistleblowing  Directive’)20  was  adopted  in  2019  with  the  aim  of  providing  robust 
protection of whistleblowers as a means of strengthening the enforcement of EU law in key 
policy  areas.  The  Directive  also  applies  to  the  reporting  of  fraud,  corruption  and  any  other 
illegal  activity  affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  and  the  protection  of  persons 
reporting  such  breaches21.    This  Directive  should  be  made  applicable  to  the  reporting  of 
offences as referred to in this proposal, as well as to the protection of persons reporting such 
offences. Competent  national  authorities should also  ensure that persons providing evidence 

and Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the 
mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (OJ L 303/1, 28.11.2018). 

17  Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on combating 

money laundering by criminal law (OJ L 284, 12.11.2018). 

18  Anti-money 

laundering 

and 

countering 

the 

financing 

of 

terrorism 

legislative 

package, 

https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/anti-money-laundering-and-countering-financing-terrorism-
legislative-package_en. 

19  Communication  of  13  December  2022  on  the  EU  Action  Plan  against  Trafficking  in  Cultural  Goods, 

COM(2022) 800 final. 

20  Directive  (EU)  2019/1937  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2019  on  the 

protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305 26.11.2019). 

21  Article 10(3)(a) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11  September  2013  concerning  investigations  conducted  by  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  and 
repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/1999  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  Council 
Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 437, 28.12.2020, p. 49). 

EN 

4 

  EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
or  otherwise  cooperating  with  criminal  investigations  are  given  the  necessary  protection, 
support and assistance in the context of criminal proceedings. 

Investor citizenship and residence schemes 

Investor  citizenship  and  residence  schemes  (‘golden  visas’  and  ‘golden  passport’  schemes)  
can  help  hide  or  facilitate  financial  and  economic  crimes,  including  corruption22.  There  are 
also concerns around these schemes’  lack of transparency and control, linked as well to the 
role  of  intermediaries  in  these  schemes.  The  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  new  Anti-money 
Laundering Regulation23 seeks to establish supervision over the activities of intermediaries in 
investor  residence  schemes.  The  Commission  considers  investor  citizenship  schemes,  under 
which citizenship of a Member State, and thus  EU citizenship, is  systematically awarded in 
exchange  for  pre-determined  payments  or  investments,  and  without  a  genuine  link  with  the 
awarding Member State, to be in breach of EU law. As a consequence, the Commission is of 
the opinion that Member States must not operate such schemes24. The Commission has taken 
action  against  Member  States  maintaining  such  schemes  directly  on  the  basis  of  its 
prerogatives as guardian of the Treaties, with a view to their termination. 

A Commission Recommendation of 28 March 2022  called on Member States to take all the 
necessary measures and safeguards to address the different risks inherent in investor residence 
schemes, including those linked to corruption25. 

Protection of the Union’s financial interests 

Directive (EU) 2017/137126 aims to establish a harmonised system, with minimum common 
rules, to fight fraud and other criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests. The 
Directive  provides  common  definitions  of  a  number  of  criminal  offences  affecting  the 
Union’s  financial  interests,  which  include  fraud,  money  laundering,  active  and  passive 
corruption, and misappropriation. 

Article  325  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  establishes  a 
shared  responsibility  between  the  Union  and  the  Member  States  to  counter  fraud  and  any 
other  illegal  activity  affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  through  effective  and 
deterrent  measures.  It  also  sets  out  an  obligation  to  ensure  the  same  level  of  protection 
between the Union’s and the national financial interests. 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  Member  States  have  in  place  equivalent  measures  to  counter 
corruption  affecting  the  Union’s  and  their  own  financial  interests,  there  is  a  need  to  align 
Directive (EU) 2017/1371 with the standards set out in this Directive, in terms of sanctions, 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and limitation periods. 

22  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European 
Union,  23  January  2019,  COM(2019)  12  final.  On  21  March  2023,  the  Commission  referred  one  Member 
State to the Court of Justice for breaching EU law with its investor citizenship scheme. 

23  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  the  prevention  of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purposes  of  money 

laundering or terrorist financing, COM(2021) 420 final. 

24  On 21 March 2023, the Commission referred one Member State to the Court of Justice for breaching EU law 

with its investor citizenship scheme. 

25  Commission  Recommendation  on  immediate  steps  in  the  context  of  the  Russian  invasion  of  Ukraine  in 
relation to investor citizenship schemes and investor residence schemes, 28 March 2022, C(2022) 2028 final. 
26  Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against 

fraud to the Unions financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ L 198, 28.7.2017). 

EN 

5 

  EN 

                                                 
In the context of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371, in accordance with Article 18 
thereof,  the  Commission  will  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  offences  provided  for  in  that 
Directive also need to be updated in the light of the current Directive. 

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The legal bases for this proposal are Articles 83(1), 83(2) and 82(1)(d) TFEU. 

Article 83(1) TFEU identifies corruption as one of the crimes with a particular cross-border 
dimension.  It  enables  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  establish  the  necessary 
minimum rules on the definition of corruption by means of directives adopted in accordance 
with the ordinary legislative procedure. 

There  is  no  single  definition  of  corruption  as  corruption  exists  in  different  forms  involving 
different  participants.  Indeed,  corruption  is  an  endemic  phenomenon  that  takes  multiple 
shapes and forms across all facets of society, for example bribery, embezzlement, trading in 
influence, trading of information, abuse of functions and illicit enrichment27. 

During  the  negotiations  of  UNCAC,  United  Nations  States  Parties  carefully  considered 
whether  to  develop  a  legal  definition  of  corruption.  It  was  concluded  that  any  attempt  at  a 
comprehensive  definition  would  inevitably  fail  to  address  some  forms  of  corruption.  As  a 
consequence,  the  international  community  reached  consensus  on  certain  manifestations  of 
corruption  while  leaving  each  State  free  to  go  beyond  the  minimum  standards  set  forth  in 
UNCAC28. 

Article 83(2) TFEU is the legal basis on which Directive (EU) 2017/1371, which is amended 
by  the  proposed  Directive,  was  adopted.  It  sets  out  the  EU’s  competence  to  establish 
minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in EU policy 
areas  which  have  been  subject  to  harmonisation  measures,  if  this  is  essential  to  ensure  the 
effective implementation of such policy areas. 

Article  82(1)(d)  provides  the  legal  basis  for  measures  to  facilitate  cooperation  between 
judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings in criminal 
matters and the enforcement of decisions, such as the adoption of common rules concerning 
jurisdiction in criminal matters.   

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

Corruption is a transnational phenomenon that affects all societies and economies. Measures 
adopted  solely  at  national  or  even  at  Union  level,  without  taking  into  account  international 
coordination and cooperation, would have unsatisfactory effect. Union action should give due 
consideration to the work of the Group of States against Corruption of the Council of Europe 
(GRECO),  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD)  and  the 
United  Nations  Office  against  Drugs  and  Crime  (UNODC).  From  2016  to  2021,  Eurojust 
registered 505 cross-border corruption cases, with the number steadily increasing over this 5-
year  period29,  which  confirms  that  corruption  is  a  gradually  growing  cross-border 
phenomenon  in  the  EU.  A  recent  study  published  by  the  European  Commission  found  that 

27  Cost of Non-Europe Report Stepping up the EU’s efforts to tackle corruption, EPRS | European Parliamentary 

Research Service, Meenakshi Fernandes and Lenka Jančová, 2023, p. 15. 

28  UNODC, Safeguarding against Corruption in Major Public Events Facilitator’s Guide, p. 30. 
29  Eurojust, Eurojust Casework on Corruption: 2016–2021 Insights, May 2022. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

                                                 
“the  lack  of  a  coherent  European  framework  including  provisions  for  all  corruption-related 
crimes identified by international standards constitutes a source for legislative and operational 
challenges in tackling cross-border corruption cases”30. 

Due  to  corruption’s  transnational  dimension,  and  taking  into  account  already  existing  EU 
legislation,  EU-level  action  is  expected  to  be  more  effective  and  efficient  and  to  bring  a 
tangible  added  value  compared  to  action  taken  by  Member  States  individually.  EU 
intervention  would  create  added  value  by  further  approximating  criminal  law  of  Member 
States,  contributing to  ensuring a  common playing field  between Member States, as well as 
coordination and common standards. As evidenced by the analysis in the yearly Rule of Law 
Reports, the gaps in and limited enforcement of existing legislation, together with the need for 
cooperation  and  capacity  to  prosecute  cross-border  cases,  suggest  the  need  for  a  stronger 
coordination and definition of common standards across the EU. Moreover, the effectiveness 
of  prevention  measures  and  investigative  tools  across  the  EU  would  be  enhanced. 
Furthermore,  given  the  increasingly  cross-border  nature  of  corruption  cases,  a  close 
collaboration  between  Member  States  is  required  to  ensure  adequate  prevention  and 
repression.  Shared  definitions  of  criminal  offences  would  facilitate  such  collaboration. 
Finally,  the  fight  against  corruption  requires  the  combined  efforts  of  many  actors.  Thus, 
framing  the  issue  of  corruption  in  the  broader  context  of  the  EU,  as  opposed  to  the  single 
national  contexts  of  Member  States,  allows  for  a  broader  involvement  of  all  relevant 
stakeholders. 

If  no  action  is  taken  at  EU  level,  the  scale  of  the  corruption  problem  is  likely  to  increase 
significantly  in  coming  years.  This  would  have  clear  cross-border  implications  and  a  direct 
effect  on  the  single  market,  the  financial  interest  of  the  EU,  and  internal  security  more 
generally. Corruption in one Member State is of direct interest to other Member States due to 
its  cross-border  effects.  Judicial  and  law  enforcement  authorities  would  continue  to  face 
serious  difficulties  in  dealing  with  more  complex  corruption  cases,  allowing  perpetrators 
opportunities  to  possibly  shop  for  EU  jurisdictions  which  do  not  capture,  or  capture  less 
effectively  and  comprehensively,  certain  corrupt  activities  within  their  anti-corruption 
legislative framework. Continued corruption would ultimately result in a wider societal cost 
through  continued  criminal  activity  and  could  also  facilitate  the  continued  operation  of 
organised crime groups. 

• 

Proportionality 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  Article  5(4)  TEU,  the 
proposed new Directive is limited to what is necessary and proportionate to efficiently prevent 
and combat corruption and to implement international obligations and standards, in particular 
as regards the criminalisation of corruption, in line with the UNCAC. 

The  UNCAC  requires  that  parties  to  the  Convention  take  legislative  and  other  measures  to 
establish  bribery,  misappropriation  and  money  laundering  as  criminal  offences  and  to 
consider  taking  legislative  and  other  measures  to  establish  certain  other  acts  as  criminal 
offences  (abuse  of  functions,  trading  in  influence  and,  subject  to  its  constitution  and  the 
fundamental  principles  of  its  legal  system,  illict  enrichment).  In  line  with  the  commitments 
contained in Political Declaration adopted at the 2021 UN General Assembly Special Session 
against  Corruption,  the  European  Union  should,  to  the  degree  possible,  go  beyond  the 
minimum and adopt additional measures for preventing and combating corruption. 

30  European  Commission,  Gaglio,  I.,  Guzzon,  J.,  Bartz,  K.,  et  al.,  Strengthening  the  fight  against  corruption. 
Assessing the EU legislative and policy framework: final report for acceptance, Publications Office, 2023. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

                                                 
The proposal defines the scope of the corruption offences with a view to covering all relevant 
conduct  while  limiting  it  to  what  is  necessary  and  proportionate.  The  proposal  strengthens 
existing  international  obligations  where  necessary,  in  order  to  improve  cross-border 
cooperation  and  to  prevent  criminals  from  exploiting  the  differences  between  national 
legislations to their advantage. 

The impact of the proposed measures on Member States in terms of necessary resources and 
the need to adapt national framework is outweighed by the benefits provided by the increased 
ability  of  Member  States  to  tackle  corruption  by  means  of  criminal  law,  including  through 
better  cross-border  cooperation  between  competent  authorities  in  cases  of  cross-border 
corruption. Approximation of measures related to prevention and the use of investigative tools 
is provided for only to the extent needed for the proposed criminal law framework to function 
effectively. 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

In accordance with Article 83 and Article 82(1) TFEU, the establishment of minimum rules 
concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of serious crime with 
a cross-border dimension, including corruption can only be achieved by means of a Directive 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary 
legislative procedure. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

The  1997  Convention  on  the  fight  against  corruption  involving  public  officials,  covering 
bribery in the public sector, and Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA, covering bribery in the 
private sector, have not been subject to an ex-post evaluation. 

The  Commission  has  so  far  adopted  two  reports  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  (EU) 
2017/1371.  On  6  September  2021,  the  Commission  adopted  the  first  such  report31,  which 
outlines that all Member States bound by the Directive have transposed its main provisions, 
yet  the  transposition  of  the  Directive  still  needs  to  be  improved  with  regard  to  some  other 
provisions.  The report notes that some aspects  of the definition of ‘public official’ have not 
been  transposed  into  the  legislation  of  about  a  half  of  the  Member  States.  According  to  the 
report, an additional aspect ‘breach of duties’ is required in the definition of both active and 
passive corruption in several Member States. This additional aspect significantly narrows the 
scope of the Directive’s definitions of corruption.  

On ‘passive corruption’, the Commission found that, in a small number of Member States, the 
aspect  concerning  the  refraining  of  public  officials  ‘from  acting  in  accordance  with  [their] 
duty’ is not covered by national legislation. On ‘active corruption’,  the report mentions that 
some  of  the  aspects  of  the  definition  provided  for  by  the  Directive  are  missing  or  not 
transposed  correctly  in  some  Member  States.  With  regard  to  misappropriation,  the 
Commission  found  that  some  Member  States  have  provided  for  a  narrower  transposition  of 
the  relevant  provision  or  not  transposed  it  altogether.  The  report  also  mentions  that,  with 
regard  to  penalties,  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  have  not  been  correctly  transposed  in  a 
quarter  of  the  Member  States.  As  far  as  limitation  periods  are  concerned,  the  Commission 

31  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directive 
(EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to 
the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, Brussels, 6.9.2021, COM(2021) 536 final. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

                                                 
found that, in a few Member States, the limitation period for executing a judgment is shorter 
than that provided for by the Directive32. 

In  September  2022,  the  Commission  adopted  the  second  implementation  report  of  the 
Directive  (EU)  2017/137133.  The  report  focused  on 
the 
appropriateness  of  the  threshold  provided  for  by  the  Directive  with  regard  to  VAT-related 
fraud (EUR 10 million of total damage); ii) the effectiveness of the provisions on limitation 
periods;  and  iii)  whether  the  Directive  effectively  addresses  cases  of  procurement  fraud.  In 
accordance with Article 18(3) of Directive (EU) 2017/1371, the report was primarily based on 
the information  that Member States provided to  the Commission, including annual  statistics 
on the criminal offences referred to in the Directive. 

three  specific 

issues: 

i) 

• 

Stakeholder consultations 

In 2022 and 2023, the Commission consulted Member States about their existing provisions at 
national  level  regarding  the  criminalisation  of  and  fight  against  corruption,  by  requesting 
updated information through two questionnaires, as described in the section below. 

The ideas for a draft Directive, and the responses to the questionnaires, were discussed in two 
experience-sharing workshops on the fight against corruption. These workshops took place on 
14  December  2022  and  14  March  2023  with  experts  from  Member  States,  including 
representatives of the Ministries of Interior, Ministries of Justice, Anti-Corruption Agencies, 
police and prosecution. The Commission has also consulted the Union Agencies and bodies in 
charge  of  supporting  police  and  judicial  cooperation  between  Member  States,  including  the 
European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and the European Union 
Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Cooperation  (Europol),  as  well  as  the  European  Public 
Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and national authorities in charge of prevention and suppression 
of corruption. 

The Commission consulted and received input from international organisations, including the 
UNODC, the OECD, and GRECO.  Academic and civil society also provided input, including 
Transparency  International  and  the  UNCAC  Coalition.  A  plenary  meeting  of  the  Local 
Research Correspondents on Corruption34 discussed various topics in relation to the proposal 
on 13 March 2023. 

This proposal was also discussed at the meetings of the Network of contact points on the Rule 
of  Law  on  27  January  2023,  the  Expert  Group  on  Investor  Citizenship  and  Residence 
Schemes  on  1  March  2023,  the  EU  FIU  Platform  on  15  March  2023  and  the  Commission 
Expert Group on EU Criminal Policy on 27 March 2023. 

Overall,  Member  States  and  stakeholders  stressed  the  need  for  harmonisation  of  corruption 
offences and sanctions to combat corruption across the EU in a comprehensive and effective 
way.  Stakeholders  indicated  that  there  were  frequent  cases  in  which  differing  definitions 
hindered  effective  cross-border  cooperation  in  the  prosecution  of  corruption  offences. 

32  The  Commission  has  so  far  opened  infringement  proceedings  against  17  Member  States  for  incorrect 

transposition of the Directive. 

33 

Second report on the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  of  5  July  2017  on  the  fight  against  fraud  to  the  Union's  financial  interests  by  means  of 
criminal law, Brussels, 16.9.2022, COM(2022) 466 final.  

34  The Local Research Correspondents on Corruption are a network of civil society and academic experts  from 
each Member States in the fight against corruption present in each Member State. The network is managed 
and  funded  by  the  European  Commission  under  its  contract  HOME/2017/ISFP/CORR/0050  -  Consultancy, 
technical assistance and support in the field of fight against corruption. 

EN 

9 

  EN 

                                                 
Approximating respective definitions of the corruption offences should improve cross border 
information  exchange  and  cooperation  between  law  enforcement  authorities.  Aligning  the 
level  of  sanctions  imposed  for  corruption  offences  would  also  make  enforcement  and 
deterrence  more  effective  across  the  EU.  A  number  of  Member  States  submitted  that  a 
mechanical transposition of the offence of illicit enrichment as defined in the UNCAC would 
be at odds with the presumption of innocence and the constitutional traditions of the Member 
States.  A  large  part  of  the  stakeholders  suggested  that  the  proposal  should  also  cover  the 
prevention of corruption, include additional sanctions, such as the ineligibility to run or hold 
public  office  or  tender  for  public  funds,  and  reflect  the  importance  of  specialised  anti-
corruption bodies, with sufficient independence, training and resources. 

A call for evidence was published for feedback from 20 January 2023 to 17 February 2023, 
with a total of 361 contributions received35. The replies confirmed the vital importance of the 
fight against corruption and the need to tackle corruption in the EU at many levels, including 
in the EU institutions. While the vast majority of replies called for additional measures, some 
also  underlined  the  need  to  ensure  the  proper  implementation  of  the  current  international 
framework  and  to  carefully  consider  new  legal  or  soft  law  intiatives.  Several  contributions 
stressed that there is a close link between corruption and organised crime. On strengthening 
the current framework, most respondents agreed that legislative gaps need to be addressed and 
criminalisation  should  cover  criminal  conduct  beyond  the  current  international  legislative 
framework  with  corresponding  sanctions.  According  to  some  respondents,  to  efficiently 
address the complexity of corruption cases, adequate capacities in terms of resources, training, 
special investigation techniques and specialised equipment need to be made available to law 
enforcement authorities. Several respondents called for a monitoring and verification tool to 
be created with the help of civil society. 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

In  line  with  the  commitment  made  in  the  EU’s  2021-2025  Organised  Crime  Strategy,  the 
European Commission contracted a study to review the EU’s body of law in the fight against 
corruption. The study “Strengthening the fight against corruption: assessing the EU legislative 
and policy framework”, carried out by a consortium of EY and the RAND Corporation, was 
published  on  3  January  202336.  It  analysed  the  gaps  in  the  EU  legislative  framework  in  the 
area of corruption prevention and repression, and provided recommendations for possible EU 
measures to address these gaps, by assessing and comparing the impacts of such measures. 

The study concluded that closer legislative alignment between EU Member States, flanked by 
supporting  soft  measures,  would  have  the  biggest  impact  on  the  fight  against  corruption. 
Specifically,  the  study  called  for  laying  down  common  minimum  rules  on  the  definition  of 
corruption  offences  and  related  penalties,  alongside  common  rules  to  improve  investigation 
and  prosecution  of  corruption  crimes  across  the  Member  States  (e.g.  boosting  reporting, 
harmonising  approaches  to  immunity  and  statutes  of  limitation,  as  well  as  to  enablers  of 
corruption). These conclusions have been taken on board in this  proposal for a Directive. In 
addition,  the  study  also  called  for  measures  aimed  at  ensuring  effective  prevention  of 
corruption, including the comprehensive collection of corruption data, and the having in place 
of dedicated anti-corruption authorities both at the EU and national levels. 

35  The  call 

for  evidence  and  contributions:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

say/initiatives/13674-Fighting-against-corruption-in-the-EU-updated-rules_en. 

36  European  Commission,  Gaglio,  I.,  Guzzon,  J.,  Bartz,  K.,  et  al.,  Strengthening  the  fight  against  corruption. 
Assessing the EU legislative and policy framework: final report for acceptance, Publications Office, 2023. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

                                                 
The Commission also took other data into account, such as the 2022 Eurobarometer surveys 
on  corruption.  The  Commission  has  also  relied  on  relevant  documents  of  the  UNODC,  the 
OECD, the GRECO, and the European Parliamentary Research Service. 

As mentioned above, the Commission sent a questionnaire to Member States to identify what 
criminal  justice  data  on  bribery  offences  is  available.  Most  Member  States  collect  data  on 
bribery  cases,  whereas  not  all  Member  States  that  responded  seem  to  collect  data  on 
convictions  of  legal  persons,  the  number  of  pending  cases  and  cases  resolved  in  a  different 
manner  than  convictions  or  acquittals.  This  indicates  that  a  more  harmonised  collection  of 
data on corruption cases could help  identify and analyse trends across the EU. 

The Commission also asked Member States to provide information on their specialised bodies 
working on the prevention of corruption including bodies that have certain repressive powers 
(such as levying  fines).  Most Member States reported one or several  bodies that have some 
role in  the area of prevention of corruption.  In  many Member States,  there  are several  such 
bodies  with  their  own  powers,  but  some  Member  States  have  a  single  body  with  more 
comprehensive powers. Eight Member States did not report on the existence of a specialised 
preventive body but rather to bodies that, aside of their other tasks, also deal with prevention. 

The  Commission  also  asked  Member  States  to  provide  information  on  the  powers  of  their 
specialised  bodies  working  on  the  prevention  of  corruption.  This  mapping  reveals  a  wide 
variation  in  the  tasks  and  powers  of  such  bodies,  which  range  from  powers  related  to  the 
oversight of declarations of assets/interests or gifts to enforcement of lobbying regulation and 
of “revolving doors” rules. Some bodies also have enforcement powers such as issuing fines. 

Member States were also asked about their bodies specialised in the repression of corruption. 
Whereas all Member States allow regular police  and prosecutorial  bodies to  investigate  and 
prosecute some forms of corruption, almost all Member States also have in place some form 
of  a  specialised  police  to  investigate  specific  corruption  cases,  for  instance  when  they  are 
more  serious,  complex  or  relating  to  a  certain  category  of  suspects.  When  it  comes  to 
prosecution of corruption, most Member States have specialised prosecutors to deal with such 
corruption cases. 

A  second  questionnaire,  for  which  input  was  gathered  between  9  January  and  8  February 
2023, focused on information on the corruption offences, to inform and guide the Commission 
in relation to this proposal. Member States were invited to share their national legal provisions 
covering  these  offences,  as  defined  in  the  UNCAC,  the  maximum  length  of  imprisonment 
linked  to  such  offences,  and  limitation  periods  in  place.  The  corruption  offences  for  which 
information  was  asked  were  bribery  in  the  public  and  private  sector,  misappropriation  by  a 
public  official  or  in  the  private  sector,  trading  in  influence,  abuse  of  functions,  illicit 
enrichment and obstruction of justice. All  Member States  except  for  Bulgaria  and Denmark 
replied to the questionnaire. The results of this questionnaire are summarised below. 

Figure 1: Criminalisation of corruption offences in Member States 

OFFENCES 

NUMBER OF MS WHERE 
THE OFFENCE IS 
COVERED IN NATIONAL 
LAW 

NUMBER OF MS WHERE 
THE OFFENCE IS NOT 
COVERED IN NATIONAL 
LAW 

Bribery in the public sector 

Bribery in the private sector 

25 

25 

0 

0 

EN 

11 

  EN 

Embezzlement, misappropriation and other 
diversion of property by a public official 

Embezzlement in the private sector 

Trading in influence 

Abuse of functions 

Illicit enrichment 

Obstruction of justice 

25 

25 

23 

25 

8 

25 

0 

0 

2 

0 

17 

0 

in 

The analysis of what Member States reported shows that Member States have in their national 
legislation  offences  on  bribery 
the  public  and  private  sectors,  embezzlement, 
misappropriation,  obstruction  of  justice37  and  abuse  of  functions.  Nonetheless,  definitions 
have  many  variations,  in  particular  when  looking  at  embezzlement  or  abuse  of  functions.  It 
can certainly not be concluded that Member States cover the full scope of corruption offences 
as  defined  in  the  UNCAC38.  Many  Member  States  report  that  they  criminalised  trading  in 
influence  in  their  national  legislation,  but  some  definitions  differ  significantly  from  the 
relevant  UNCAC  provision  and  sometimes  the  offence  is  only  partly  covered.  Illicit 
enrichment  remains  sparsely  covered,  with  eight  Member  States  reporting  some  form  of 
coverage  in  national  legislation,  while  a  number  of  others  reporting  that  these  aspects  were 
covered  in  their  money  laundering  or  asset  confiscation  legislation.  Differences  in  the 
definition  of  offences  and  the  lack  of  criminalisation  of  some  corrupt  conduct  causes 
problems  in  cross-border  cases  and  leads  to  criticism  by  certain  monitoring  bodies  of  how 
Member States implement international instruments.  

Figure 2: Imprisonment sanctions for corruption offences in Member States 

Length of imprisonment in 
Member States 

Bribery in the public sector 

EU - range in 
years (based on 
received 
contributions) 
0,25 - 15 

Bribery in the private sector 

0,25 - 12 

EU - average in years 
(based on received 
contributions) 

Median 
in years 

6.94 - 9.59 

5.74 - 6.43 

Embezzlement, misappropriation 
and other diversion of property 
by a public official 
Embezzlement in the private 
sector 
Trading in influence 
Abuse of functions 
Illicit enrichment 
Obstruction of justice 

0,25 - 15 

6.15 - 8.34 

0,25 - 20 

0,25 - 10 
1 - 20 
0,5 - 15 
1 - life 

5.57 - 8.08 

4.87 - 5.53 
–5.92 - 6.56 
5.38 - 7.19 
5.58 - 8.67 

6 - 10 

5 - 6 

–6 - 10 

5 - 8 

5 
4 - 5 
3.5 - 6 
4,5 - 6 

37  Member States tend to criminalise this as a general offence, and not limited to corruption proceedings, as is 

the cases in the UNCAC. 

38  There are UNCAC implementation review reports available for most Member States, but these are not very 

recent.  

EN 

12 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
In setting the minimum  level  of the maximum  penalty  for the offences  in this  proposal,  the 
Commission  took  into  account  the  nature  of  the  offences,  the  levels  of  penalties  set  in 
Member  States  (see  Figure  2),  and  the  levels  set  by  other  EU  instruments  in  the  area  of 
substantive  criminal  law.  The  penalties  proposed  in  this  Directive  do  not  go  beyond  the 
average  level  of  maximum  penalties  for  these  offences  in  Member  States.  For  instance,  the 
average penalty for bribery in the public sector ranges from around 7 to 9.5 years, while for 
bribery in the private sector it ranges from around 5.5 to 6 years. At the same time, there are 
also  significant  differences  in  Member  States’  legislation.  For  instance,  the  maximum 
penalties  for  the  offence  of  misappropriation  range  from  3  months  in  Spain  to  15  years  in 
Greece39.  Setting  a  minimum  level  of  the  maximum  penalty  at  EU  level  will  therefore 
facilitate cross-border police and judicial cooperation and increase deterrence.   

Figure 3: Statute of limitations for corruption offences in Member States 

Limitation periods in Member 
States 

Bribery in the public sector 
Bribery in the private sector 
Embezzlement, misappropriation 
and other diversion of property 
by a public official 
Embezzlement in the private 
sector 
Trading in influence 
Abuse of functions 
Illicit enrichment 
Obstruction of justice 

EU - range in 
years 
(based on received 
contributions) 
3 - 25 
3 - 25 

EU - average in years 
(based on received 
contributions) 

10.76 -14.28 
10.26 -11.70 

Median 
in years 

10 - 12 
10 

3 - 25 

10.50 - 13.20 

10 - 12 

3 - 25 

2 - 25 
5 - 25 
5 - 20 
3 - 25 

9.42 - 12.19 

9.00 – 10.82 
10.48 – 11.63 
10.13 – 11.38 
9.25 – 12.70 

10 

8 - 10 
9 - 10 
10-11 
10 

The  responses  of  Member  States  concerning  limitation  periods  for  corruption  offences  in 
national legislation informed the Commission in its current proposal. For bribery in the public 
sector, the average ranges between 11 and 14 years; while for bribery in the private sector, the 
average  ranges  between  10  and  11.5  years.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  also  considerable 
differences  in  Member  States  legislation:  for  bribery  in  the  public  and  the  private  sector 
minimum and maximum limitation periods range from 3 years in Member States like Czechia 
or Lithuania to 25 years in Poland.  

The annual Rule of Law reports noted that operational shortcomings can severely obstruct the 
investigation and prosecution of corruption cases and undermine the effectiveness of the fight 
against corruption. Examples include excessively cumbersome or unclear provisions on lifting 
immunities,  and  short  statutes  of  limitations,  which  can  prevent  the  finalisation  of  complex 
cases, in particular if combined with other factors contributing to lengthy proceedings. Such 
obstacles  can  be  particularly  harmful  for  high-level  and  complex  corruption  cases  and  may 
create a risk of impunity, depriving anti-corruption efforts of their deterrent effects.  

• 

Impact assessment 

Given  that  this  proposal  for  a  Directive  mainly  incorporates  international  obligations  and 
standards, leaving little margin for alternative courses of action, this proposal is exceptionally 

39  For this offence, the average maximum penalty lies between 5 and 7.5 years. 

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
presented without an accompanying impact assessment. Moreover, the initiative is not likely 
to  have  significant  economic,  environmental  or  social  impacts  and  costs,  or  those  entailing 
significant spending. At the same time, it should benefit the economy and society as a whole. 

This  proposal  nevertheless  builds  on  the  evidence  gathered  through  external  studies  and 
assessments described in the earlier section and the various stakeholder consultations. 

Different approaches were considered using the available evidence: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Non-legislative action at EU or national level, including guidelines, exchange of best 
practices,  training  and  the  development  of  correspondence  tables  for  corruption-
related offences; 

A proposal transposing the provisions of the UNCAC; 

A proposal transposing the provisions of the UNCAC while at the same time going 
beyond international obligations in certain aspects, by imposing minimum levels for 
the  upper  limit  of  sanctions,  to  facilitate  prosecutions  and  increase  awareness  on 
ethics and integrity among public officials; 

A  proposal  defining  the  various  conditions  and  elements  of  all  possible  corruption 
offences  and  requirements  for  preventive  measures  such  as  rules  on  lobbying  and 
conflicts of interest. 

On  the  basis  of  the  evidence  gathered  and  previous  assessments  described  above,  the 
Commission has opted for an approach (option 3 above) that proposes harmonisation in line 
with the provisions of the UNCAC, while taking a more ambitous approach and going beyond 
international  obligations  in  those  areas  where  action  has  demonstrable  benefits  in  terms  of 
cross-border  cooperation  while  respecting  national  traditions  and  case-law  and  ensuring 
consistency with EU law. 

The  legislative  proposal  is  expected  to  make  a  positive  contribution  to  the  prevention  and 
detection of, and response to, corruption, notably by approximation of definitions of criminal 
offences and  alignment  of criminal  sanctions. Taking measures to  prevent  corruption, while 
prosecuting perpetrators and reducing the criminal phenomenon of corruption is expected to 
reduce  economic  and  social  costs  and  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  economy.  Ensuring 
deterrent penalties for perpetrators is likely to increase the overall level of security and disrupt 
organised  crime  groups’  activities.  Increasing  harmonisation  in  this  field  in  principle  would 
enable  the  EU  to  further  align  with  international  standards  on  corruption  and  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  in  case  of  cross-border  cooperation  between  law  enforcement  and 
judicial authorities. 

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

For the first time at EU level, the proposal brings together public and private sector corruption 
in one legal act. The proposal aims to introduce international obligations and standards in the 
EU  legislation  and  updating  the  legal  framework  so  it  can  properly  respond  to  the  cross-
border  phenomenon  of  corruption.  This  will  help  Member  States  when  transposing  and 
implementing the relevant provisions. 

• 

Fundamental rights 

The Union was founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and it recognises the rights, 
freedoms  and  principles  set  out  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  in  accordance  with 
Article  6(1)  TEU.  Corruption  undermines  democratic  institutions  and  EU  values,  including 
the  protection  of  fundamental  rights.  By  tackling  corruption,  this  proposal  positively 

EN 

14 

  EN 

contributes to the protection of fundamental rights, such as the right to fair trial and freedom 
of expression.  

The fight against corruption and the protection of fundamental rights are complementary, not 
conflicting,  objectives.  Setting  out,  implementing  and  applying  criminalisation  has  to  be 
carried out in full respect of fundamental rights obligations. Any limitation on the exercise of 
fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  is  subject  to  the  conditions  set  out  in  Article  52(1)  of  the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  namely  be  subject  to  the  principle  of  proportionality  with 
respect to the legitimate aim of genuinely meeting objectives of general interest recognised by 
the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, be provided for by law and 
respect the essence of those rights and freedoms.  

A variety of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
have to be taken into account in this respect. Rights which are particularly relevant in relation 
to the proposed measures include, but are not limited to, the right to liberty and security, the 
protection of personal data, the freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work, 
the freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to an effective remedy and 
to a fair trial, as well as the principle that a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the 
same offence (‘ne bis in idem’). 

All measures adopted by the Union and its Member States on the criminalisation of corruption 
as provided for in this Directive, and the determination of criminal and non-criminal sanctions 
thereof,  must  be  subject  to  the  principle  of  legality  and  proportionality  of  criminal  offences 
and  penalties,  to  the  presumption  of  innocence  and  to  the  rights  of  defence,  and  should 
exclude any forms or arbitrariness. 

This proposal respects the principle that criminal offences and penalties must be set out in law 
and  be  proportionate.  Fundamental  rights  in  general  and  the  principle  of  proportionality  are 
respected  in  limiting  the  scope  of  the  offences  to  what  is  strictly  necessary  to  allow  for  the 
effective  prosecution  of  acts  that  pose  a  particular  threat  to  the    stability  and  security  of 
societies.  The  proposal  also  takes  into  account  the  principle  of  proportionality  by  providing 
for obligations related to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

The  Directive  introduces  minimum  rules  on  the  level  of  sanctions  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  proportionality  (see  in  particular  Articles  11(1)  and  13(1)  of  the  Directive), 
having regard to the nature of the offence. Moreover, administrative sanctions imposed are to 
be  taken  into  account  when  sentencing  the  person  for  a  criminal  offence  set  out  in  the 
Directive  (recital  13).  The  Directive  also  highlights  that,  to  ensure  the  effective  and 
transparent  investigation  and  prosecution  of  corruption  offences,  Member  States  should 
establish procedures for the suspension or temporary reassignment of a public official accused 
of  an  offence  as  referred  to  in  this  Directive.  In  such  cases  they  should  bear  in  mind  the 
principle of the presumption of innocence and the need to respect right to an effective remedy 
(recital 19). 

The use of investigative tools, which the Directive seeks to ensure, has to respect fundamental 
rights,  such  as  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  and  to  a  fair  trial  (Article  47)  and  the 
presumption  of  innocence  and  the  right  of  defence  (Article  48).  The  use  of  such  tools,  in 
accordance  with  national  law,  should  be  targeted  and  take  into  account  the  principle  of 
proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation and should 
respect  the  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data.  Moreover,  when  applying  the  Directive, 
Member  States  must  respect  their  obligations  under  Union  law  with  regard  to  procedural 
rights of suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings. 

EN 

15 

  EN 

The data collected by Member States for the purposes of this Directive is statistical and does 
not  include  any  personal  data;  therefore,  Article  8  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights 
(‘protection of personal data’) is not affected by the obligation for Member States to collect 
and publish data.  

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

This proposal has no immediate budgetary implications for the Union. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The implementation of the Directive will be monitored by the Commission on the basis of the 
information  provided  by  the  Member  States  on  the  measures  taken  to  bring  into  force  the 
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive. The 
Commission shall, two years after the deadline for implementation of this Directive, submit a 
report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council,  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the 
Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Directive. 

Four years following the deadline for implementation of this Directive, the Commission shall  
submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the added value of 
this  Directive  with  regard  to  combating  corruption,  including  the  impact  on  fundamental 
rights  and  freedoms.  On  the  basis  of  this  evaluation,  the  Commission  shall,  if  necessary, 
decide on appropriate follow-up actions. 

• 

Explanatory documents 

No explanatory documents on the transposition are considered necessary. 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Article  1:  Subject  matter  and  scope  –  This  provision  sets  out  the  purpose  and  scope  of  the 
draft  Directive,  in  particular  that  it  establishes  minimum  rules  concerning  the  definition  of 
criminal offences and sanctions in the area of corruption, as well as measures to better prevent 
and fight corruption. 

Article 2: Definitions – This provision establishes definitions for ‘property’ (in relation to the 
offences of corruption in Articles 7-13) in line with the body of EU law40 and ‘legal persons’ 
(in relation to the obligation to establish liability of legal persons in Article 16). The concept 
of  ‘public  official’  is  based  on  the  definitions  provided  for  in  the  1997  Convention  and 
Directive (EU) 2017/1371 while making explicit that it also covers persons working in third 
countries,  international  organisations,  including  the  institutions  of  the  European  Union,  and 
national  and  international  courts.  This  Directive  uses  a  single  definition  of  ‘public  official’ 
which is applicable to all corruption offences set out in it. The concept of ‘high level official’ 
is defined in relation to aggravating circumstances (Articles 18 and 28), preventive measures 
(Article 23) and data collection (Article 25). 

40  Article 2(2) of Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 
on combating money laundering by criminal law (OJ L 284, 12.11.2018, p. 22) and Article 3(3) of Directive 
(EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of 
the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) 
No  648/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  repealing  Directive  2005/60/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 85). 

EN 

16 

  EN 

                                                 
Article 3: Prevention of corruption – This provision aims to underline the need to address the 
fight  against  corruption  from  a  preventive  perspective.  It  aims  to  explore  activities  to  raise 
awareness  on  the  fight  against  corruption,  through  education  and  research  programmes, 
involving  civil  society  and  non-governmental  organisations.  In  order  to  properly  establish 
such a preventive system, an adequate risk assessment process is needed, in order to identify 
and  tackle  gaps  and  sectors  most  at  risk  of  corruption.  As  set  out  in  the    Communication 
accompanying  this  proposal,  the  Commission  will,  with  help  of  the  EU  network  against 
corruption,  and  in  close  consultation  with  Member  States,  map  common  high-risk  areas  by 
2024.  The  results  will  inform  the  Member  States’  national  assessment  of  risks,  required  by 
this proposal. 

Article 4: Specialised bodies – This provision requires Member States to put or have in place 
bodies  in  their  national  legal  orders  that  are  specialised  in  the  prevention  and  repression  of 
corruption.  Such  bodies  need  to  be  independent,  have  sufficient  human,  financial,  technical 
and  technological  resources  and  have  the  necessary  powers  for  the  exercise  of  their  tasks. 
They need to be known to the public and exercise their functions with transparency, integrity 
and accountability. 

Article  5:  Resources  –  This  provision  aims  at  ensuring  that  Member  State  authorities 
responsible for the detection, investigation, prosecution or adjudication of the offences under 
the  Directive  continuously  have  appropriate  human,  financial,  technical  and  technological 
resources necessary for the effective performance of their duties. 

Article  6:  Training  –  This  provision  obliges  Member  States  to  provide  specialised  anti-
corruption  training  for  competent  authorities  and  their  staff  and  to  ensure  that  there  are 
adequate resources for this. It also contains obligations concerning relevant training for public 
officials. 

Articles 7 and 8: Bribery – These provisions define bribery in the public and private sectors 
and  provide  that  such  conduct  is  to  be  punishable  as  a  criminal  offence,  when  committed 
intentionally. The definition of the criminal offences covers both active and passive bribery. 

Article  9:  Misappropriation  –  This  provision  defines  misappropriation  in  the  public  and 
private sector and provides that such conduct is to be punishable as a criminal offence, when 
committed intentionally. 

Article  10:  Trading  in  influence  –  This  provision  defines  trading  in  influence  and  provides 
that  such  conduct  is  to  be  punishable  as  a  criminal  offence,  when  committed  intentionally. 
The provision also specifies that trading in influence is punishable regardless of whether the 
influence is exerted or whether it’s supposed exercise leads to results. 

Article 11: Abuse of functions – This provision  defines abuse of functions in the public and 
private  sector  and  provides  that  conduct  or  failure  to  act  is  to  be  punishable  as  a  criminal 
offence, when committed intentionally. 

Article 12: Obstruction of justice – This provision defines obstruction of justice and provides 
that such conduct is to be punishable as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally and 
in the context of a proceedings concerning an offence as defined in this Directive. 

Article 13: Enrichment from corruption offences –Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2018  on  combating  money  laundering  by 

EN 

17 

  EN 

criminal  law41  establishes  ground rules on the criminalisation of money laundering  and sets 
out  that  corruption  should  be  considered  as  a  predicate  offence  to  money  laundering. 
However,  that  Directive  does  not  oblige  Member  States  to  criminalise  the  acquisition, 
possession or use of property derived from corruption if a person was involved in the offence 
from which the property was derived (this is what is called ‘self-laundering’). This proposal 
for  a  Directive  introduces  such  a  targeted  requirement,  thereby  creating  the  offence  of 
‘enrichment  from  corruption’.  For  this  offence,  the  prosecution  would  only  have  to  prove  a 
link between the property and the involvement in corruption, just as they would have to prove 
corruption as a predicate offence for the purpose of money laundering. 

Article 14: Incitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt – This is a provision applicable to the 
criminal  offences  mentioned  above,  which  requires  Member  States  to  criminalise  forms  of 
aiding and abetting, inciting and attempting most of the mentioned offences. 

Aiding and abetting a corruption offence may include a large variety of activities that range 
from  facilitating  or  providing  counselling  to  the  provision  of  supportive  services  for  the 
commission of these acts. In addition, in order to ensure effective deterrence, it is necessary to 
criminalise incitement, making punishable the act of soliciting others to carry out the offences 
set  out  in  the  proposed  Directive.  Since  the  definition  of  some  corruption  offences,  such  as 
bribery, encompass acts that may qualify as preparatory and do not require that the offender 
obtained  an  actual  advantage,  this  Directive  does  not  require  Member  States  to  criminalise 
their attempt.  

Article 15: Penalties and measures for  natural  persons – This  provision  is  applicable to  all 
offences and requires Member States to apply effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal 
penalties. 

In  addition,  the  provision  establishes  the  minimum  level  of  the  maximum  sanction. 
Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  already  sets  a  minimum  threshold  for  a  maximum 
penalty  of  one  to  three  years  for  bribery  in  the  private  sector.  The  1997  Convention  on  the 
fight  against  corruption  requires  for  bribery  of  public  officials,  at  least  in  serious  cases, 
penalties involving deprivation of liberty which can give rise to extradition. 

This proposal sets the minimum maximum penalty between four and six years, depending on 
the  seriousness  of  the  offence,  which  is  an  increase  in  comparison  to  the  above-mentioned 
penalties  at  EU  level  for  bribery.  As  explained  above,  the  Commission  analysed  Member 
States’ legislation in preparation of this legislation. 

Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  already  sets  the  possibility  that  a  person  convicted  for 
corruption  may  be  temporarily  prohibited  from  carrying  on  his  business  activity.  This 
Directive sets a number of additional sanctions that the competent authorities should be able 
to impose upon persons convicted for a corruption offence. 

Article 16: Liability of legal persons – This is a provision applicable to all criminal offences 
set out in this Directive, which requires Member States to ensure the liability of legal persons, 
while excluding that such liability is alternative to that of natural persons. The provision is in 
line with Article 10 of the Warsaw Convention. 

41  Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on combating 

money laundering by criminal law (OJ L 284, 12.11.2018). 

EN 

18 

  EN 

                                                 
 
This  provision  follows  a  standard  formula  that  can  be  found  in  other  EU  legal  instruments, 
obliging Member States to ensure that legal persons can be held liable for  criminal offences 
referred to in this Directive committed for their benefit by any person with leading positions, 
within  the  legal  person,  or  by  other  persons  under  their  control  or  supervision.  It  is  not 
required that such liability be exclusively criminal. 

Article  17:  Sanctions  for  legal  persons  –  This  provision  is  applicable  to  sanctions  for  legal 
persons. It establishes a list of sanctions and measures, which are not necessarily of a criminal 
nature, such as the temporary or permanent exclusion from public procurement.  

Article  18:  Aggravating  and  mitigating  circumstances  –  This  provision  first  provides  a  list 
circumstances that must be regarded as  aggravating circumstances to allow the judiciary to take 
into account the broader societal damage perpetrated for example by organised groups or persons 
holding  positions  of  public  responsibility.  It  also  provides  a  list  of  circumstances  that  must  be 
regarded  as  mitigating  circumstances,  covering  for  instance  cases  in  which  offenders  provide 
information or collaborate with authorities. 

Article 19:  Immunity or privileges from investigation and prosecution of corruption offences 
–  This  is  a  provision  applicable  to  all  offences  mentioned  above,  which  requires  Member 
States  to  take  measures  to  ensure  that  immunity  or  privileges  from  investigation  and 
prosecution which are granted under national law for the offences referred to in this Directive 
can be lifted through an effective and transparent process pre-established by law and that is 
concluded in a reasonable timeframe. 

Article 20: Jurisdiction – This provision is applicable to all criminal offences set out  in this 
Directive  and  requires  the  existence  of  jurisdiction  grounds  for  the  judicial  authorities  to 
initiate  investigations,  pursue  prosecutions  and  bring  to  judgment  the  perpetrators  of  the 
criminal offences defined in this Directive. 

Article  21:    Limitation  periods  for  criminal  offences  –  This  article  lays  down  provisions  on 
limitation  periods  in  order  to  allow  the  competent  authorities  to  investigate,  prosecute  and 
adjudicate the criminal offences covered by this proposal, as well as the execution of relevant 
sanctions, for a sufficient time period. This proposal sets the minimum length of the limitation 
periods between eight to fifteen years, depending on the seriousness of the offence.  

Article 22: Protection of persons who report offences or assist the investigation – Directive 
(EU)  2019/1937  establishes  rules  and  procedures  to  protect  individuals  who  report 
information  they  acquired  in  a  work-related  context  on  breaches  of  EU  law  in  key  policy 
areas.  Whistleblowers  can  provide  valuable  information  to  competent  authorities,  enabling 
them  to  effectively  prevent,  detect  and  prosecute  corruption.  When  whistleblowers  report 
criminal  offences  referred  to  in  this  directive,  this  provison  requires  the  application  of 
Directive  (EU)  2019/1937.  This  Article  also  provides  that  competent  national  authorities 
ensure that persons who asssist the investigations are given the necessary protection, support 
and assistance in the context of criminal proceedings 

Article 23: Investigative tools – This provision aims at ensuring that investigative tools which 
are provided for in national law for organised crime or other serious crime cases can also be 
used in cases of money laundering. 

Article  24:  Cooperation  between  Member  States’  authorities,  the  Commission,  Europol, 
Eurojust,  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  and  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  – 
This  provision  envisions  the  cooperation  between  the  Member  States’  authorities,  Europol, 
Eurojust,  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  and  the  Commission  in  the  fight  against 

EN 

19 

  EN 

corruption.  This  includes  the  provision  of  technical  and  operational  assistance  by  Europol, 
Eurojust, OLAF, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Commission. 

Article 25:  Commission  support  to  Member  States  and  their  competent  authorities  –  This 
provision  sets  out  the  ways  in  which  the  Commission  will  support  Member  States  and 
competent authorities in complying with their obligations under this Directive. As announced 
in the accompanying Communication, the Commission will establish an  EU network against 
corruption, which will rationalise and support existing networks and maximise the exchange 
of  best  practices  between  national  authorities  and  agencies,  civil  society  and  independent 
experts. 

Article 26: Data collection and statistics – This provision requires Member States to collect 
statistical  data  to  monitor  the  effectiveness  of  their  systems  to  combat  corruption.  The 
provision lists, in a non-exhaustive manner, the statistical data that should be collected by the 
Member States and obliges them to publish such data annually. 

Article 27: Replacement of Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA and the Convention 
on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of 
Member States of the European Union – This provision replaces the current provisions in the 
area  of  the  criminalisation  of  corruption  in  relation  to  Member  States  participating  in  this 
Directive. 

Article 28: Amendments to Directive (EU) 2017/1371 – This provision amends Directive (EU) 
2017/1371 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal 
law.  As  a  result,  the  standards  set  out  in  Directive  (EU)  2017/1371  for  fighting  corruption 
affecting the Union’s financial interests, notably in terms of sanctions with regard to natural 
and  legal  persons,  aggravating  and  mitigating  circumstances  and  limitation  periods,  are 
aligned with those laid down by this Directive. 

Article 29: Transposition – The Commission will report on the transposition of this Directive 
24  months  after  the  deadline  for  transposition  has  passed,  which  is  18  months  after  the 
adoption of this Directive. 

Article 30: Evaluation and reporting – This provision sets out that, starting 12 months after 
the deadline for implementation of this Directive, Member States report every two years  on 
how  they  implement  Articles  3  to  6  and  that  the  Commission  will  also  adopt  an  evaluation 
report. 

EN 

20 

  EN 

 
 
2023/0135 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on combating corruption, replacing Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA and the 
Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European 
Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union and amending 
Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 82(1) point (d), and Article 83(1) and (2) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

Corruption remains a significant problem at the Union level, threatening the stability 
and  security  of  societies,  including  by  enabling  organised  and  other  serious  crime. 
Corruption  undermines  democratic  institutions  and  universal  values  on  which  the 
Union is founded, particularly the rule of law, democracy, equality and the protection 
of  fundamental  rights.  It  jeopardises  development,  prosperity  and  the  sustainability 
and  inclusiveness  of  our  economies.  In  order  to  effectively  prevent  and  combat 
corruption, a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach is required. The purpose 
of this Directive is to tackle corruption by means of criminal law, allowing for better 
cross-border cooperation between competent authorities.  
Council  Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA42  lays  down  requirements  on  the 
criminalisation of corruption concerning the private sector. The Convention drawn up 
on the basis of Article K.3(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against 
corruption  involving  officials  of  the  European  Communities  or  officials  of  Member 
States of the European Union43 addresses certain acts of corruption involving officials 
of  the  European  Communities  or  officials  of  the  Member  States  in  general.  These 
instruments  are,  however,  not  sufficiently  comprehensive,  and 
the  current 
criminalisation  of  corruption  varies  across  Member  States  hampering  a  coherent  and 
effective  response  across  the  Union.  Enforcement  gaps  and  obstacles  in  cooperation 
between the competent authorities of different Member States have also emerged. This 
Directive  aims  to  amend  and  expand  the  provisions  of  those  instruments.  Since  the 
amendments  to  be  made  are  of  substantial  number  and  nature,  both  instruments 

42  Council Framework  Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003  on combating corruption in the private  sector 

(OJ L 192/54, 31.7.2003). 

43  Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against 
corruption  involving  officials  of  the  European  Communities  or  officials  of  Member  States  of  the  European 
Union (OJ C 195, 25.6.1997, p. 2). 

EN 

21 

  EN 

                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

should,  in  the  interests  of  clarity,  be  replaced  in  their  entirety  in  relation  to  the 
Member States bound by this Directive. 

The  existing  legal  framework  should  be  updated  and  strengthened  to  facilitate  an 
effective fight against corruption across the Union. This Directive aims to criminalise 
corruption  offences  when  committed  intentionally.  Intention  and  knowledge  may  be 
inferred  from  objective  and  factual  circumstances.  As  this  Directive  provides  for 
minimum  rules,  Member  States  remain  free  to  adopt  or  maintain  more  stringent 
criminal law rules for corruption offences.  

Corruption  is  a  transnational  phenomenon  that  affects  all  societies  and  economies. 
Measures  adopted  at  national  or  Union  level,  should  recognise  this  international 
dimension. Union action should therefore take into account the work of the Group of 
States  against  Corruption  of  the  Council  of  Europe  (GRECO),  the  Organisation  for 
Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD)  and  the  United  Nations  Office 
against Drugs and Crime (UNODC).  

To  root  out  corruption,  both  preventive  and  repressive  mechanisms  are  needed. 
Member  States  are  encouraged  to  take  a  wide  range  of  preventive,  legislative  and 
cooperative  measures  as  part  of  the  fight  against  corruption.  Whereas  corruption  is 
first and foremost a crime and specific acts of corruption are defined in national and 
international  law,  failings  in  integrity,  undisclosed  conflicts  of  interests  or  serious 
breaches  of  ethical  rules  can  become  corrupt  activities  if  left  unaddressed.  The 
prevention  of  corruption  mitigates  the  need  for  criminal  repression  and  has  wider 
benefits  in  promoting  public  trust  and  managing  the  conduct  of  public  officials. 
Effective anti-corruption approaches often build on measures to enhance transparency, 
ethics  and  integrity,  as  well  as  by  regulating  in  areas  such  as  conflict  of  interest, 
lobbying  and  revolving  doors.  Public  bodies  should  seek  the  highest  standards  of 
integrity,  transparency  and  independence  as  an  important  part  of  tackling  corruption 
more broadly. 

(6)  Member States should have in place bodies or units specialised in the repression and 
specialised  in  the  prevention  of  corruption.  Member  States  may  decide  to  entrust  a 
body  with  a  combination  of  preventive  and  law  enforcement  functions.  In  order  to 
ensure that these bodies operate effectively, they should meet a number of conditions, 
including having the independence, resources and powers that are necessary to ensure 
the proper administration of their tasks. 

(7) 

The  EU  is  a  party  to  the  United  Nations  Convention  Against  Corruption  (UNCAC), 
which is the most comprehensive international legal instrument to combat corruption, 
combining  measures  to  prevent  and  fight  corruption.  It  requires  that  parties  to  the 
Convention  take  legislative  and  other  measures  to  establish  criminal  offences  for 
bribery,  misappropriation  and  money  laundering  and  consider  taking  legislative  or 
other  measures  to  criminalise  other  acts  (such  as  abuse  of  functions,  trading  in 
influence  and  illict  enrichment).  In  line  with  the  commitments  contained  in  the 
Political  Declaration  adopted  at  the  2021  UN  General  Assembly  Special  Session 
against Corruption, the European Union should, to the extent possible, go beyond the 
minimum requirements of UNCAC and lay down additional measures for preventing 
and combating corruption. This Directive draws on the observations and best practices 
emanating from the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the UNCAC. 

(8) 

Taking account of the evolution of corruption threats and the legal obligations on the 
Union  and  Member  States  under  international  law,  as  well  as  the  development  of 

EN 

22 

  EN 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

national legal frameworks, the definition of corruption should be further approximated 
in all Member States so that it covers corrupt conduct more comprehensively. 

To avoid impunity for corruption offences in the public sector, the scope of application 
needs to be well defined. First of all, the concept of public official should also cover 
persons working in international organisations, including the institutions, agencies and 
bodies  of  the  European  Union  and  international  courts.  This  should,  amongst  other 
things,  encompass  persons  acting  as  members  of  collegial  bodies  responsible  for 
deciding  on  the  guilt  of  an  accused  person  in  the  framework  of  a  trial,  as  well  as 
persons who by virtue of an arbitration agreement are called upon to render a legally 
binding  decision  in  disputes  submitted  by  the  parties  to  the  arbitration  agreement. 
Secondly,  many  entities  or  persons  nowadays  exercise  public  functions  without 
holding a formal office. Therefore, the concept of public official is defined to cover all 
relevant officials, whether appointed, elected or employed on the basis of a contract, 
holding  a  formal  administrative  or  judicial  office,  as  well  as  all  persons  providing  a 
service, which have been vested with public authority or who are subject to the control 
or  supervision  of  public  authorities  in  relation  to  the  carrying  out  of  such  a  service, 
even if they do not hold formal office. For the purposes of this Directive, the definition 
should  cover  persons  working  in  state-owned and  state-controlled enterprises,  as  well 
as  in  asset  management  foundations  and  privately-owned  companies  performing 
public service functions and the legal persons established or maintained by them. Any 
person  holding  a  legislative  office  should  be  treated  as  a  public  official  for  the 
purposes of this Directive. 

It is necessary to strenghten the legal framework to combat bribery and to provide law 
enforcement  and  prosecution  with  the  necessary  tools.  In  bribery  of  public  officials, 
there are two sides to distinguish. Active bribery exists when a person promises, offers 
or gives an advantage of any kind to influence a public official. Passive bribery exists 
when  the  public  official  requests  or  receives  such  advantagesin  order  to  act  or  to 
refrain from acting in a certain way. This Directive should also set minimum rules on 
bribery  and  other  forms  of  corruption  in  the  private  sector,  where  the  immediate 
victims  include  companies  that  are  impacted  unfairly  and  where  free  competition  is 
diminished by each bribe offered or accepted. 

In order to ensure that public officials do not intentionally use funds for purposes other 
than  they  were  intended,  it  is  necessary  to  lay  down  rules  on  the  offence  of 
misappropriation  by  public  officials  of  property  whose  management  is  entrusted  to 
them. In order to take a comprehensive approach to the fight  against corruption, this 
Directive  should  also  cover  misappropriation  in  the  private  sector.  In  order  for 
misappropriation to be criminal, it should lead to an advantage for the public official 
or a third party. 

(12)  Trading in influence, arising from the corrupt behaviour of those persons who are or 
claim  to  be  in  the  proximity  of  power  and  try  to  exchange  promises  of  exerting 
influence over decision-making processes in return for undue advantages  should also 
be  defined  as  a  criminal  offence.  The  constituent  elements  of  the  criminal  offence 
should  be  that  the  instigator  provides,  or  promises  to  provide  the  influence  peddler 
with an undue advantage for exerting unlawful influence over an outcome or a process 
that  is  subject  to  decision-making.  When  carried  out  intentionally,  this  behaviour 
should  be  considered  a  criminal  offence  irrespective  of  whether  the  influence  was 
exerted and whether or not the claimed influence leads to the outcome intended. This 
offence  should  not  cover  the  legitimate  exercise  of  acknowledged  forms  of  interest 
representation which may seek to legitimately influence public decision-making but do 

EN 

23 

  EN 

not  entail  an  undue  exchange  of  advantages.  Such  forms  of  interest  representation, 
such  as  advocacy  for  example,  are  often  carried  out  in  a  regulated  environment 
precisely for avoiding that a lack of transparency may allow them to become gateways 
to corruption. Having in place well-functioning additional rules on disclosing conflicts 
of interest, on ‘revolving-doors’ or on the financing of political parties, can also help 
to avoid grey areas and prevent undue influence. 

(13)  Moreover,  it  is  necessary  to  define  the  offence  of  abuse  of  functions  in  the  public 
sector as a failure to perform an act by a public official, in violation of laws, to obtain 
an  undue  advantage.  In  order  to  comprehensively  fight  corruption,  this  Directive 
should also cover abuse of functions in the private sector. 

(14)  Obstruction  of  justice  is  a  criminal  offence  committed  in  support  of  corruption.  It  is 
therefore necessary to lay down a criminal offence for the obstruction of justice, which 
entails  the  exercise  of  physical  force,  threats  or  intimidation,  or  the  inducement  of 
false  testimony  or  evidence.  Actions  to  interfere  in  the  giving  of  testimony  or 
production  of  evidence,  or  with  the  exercise  of  official  duties  by  judicial  or  law 
enforcement officials should also be covered. In line with the UNCAC, this Directive 
only  applies  to  the  obstruction  of  justice  concerning  proceedings  relating  to  a 
corruption offence. 

(15)  Corruption  feeds  off  the  motivation  for  undue  economic  and  other  advantages.    Ìn 
order to reduce the incentive for individuals and criminal organisations to commit new 
criminal acts and deter individuals from consenting to becoming fake property owners 
enrichment  by  corruption  offences  should  be  criminalised.  This  should,  in  turn, 
complicate  the  concealment  of  illicitly  acquired  property  and  reduce  the  spread  of 
corruption  as  well  as  the  damage  done  to  society.  Transparency  helps  competent 
authorities  to  detect  possible  illicit  enrichment.  For  example,  in  jurisdictions  where 
public officials are required to declare their assets at regular intervals, including when 
taking  up  and  completing  duties,  authorities  can  assess  whether  the  declared  assets 
correspond to declared incomes. 

(16)  The  criminal  offence  of  enrichment  builds  upon  the  rules  on  the  criminal  offence  of 
money laundering laid down in Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council44 . It is meant to address those cases where the judiciary considers 
that the corruption offence or offences cannot be proven. Like the predicate offence in 
money  laundering,  the  burden  of  proof  is  of  a  different  nature.  This  means  that  in 
criminal proceedings regarding the criminal offence of enrichment, when considering 
whether  property  is  derived  from  any  kind  of  criminal  involvement  in  a  corruption 
offence and whether the person had knowledge of that, the specific circumstances of 
each case should be taken into account, such as the fact that the value of the property 
is  disproportionate  to  the  lawful  income  of  the  accused  person  and  that  the  criminal 
activity and acquisition of property occurred within the same time frame. It should not 
be  necessary  to  establish  knowledge  of  all  the  factual  elements  or  all  circumstances 
relating to the criminal involvement, including the identity of the perpetrator. When a 
person is  convicted  of  a  criminal  offence  as  defined in  this  Directive, the competent 
authorities  can  recover  the  illicitly  obtained  property  on  the  basis  of  Directive 
2014/42/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  on  the 

44  Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on combating 

money laundering by criminal law (OJ L 284, 12.11.2018, p. 22). 

EN 

24 

  EN 

                                                 
(17) 

freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in  the European 
Union45. 

In  order  to  deter  corruption  throughout  the  Union,  Member  States  should  lay  down 
minimum  types  and  levels  of  sanctions  when  the  criminal  offences  defined  in  this 
Directive  are  committed.  The  maximum  levels  of  imprisonment  and  other  penalties 
should be sufficiently high to deter possible offenders and to reflect the harmfulness of 
corruption and the priority that the competent authorities should give to combat such 
offences. At the same time, these levels should be proportionate to the seriousness of 
each corruption offence and  be coherent with levels of criminal sanctions set in Union 
and  national  law.  Member  States  should  ensure  that  sanctions  are  enforced  to  the 
extent  necessary  in  order  to  deter  the  commission  of  those  offences.  Where  the 
Member  States  consider  the  eventuality  of  suspended  or  conditional  sentences,  early 
release, parole or pardoning of persons convicted of any of the offences referred to in 
this Directive, judicial authorities should be able to take into account the seriousness 
of the criminal offences concerned among other factors. 

(18)  This  Directive  does  not  affect  the  proper  and  effective  application  of  disciplinary 
measures  or  penalties  other  than  those  of  a  criminal  nature,  such  as  administrative 
sanctions. Sanctions that cannot be equated to criminal sanctions, which are imposed 
on the same person for the same conduct, can be taken into account when sentencing 
that person for a criminal offence defined by this Directive. For sanctions of criminal 
nature,  the  principle  of  prohibition  of  being  tried  or  punished  twice  in  criminal 
proceedings for the same criminal offence (ne bis in idem) should be fully respected. 

(19)  The competent authorities should be able to impose, in addition or as an alternative to 
imprisonment,  sanctions  or  measures,  that  are  not  necessarily  of  a  criminal  nature, 
such as the temporary or permanent disqualification from holding public office or the 
exclusion  from  public  procurement.  Such  measures  have  a  general  dissuasive  effect 
and  may  reduce  the  recidivism  of  convicted  offenders.  Member  States  should  also 
consider  establishing  procedures  for  the  suspension  or  temporary  reassignment  of  a 
public official accused of a criminal offence as referred to in this Directive, bearing in 
mind the need to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to 
an effective remedy. 

(20)  Legal  persons  should  not  be  able  to  avoid  responsibility  by  using  intermediaries, 
including related legal persons, to offer, promise or give a bribe to a public official on 
its  behalf.  Moreover,  fines  for  legal  persons  should  be  calculated  considering  the 
worldwide  turnover  of  all  legal  entities  related  to  the  offender,  including  parent 
entities, subsidiary entities, linked trusts, or similar or comparable legal entities. 

(21)  Where  the  offence  is  committed  by  a  criminal  organisation  within  the  meaning  of 
Council  Framework  Decision  2008/841/JHA46  or  where  the  perpetrator  abused  their 
position  to  enable  corruption,  Member  States  should  provide  for  aggravating 
circumstances  in  accordance  with  the  applicable  rules  established  by  their  legal 
systems. Whilst subject to judicial discretion, these aggravating circumstances should 
allow  the  judiciary  to  take  into  account  the  broader  societal  damage  caused,  for 
example  by  corruption  perpetrated  by  organised  groups,  political  parties,  or  persons 

45  Directive  2014/42/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  on  the  freezing  and 
confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European  Union (OJ L 127/39, 29.4.2014, p. 
39). 

46  Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 

300, 11.11.2008, p. 42). 

EN 

25 

  EN 

                                                 
holding  positions  of  public  responsibility.  Member  States  should  not  be  obliged  to 
provide  for  any  of  the  aggravating  circumstances  in  this  Directive  when  those 
circumstances  are  punishable  as  separate  criminal  offences  with  more  severe 
sanctions. 

(22)  Corruption for the benefit of a third country has a particularly detrimental impact on 
democratic institutions and political life of the Member States and the Union. Member 
States  should  thus  provide  for  an  aggravating  circumstance  to  cover  such  situations. 
Such an aggravating circumstance should cover corruption offences, such as bribery or 
trading in influence, that are committed with a view to create an advantage for a third 
country, such as altering the public decision-making in order to come to a decision that 
is favourable to the third country. 

(23)  Member States should ensure that mitigating circumstances are laid down in national 
legislation  in  relation  to  the  offences  covered  by  this  Directive.  Subject  to  judicial 
discretion,  these  circumstances  should  cover  those  cases  in  which  offenders  provide 
information  or  otherwise  collaborate  with  authorities.  Similarly,  where  legal  persons 
have  implemented  effective  internal  controls,  ethics,  and  compliance  programmes,  it 
should  be  possible  to  consider  these  actions  as  a  mitigating  circumstance.  Lower 
sanctions  should  also  be  considered  where,  upon  discovery  of  an  offence,  a  legal 
person  swiftly  discloses  information  and  takes  remedial  measures.  In  any  case,  it 
should remain within the discretion of the judge or the court to  determine the actual 
amount  of  the  sanction,  taking  into  account  all  the  circumstances  of  the  individual 
case. 

from 

investigation  or  prosecution,  which  helps  strengthen 

(24)  Members  of  Parliament  and  other  public  officials  may  have  immunity  or  legal 
protection 
their 
independence  by  protecting  them  against  unfounded  complaints,  in  particular  with 
regard to opinions expressed or votes cast in the course of performing their functions. 
However,  such  immunities  may  hamper  effective  investigation  and  prosecution  of 
corruption  offences,  including  by  affecting  the  detection  and  investigation  or 
prosecution of other persons who do not enjoy immunity and may have participated in 
the offence. Moreover, the application of immunity without appropriate procedures to 
lift immunity in cases where there are grounds to suspect participation in criminal acts 
undermines  the  credibility  of  public  institutions.  There  should  therefore  be  an 
appropriate  balance  between,  on  the  one  hand,  any  immunities  or  jurisdictional 
privileges  accorded  to  public  officials  for  acts  performed  in  the  exercise  of  their 
functions,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  possibility  of  effectively  investigating, 
prosecuting and adjudicating corruption offences. 

(25) 

In  order  to  increase  trust  in  prosecution  services  whilst  reducing  the  perception  of 
corruption  in  Member  States,  discretionary  powers  under  domestic  law  not  to  the 
prosecute  persons  for  criminal  offences  referred  to  in  this  Directive  on  opportunity 
grounds should be exercised in accordance with clear rules and criteria and guarantee, 
with appropriate internal consultation, as well as the aim of deterring the commission 
of corruption offences and the effectiveness of the judicial process. 

(26)  Given the mobility of perpetrators and proceeds stemming from criminal activities, as 
well  as  the  complex  cross-border  investigations  required  to  combat  corruption,  all 
Member  States  should  establish  their  jurisdiction  in  order  to  enable  the  competent 
authorities to investigate and prosecute this crime in a sufficient wide range of cases. 
including when the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory. As part of 
that  obligation,  Member  States  should  ensure  that  jurisdiction  is  also  established  in 

EN 

26 

  EN 

situations  where  an  offence  is  committed  by  means  of  information  system  used  on 
their territory, whether or not that technology is based in their territory. 

(27) 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  competent  authorities  have  sufficient  time  to  conduct 
complex  investigations  and  prosecutions,  this  Directive  provides  for  a  minimum 
limitation  period  that  enables  the  detection,  investigation,  prosecution  and  judicial 
decision of corruption offences for a sufficient period of time after the commission of 
such  offences,  without  affecting  those  Member  States  which  do  not  set  limitation 
periods for investigation, prosecution and enforcement. 

(28)  Corruption  offences  are  a  difficult  category  of  crime  to  identify  and  investigate,  as 
they mostly occur as part of a conspiracy between two or more willing parties and lack 
an immediate and obvious victim who could complain. Thus, a significant proportion 
of  corruption  crime  remains  undetected,  and  the  criminal  parties  are  able  to  benefit 
from  the  proceeds  of  their  corruption.  The  longer  it  takes  to  detect  a  corruption 
offence, the more difficult it is  to  uncover  evidence.  Therefore, it should be  ensured 
that  law  enforcement  and  prosecutors  have  appropriate  investigative  tools  to  gather 
relevant  evidence  of  corruption  offences  which  often  affect  more  than  one  Member 
State.  Furthermore,  Member  States  should  allocate  sufficient  training,  in  close 
coordination  with  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Training 
(CEPOL), also on the use investigative tools to successfully carry out proceedings and 
the  identification  and  quantification  of  proceeds  of  corruption  in  the  context  of 
freezing  and  confiscation.  In  addition,  this  Directive  facilitates  the  gathering  of 
information  and  evidence  by  setting  out  mitigating  circumstances  for  offenders  that 
help the authorities. 

institutions  from  such  acts,  and 

(29)  Persons  reporting  information  to  competent  authorities  concerning  past,  ongoing  or 
planned instances of corruption, which they have acquired in the context of their work-
related  activities,  risk  suffering  retaliation  in  that  context.  Such  whistleblowers’ 
reports  can  strengthen  enforcement  by  enabling  the  competent  authorities  to 
effectively  prevent,  detect  and  prosecute  corruption.  Given  the  public  interest  in 
shielding  public  and  private 
in  enhancing 
transparency,  good  governance  and  accountability,  it  is  necessary  to  ensure  that 
effective  arrangements  are  in  place  to  enable  whistleblowers  to  use  confidential 
channels, to alert competent authorities and to protect them from retaliation. Directive 
(EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council47 applies to reports of 
breaches affecting the financial interests of the Union as referred to in Article 325 of 
the Treaty and as further specified in relevant Union measures and thus applies to the 
reporting of all criminal offences falling within the scope of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council48.  As  regards  the  criminal  offences 
referred  to  in  this  Directive,  Directive  (EU)  2019/1937  should  be  applicable  to  the 
reporting  of  such  offences  and  to  the  protection  of  persons  reporting  such  offences 
under  the  conditions  established  therein.  Beyond  the  obligations  flowing  from 
Directive  (EU) 2019/1937, competent  national  authorities should ensure that  persons 
providing evidence or otherwise cooperating with criminal investigations are given the 
necessary protection, support and assistance in the context of criminal proceedings. 

47  Directive  (EU)  2019/1937  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2019  on  the 

protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305 26.11.2019). 

48  Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the protection of 

the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ 198 L, 28.7.2017, p. 29). 

EN 

27 

  EN 

                                                 
(30) 

Independent  civil  society  organisations  are  crucial  for  the  well-functioning  of  our 
democracies, and play a key role in upholding the common values on which the EU is 
founded.  They  act  as  essential  watchdogs,  drawing  attention  to  threats  to  the  rule  of 
law,  contributing  to  making  those  in  powers  accountable,  and  ensuring  respect  for 
fundamental rights. Member States should promote the participation of civil society in 
anti-corruption activities. 

(31)  Media pluralism and media freedom are key enablers for the rule of law, democratic 
accountability,  equality  and  the  fight  against  corruption.  Independent  and  pluralistic 
media, in particular investigative journalism, play an important role in the scrutiny of 
public affairs, detecting possible corruption and integrity breaches, raising awareness 
and promoting integrity. Member States have an obligation to  guarantee  an enabling 
environment  for  journalists,  protect  their  safety  and  pro-actively  promote  media 
freedom and media pluralism. The Commission’s Recommendation on the protection, 
safety and empowerment of journalists49, as well as the proposal for a Directive50 and 
a  Commission  Recommendation51  on  protecting  persons  who  engage  in  public 
participation  from  manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  court  proceedings  (‘Strategic 
lawsuits  against  public  participation’)  include  important  safeguards  and  standards  to 
ensure  that  journalists,  human  rights  defenders  and  others  can  carry  out  their  role 
unhindered. 

(32)  Member  States  should  collect  and  publish  data  concerning  the  application  of  this 
Directive,  which  can  be  analysed  and  used  by  the  Commission  in  the  context  of  the 
monitoring, implementation and evaluation of the Directive, as well as the application 
of any of the Rule of Law tools, such as the annual Rule of Law report. 

(33)  To  combat  corruption  effectively,  efficient  exchange  of  information  between 
competent  authorities  responsible  for  the  prevention,  detection,  investigation  or 
prosecution  of  corruption  offences  is  crucial.  Member  States  should  ensure  that 
information  is  exchanged  in  an  effective  and  timely  manner  in  accordance  with 
national and Union law. This Directive, which aims to lay down common definitions 
of  corruption  offences,  should  serve  as  a  benchmark  for  information  exchange  and 
cooperation  between  the  competent  national  authorities  under  Directives  (EU) 
XX/202352, (EU) 2019/115353, (EU) 2016/68154 of the European Parliament and of the 

49  Commission Recommendation of 16 September 2021 on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of 

journalists and other media professionals in the European Union, C(2021)6650 final. 

50  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in 
public  participation  from  manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  court  proceedings  (“Strategic  lawsuits  against 
public participation”), COM/2022/177 final. 

51  Commission  Recommendation  on  protecting  journalists  and  human  rights  defenders  who  engage  in  public 
participation  from  manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  court  proceedings  (“Strategic  lawsuits  against  public 
participation"), C(2022) 2428 final. 

52  See Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on information exchange between 
law  enforcement  authorities  of  Member  States,  repealing  Council  Framework  Decision  2006/960/JHA, 
COM/2021/782 final.  

53  Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules 
facilitating  the  use  of  financial  and  other  information  for  the  prevention,  detection,  investigation  or 
prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, 
p. 122. 

54  Directive  (EU)  2016/681  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the  use  of 
passenger  name  record  (PNR)  data  for  the  prevention,  detection,  investigation  and  prosecution  of  terrorist 
offences and serious crime (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 132), Annex II, point 6. 

EN 

28 

  EN 

                                                 
Council, Regulations (EU) 2018/124055, (EU) 2018/186256 and (EU) 603/201357 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, Council Decision 2008/633/JHA58. 

(34)  Corruption is a cross-cutting issue, while vulnerabilities differ from sector to sector, as 
well  as  the  most  adequate  way  to  tackle  them.  Member  States  should  therefore 
regularly perform an assessment to identify the sectors most at risk of corruption and 
develop  risk  management  plans  to  address  the  main  risks  in  the  sectors  identified, 
including by organising, at least once a year, awareness-raising actions adapted to the 
specificities  of  the  sectors  identified.  Member  States  that  have  broad  national  anti-
corruption  strategies  in  place,  may  also  choose  to  address  their  risk  assessments  and 
risk management plans therein, as long as the risks are assessed and the measures are 
reviewed  regularly.  For  instance,  investor  residence  schemes  are  among  the  sectors 
thatbear  high  risks  for  corruption59.  and  should  therefore  be  included  in  the 
assessments of the sectors most at risk of corruption and the trainings to be conducted 
by Member States as provided for by this Directive. 

(35)  To provide for an equivalent level of protection between the Union’s and the national 
financial  interests,  the  provisions  of  Directive  (EU)  2017/137160  should  be  aligned 
with  those  of  this  Directive.  To  this  end,  the  rules  applicable  to  criminal  offences 
affecting  the  Union’s  financial  interests  as  regards  sanctions,  aggravating  and 
mitigating  circumstances  and  limitation  periods  should  be  equivalent  to  those  laid 
down by this Directive. 

(36)  The  implementation  of  this  Directive  should  ensure  a  level  of  protection  of  the 
Union’s  financial  interests  which  is  equivalent  to  the  protection  of  the  national 
financial interests. 

55  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1240  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  September  2018 
establishing  a  European  Travel  Information  and  Authorisation  System  (ETIAS)  and  amending  Regulations 
(EU)  No 1077/2011,  (EU)  No  515/2014, (EU)  2016/399, (EU)  2016/1624  and  (EU) 2017/2226  (OJ  L  236, 
19.9.2018, p. 1), Annex, point 7. 

56  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1862  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  November  2018  on  the 
establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation 
and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters,  amending  and  repealing  Council  Decision  2007/533/JHA,  and 
repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  1986/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  Commission 
Decision 2010/261/EU, (OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 56). Reference to corruption is made indirectly in the SIS II 
Council  Decision  by  delimiting  its  scope  with  a  reference  to  the  European  Arrest  Warrant,  for  instance  in 
Article 8. 

57  Regulation  (EU)  No  603/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  June  2013  on  the 
establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) 
No  604/2013  establishing  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for 
examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country 
national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States' law 
enforcement  authorities  and  Europol  for  law  enforcement  purposes,  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the 
area of freedom, security and justice (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 1). 

58  Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information 
System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, 
detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, 
p.  129).  Reference  to  corruption  is  made  indirectly  in  the  VIS  Council  Decision  for  law  enforcement  by 
delimiting its scope with a reference to the European Arrest Warrant in recital 6. 

59  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European 
Union, 23 January 2019, COM(2019) 12 final. 

60  Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the protection of 

the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law, OJ 198 L, 28.7.2017, p. 29. 

EN 

29 

  EN 

                                                 
(37)  Since  the  objective  of  this  Directive,  namely  to  subject  corruption  in  all  Member 
States  to  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  criminal  penalties,  cannot  be 
sufficiently  achieved  by  Member  States  but  can  rather,  by  reason  of  the  scale  and 
effects  of  this  Directive,  be  better  achieved  at  Union  level,  the  Union  may  adopt 
measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the 
Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set 
out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that 
objective. 

(38)  The  intended  dissuasive  effect  of  the  application  of  criminal  law  sanctions  requires 
particular  caution  with  regard  to  fundamental  rights.  This  Directive  respects 
fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter 
of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (the  ‘Charter’)  and  in  particular  the 
right to liberty and security, the protection of personal data, the freedom to choose an 
occupation and right to engage in work, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to 
property,  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  and  to  a  fair  trial,  the  presumption  of 
innocence and the right of defence, the principles of the legality and proportionality of 
criminal offences and sanctions, as well as the principle of ne bis in idem. 

(39) 

[In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Protocol  (No  21)  on  the  position  of  the  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union,  Ireland  has  notified  its  wish  to  take  part  in  the  adoption  and 
application of this Directive. 

           AND/OR  

(40) 

(41) 

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in 
the adoption and application of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its 
application.] 

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark 
annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and 
is  not  bound  by  it  or  subject  to  its  application.  Council  Framework  Decision 
2003/568/JHA shall continue to be binding upon and applicable to Denmark. 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

Subject matter and scope 

This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and 
sanctions in the area of corruption, as well as measures to better prevent and fight corruption. 

For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply: 

Article 2 
Definitions  

EN 

30 

  EN 

1. 

2. 

‘prevention of corruption’ refers to the detection and elimination of the causes of and 
conditions  for  corruption,  through  development  and  implementation  of  a  system  of 
appropriate measures, as well as deterrence against corruption-related acts. 

‘property’  means  funds  or  assets  of  any  kind,  whether  corporeal  or  incorporeal, 
movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, and legal documents or instruments in 
any  form,  including  electronic  or  digital,  evidencing  title  to,  or  an  interest  in,  such 
assets. 

3. 

‘public official’ means: 

(a) 

(b) 

a Union official or a national official of a Member State or of a third country, 

any other person assigned and exercising a public service function in Member 
States or third countries, for an international organisation or for an international 
court. 

4. 

‘Union official’ means a person who is: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a member of an institution, body, office or agency of the Union and the staff of 
such bodies shall be assimilated to Union officials.  

an  official  or  other  servant  engaged  under  contract  by  the  Union  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Staff  Regulations  of  Officials  and  the  Conditions  of 
Employment  of  Other  Servants  of  the  European  Union  laid  down  in  Council 
Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (the ‘Staff Regulations’); 

seconded  to  the  Union  by  a  Member  State  or  by  any  public  or  private  body, 
who carries out functions equivalent to those performed by Union officials or 
other servants. 

‘national official’ means any person holding an executive, administrative, or judicial 
office  at  national,  regional  or  local  level,  whether  appointed  or  elected,  whether 
permanent  or  temporary,  whether  paid  or  unpaid,  irrespective  of  that  person’s 
seniority. Any person holding a legislative office at national, regional or local level is 
considered a national official for the purpose of this Directive. 

‘breach of duty’ covers as a minimum any disloyal behaviour constituting a breach of 
a  statutory  duty,  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  a  breach  of  professional  regulations  or 
instructions, which apply within the business of a person who in any capacity directs 
or works for a private sector entity. 

‘legal person’ means any entity having legal personality under the applicable national 
law,  except  for  States  or  public  bodies  in  the  exercise  of  State  authority  and  for 
public international organisations. 

‘high  level  officials’  are  heads  of  state,  heads  of  central  and  regional  government, 
members  of  central  and  regional  government,  as  well  as  other  political  appointees 
who hold a high level public office such as deputy ministers, state secretaries, heads 
and members of a minister’s private office, and senior political officials, as well as 
members  of  parliamentary  chambers,  members  of  highest  Courts,  such  as 
Constitutional and Supreme Courts, and members of Supreme Audit Institutions. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Article 3  
 Prevention of corruption 

1. 

Member  States  shall  take  appropriate  action,  such  as  information  and  awareness-
raising campaigns and research and education programmes, to raise public awareness 

EN 

31 

  EN 

2. 

3. 

4. 

on  the  harmfulness  of  corruption  and  reduce  the  overall  commission  of  corruption 
offences as well as the risk of corruption. 

Member States shall take measures to ensure the highest degree of transparency and 
accountability  in  public  administration  and  public  decision-making  with  a  view  to 
prevent corruption. 

Member  States  shall  take  measures  to  ensure  that  key  preventive  tools  such  as  an 
open  access  to  information  of  public  interest,  effective  rules  for  the  disclosure  and 
management  of  conflicts  of  interests  in  the  public  sector,  effective  rules  for  the 
disclosure and verification of assets of public officials and effective rules regulating 
the interaction between the private and the public sector are in place. 

Member  States  shall  adopt  comprehensive  and  up-to-date  measures  to  prevent 
corruption in both the public and private sectors, adapted to the specific risks of an 
area of activity. Such measures shall at  least  include  actions to  strengthen integrity 
and to prevent opportunities for corruption among: 

(a) 

high level officials; 

(b)  members of law enforcement and the judiciary, including measures relating to 
their  appointment  and  conduct,  and  by  ensuring  adequate  remuneration  and 
equitable pay scales. 

5. 

Member States shall regularly perform an assessment to identify the sectors most at 
risk of corruption. 

6. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

  Following that assessment, Member States shall: 

(a) 

organise,  at  least  once  a  year,  awareness-raising  actions  adapted  to  the 
specificities of the sectors identified, including on ethics; and  

(b)  develop plans to address the main risks in the sectors identified. 

Where appropriate, Member States shall take measures to promote the participation 
of civil society, non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations 
in anti-corruption activities. 

Article 4 
Specialised bodies  

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  one  or  several 
bodies, or organisation  units specialised in  the prevention of corruption is or are in 
place. 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  one  or  several 
bodies, or organisational units specialised in the repression of corruption is or are in 
place. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the body or bodies, 
or an organisation unit or units as referred to in paragraph 1 and 2: 

(a) 

are  functionally  independent  from  the  government  and  have  a  sufficient 
number  of  qualified  staff  and  the  financial,  technical  and  technological 
resources,  as  well  as  the  powers  and  tools  necessary  to  ensure  the  proper 
administration of their tasks; 

(b) 

are known to the public; 

EN 

32 

  EN 

(c) 

provide public access to relevant information on the exercise of their activities, 
with  due  regard  for  the  protection  of  personal  data  and  the  confidentiality  of 
investigations; 

(d)  operate  and  take  decisions  in  accordance  with  transparent  procedures 
established by law, with the effect of ensuring integrity and accountability. 

Article 5 
Resources 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that national authorities competent 
for the detection, investigation, prosecution or adjudication of the criminal offences referred 
to  in  this Directive are  continually provided with  an adequate number of  qualified staff and 
the financial, technical and technological resources necessary for the effective performance of 
their functions related to the implementation of this Directive. 

Article 6 
Training  

1. 

2. 

Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure adequate resources 
for  and  the  provision  of  training  for  its  national  officials  to  be  able  to  identify 
different  forms of corruption and corruption risks that may occur in the  exercise of 
their  duties  and  to  react  in  a  timely  and  appropriate  manner  to  any  suspicious 
activity.  

Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure adequate resources 
for and the provision of specialised anti-corruption training at regular intervals for its 
members  of  law  enforcement,  the  judiciary  and  the  staff  of  authorities  tasked  with 
criminal  investigations  and  proceedings  of  offences  falling  within  the  scope  of  this 
Directive. 

Article 7 
Bribery in the public sector 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  following  conduct  is 
punishable as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally: 

(a) 

(b) 

the promise, offer or giving, directly or through an intermediary, of an advantage of 
any kind to a public official for that official or for a third party in order for the public 
official to act or refrain from acting in accordance with his duty or in the exercise of 
that official’s functions (active bribery); 

the request or receipt by a public official, directly or through an intermediary, of an 
advantage of any kind or the promise of such an advantage for  that official or for a 
third  party,  in  order  for  the  public  official  to  act  or  to  refrain  from  acting  in 
accordance  with  his  duty  or  in  the  exercise  of  that  official’s  functions  (passive 
bribery). 

Article 8 
Bribery in the private sector 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following conduct shall be 
punishable  as  a  criminal  offence,  when  committed  intentionally  and  in  the  course  of 
economic, financial, business or commercial activities: 

EN 

33 

  EN 

(a) 

(b) 

the promise, offer or giving, directly or through an intermediary, an undue advantage 
of  any  kind  to  a  person  who  in  any  capacity  directs  or  works  for  a  private-sector 
entity, for that person or for a third party, in order for that person to act or to refrain 
from acting, in breach of that person’s duties (active bribery); 

the request or receipt by a person, directly or through an intermediary, of an undue 
advantage of any kind or the promise of such an advantage, for that person or for a 
third party, while in any capacity directing or working for a private-sector entity, to 
act or to refrain from acting, in breach of that person’s duties (passive bribery).  

Article 9 
Misappropriation 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  following  conduct  is 
punishable as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally: 

(a) 

(b) 

the committing, disbursing, appropriation or use by a public official of property whose 
management  is  directly  or  indirectly  entrusted  to  him  contrary  to  the  purpose  for 
which it was intended; 

the committing, disbursing, appropriation or use, in the course of economic, financial, 
business or commercial activities, by a person who directs or works, in any capacity, 
in a private sector entity, of any property whose management is directly or indirectly 
entrusted to him contrary to the purpose for which it was intended. 

Article 10 
Trading in influence 

1. 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  following 
conduct is punishable as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally: 

(a) 

(b) 

the promise, offer or giving, directly or through an intermediary, of an undue 
advantage  of  any  kind  to  a  person  or  a  third  party  in  order  for  that  person  to 
exert real or supposed influence with a view to obtaining an undue advantage 
from a public official; 

the  request  or  receipt,  directly  or  through  an  intermediary,  of  an  undue 
advantage  of  any  kind  or  the  promise  of  such  an  advantage  to  a  person  or  a 
third party  in order for that  person to  exert  real  or supposed influence with a 
view to obtaining an undue advantage from a public official. 

2. 

In  order  for  the  conduct  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  to  be  punishable  as  a  criminal 
offence,  it  shall  be  irrelevant  whether  or  not  the  influence  is  exerted  or  whether  or 
not the supposed influence leads to the intended results. 

Article 11 
Abuse of functions 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  following  conduct  is 
punishable as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally: 

1. 

the  performance  of  or  failure  to  perform  an  act,  in  violation  of  laws,  by  a  public 
official  in  the  exercise  of  his  functions  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an  undue 
advantage for that official or for a third party; 

EN 

34 

  EN 

2. 

the performance of or failure to perform an act, in breach of duties, by a person who 
in any capacity directs or works for a private-sector entity in the course of economic, 
financial,  business  or  commercial  activities  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an  undue 
advantage for that person or for a third party. 

Article 12 
Obstruction of justice 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  following  conduct  is 
punishable as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally: 

1. 

2. 

the use, directly or through an intermediary, of physical force, threats or intimidation 
or  the  promise,  offering  or  giving  of  an  advantage  to  induce  false  testimony  or  to 
interfere  in  the  giving  of  testimony  or  the  production  of  evidence  in  a  proceeding 
concerning any of the offences referred to in Article 7 to 11, 13 and 14; 

the use, directly or through an intermediary, of physical force, threats or intimidation 
to interfere in the exercise of official duties by a person holding a judicial office or a 
member of law enforcement concerning any of the offences referred to in Article 7 to 
11, 13 and 14. 

Article 13 
Enrichment from corruption offences 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  intentional  acquisition, 
possession or use by a public official of property that that official knows is derived from the 
commission  of  any  of  the  offences  set  out  in  Articles  7  to  12  and  14,  is  punishable  as  a 
criminal offence, irrespective of whether that official was involved in the commission of that 
offence. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

Article 14 
Incitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  inciting  any  of  the 
offences referred to in Articles 7 to 13 is punishable as a criminal offence. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that aiding and abetting 
any of the offences referred to in Articles 7 to 13 is punishable as a criminal offence. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that attempting any of the 
offences referred to in Articles 9 and 11 to 13 is punishable as a criminal offence. 

Article 15 
Penalties and measures for natural persons 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the criminal offences 
referred  to  in  Articles  7  to  14  are  punishable  by  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive criminal penalties. 

2. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that: 

(a)  the  criminal  offences  referred  to  in  Article  7  and  12  are  punishable  by  a 
maximum term of imprisonment of at least six years; 

EN 

35 

  EN 

 
3. 

4. 

(b) the criminal offences referred to in Article 8 to 11 are punishable by a maximum 
term of imprisonment of at least five years; and 

(c) the criminal offence referred to in Article 13 is punishable by a maximum term of 
imprisonment of at least four years. 

Where a criminal offence referred to in Article 9 involves damage of less than EUR 
10  000  or  an  advantage  of  less  than  EUR  10  000,  Member  States  may  provide  for 
sanctions other than criminal sanctions. 

Without  prejudice  to  paragraphs  1  to  3,  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary 
measures to ensure that natural persons who have been convicted of committing one 
of the criminal offences referred to in Article 7 to 14 may be subject to sanctions or 
measures imposed by a competent authority and that are not necessarily of a criminal 
nature,  including: 

(a) 

fines; 

(b) 

the removal, suspension and reassignment from a public office; 

(c) 

the disqualification from 

(i) 

holding a public office; 

(ii) 

exercising a public service function; 

(iii)  holding  office  in  a  legal  person  owned  in  whole  or  in  part  by  that 

Member State; 

(iv) 

the exercise of commercial activities in the context of which the offence 
was committed; 

deprivation of the right to stand for elections, proportionate to the seriousness 

(d) 
of the offence committed; and 

(e)  withdrawal  of  permits  or  authorisations  to  pursue  activities  in  the  context  of 
which the offence was committed 

(f) 

exclusions  from  access  to  public  funding,  including  tender  procedures,  grants  and 
concessions; 

Article 16 
Liability of legal persons 

1. 

2. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons can be 
held liable for any of the criminal offences referred to in Articles 7 to 14 committed 
for the benefit of those legal persons by any natural person, acting either individually 
or as  part of an organ of the legal  person, and having a leading position within the 
legal person, based on one or more of the following: 

(a) 

a power of representation of the legal person; 

(b) 

the authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person; or 

(c) 

the authority to exercise control within the legal person. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons can be 
held  liable  where  the  lack  of  supervision  or  control  by  a  person  referred  to  in 
paragraph  1  has  made  possible  the  commission,  including  by  any  of  the  persons 

EN 

36 

  EN 

 
3. 

1. 

2. 

under his authority, of any of the criminal offences referred to in Articles 7 to 14 for 
the benefit of that legal person. 

Liability  of  legal  persons  under  paragraphs  1  and  2  shall  not  exclude  criminal  
proceedings  against  natural  persons  who  are  perpetrators,  inciters  or  accessories  in 
the criminal offences referred to in Articles 7 to 14. 

Article 17 
Sanctions for legal persons  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held 
liable  for  criminal  offences  pursuant  to  Article  16  are  punishable  by  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  sanctions  or 
measures for legal persons liable pursuant to Article 16 include: 

(a) 

criminal or non-criminal fines, the maximum limit of which should not be less 
than  5  percent  of  the  total  worldwide  turnover  of  the  legal  person,  including 
related entities, in the business year preceding the decision imposing the fine; 

(b) 

the exclusion of that legal person from entitlement to public benefits or aid; 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

the temporary or permanent exclusion from public procurement procedures; 

the  temporary  or  permanent  disqualification  of  that  legal  person  from  the 
exercise of commercial activities; 

the withdrawal of permits or authorisations to pursue activities in the context of 
which the offence was committed; 

the possibility for public authorities to annul or rescind a contract with them, in 
the context of which the offence was committed;  

the placing of that legal person under judicial supervision; 

the judicial winding-up of that legal person; and 

the  temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  establishments  which  have  been  used 
for committing the offence. 

Article 18  
Aggravating and mitigating circumstances 

1. 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  following 
circumstances  are  to  be  regarded  as  aggravating  circumstances,  in  relation  to  the 
offences referred to in Articles 7 to 14: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the offender is a high level official; 

the offender has been convicted before of an offence  referred to Articles 7 to 
14; 

the  offender  obtained  a  substantial  benefit  or  the  offence  caused  substantial 
damage; 

(d) 

the offender committed the offence for the benefit of a third country; 

(e) 

the offender exercises investigation, prosecution or adjudication functions; 

EN 

37 

  EN 

 
(f) 

(g) 

the  offence  was  committed  within  the  framework  of  a  criminal  organisation 
within the meaning of Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA; and 

the offender is  an obliged entity  within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 
(EU)  2015/849  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council61,  or  an 
employee of an obliged entity, or has the power, whether individually or as part 
of  an  organ  of  the  obliged  entity,  to  represent  that  entity,  or  the  authority  to 
take decisions on behalf of that entity or to exercise control within the obliged 
entity,  and  has  committed  the  offence  in  the  exercise  of  his  professional 
activities. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  following 
circumstances  are  regarded  as  mitigating  circumstances,  in  relation  to  the  criminal 
offences referred to Articles 7 to 14: 

(a) 

the  offender  provides  the  competent  authorities  with  information  which  they 
would not otherwise have been able to obtain, helping them to 

(i) 

  identify or bring to justice other offenders; or 

(ii) 

  find evidence. 

(b)  where the offender is a legal person and it has implemented effective internal 
controls, ethics awareness, and compliance programmes to prevent corruption 
prior to or after the commission of the offence; and 

(c)  where  the  offender  is  a  legal  person  and  it  has,  once  the  offence  has  been 
discovered,  rapidly  and  voluntarily  disclosed  the  offence  to  the  competent 
authorities and taken remedial measures. 

Article 19 
Privileges or immunity from investigation and prosecution of corruption offences 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that privileges or immunities from 
investigation and prosecution granted to national officials for the offences referred to in this 
Directive can be lifted through an objective, impartial, effective and transparent process pre-
established  by  law,  based  on  clear  criteria,  and  that  is  concluded  within  a  reasonable 
timeframe. 

Article 20 
Jurisdiction 

1. 

Member  States  shall  establish  jurisdiction  over  the  offences  referred  to  in  this 
Directive where: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory; 

the offender is a national of or has his or her habitual residence in that Member 
State; 

the  offence  is  committed  for  the  benefit  of  a  legal  person  established  in  the 
territory of that Member State. 

61  Directive 2015/849/EU the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the 
use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation 
(EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73–
117). 

EN 

38 

  EN 

                                                 
2. 

3.  

1. 

Where  an  offence  referred  to  in  this  Directive  falls  within  the  jurisdiction  of  more 
than one Member State, the Member States  concerned shall cooperate to  determine 
which  one  shall  conduct  criminal  proceedings.  The  matter  shall,  where  appropriate 
and in accordance with Article 12 of Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA62, 
be referred to Eurojust. 

In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, point (b), each Member State shall ensure that 
the exercise of its jurisdiction is not subject to the condition that a prosecution can be 
initiated only following a denunciation from the State in which the criminal offence 
was  committed  or  following  a  report  made  by  the  victim  in  the  State  where  the 
criminal offence was committed. 

Article 21 
 Limitation periods for corruption offences 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to provide for a limitation period in 
respect  of  the  criminal  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  7  to  14,  which  allows  for 
sufficient time to effectively investigate, prosecute, trial and decide on those offences 
following their commission. 

2. 

The limitation period referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be shorter than: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

fifteen  years from the time when the offence was committed, for the criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 7 and 12; 

ten  years  from  the  time  when  the  offence  was  committed,  for  the  criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 8 to 11; 

eight  years  from  the  time  when  the  offence  was  committed,  for  the  criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 13 and 14. 

3. 

By  way  of  derogation  from  paragraph  2,  Member  States  may  establish  a  shorter 
limitation  period,  provided  that  the  period  may  be  interrupted  or  suspended  in  the 
event of specified acts and that the applicable rules on the suspension and limitation 
periods  do  not  hamper  the  effectiveness  of  the  judicial  process  and  the  dissuasive 
application of penalties. This period shall not be shorter than: 

(a) 

ten years for the criminal offences referred to in Articles 7 and 12; 

(b) 

eight years for the criminal offences referred to in Articles 8 to 11; 

(c) 

five years for the criminal offences referred to in Articles 13 and 14. 

4. 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  enable  the  enforcement  of  a 
penalty of imprisonment following a final conviction for at least: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

fifteen  years  from  the  date  of  the  final  conviction  for  any  of  the  criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 7 and 12; 

ten years from the date of the final conviction for any of the criminal offences 
referred to in Articles 8 to 11; 

eight  years  from  the  date  of  the  final  conviction  for  any  of  the  criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 13 and 14. 

62  Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts 

of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings (OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 42). 

EN 

39 

  EN 

                                                 
5. 

By  way  of  derogation  from  paragraph  4,  Member  States  may  establish  a  shorter 
limitation  period,  provided  that  the  period  may  be  interrupted  or  suspended  in  the 
event of specified acts and that the applicable rules on the suspension and limitation 
periods  do  not  hamper  the  effectiveness  of  the  judicial  process  and  the  dissuasive 
application of penalties. This period shall not be shorter than: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

ten years from the date of the final conviction for any of the criminal offences 
referred to in Articles 7 and 12; 

eight  years  from  the  date  of  the  final  conviction  for  any  of  the  criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 8 to 11; 

five years from the date of the final conviction for any of the criminal offences 
referred to in Articles 13 and 14. 

Article 22 
Protection of persons who report offences or assist the investigation 

1.   Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  Directive  (EU) 
2019/1937 is applicable to the reporting of the offences referred to in Articles 7 to 14 
and the protection of persons reporting such offences. 

2.  

In addition to the measures referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that 
persons  reporting  offences  referred  to  in  this  Directive  and  providing  evidence  or 
otherwise  cooperating  with  the  investigation,  prosecution  or  adjudication  of  such 
offences are provided the necessary protection, support and assistance in the context of 
criminal proceedings. 

Article 23 
Investigative tools  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that effective investigative  tools, 
such  as  those  used  in  countering  organised  crime  or  other  serious  crimes,  are  available  to 
persons,  units  or  services  responsible  for  investigating  or  prosecuting  the  criminal  offences 
referred to in this Directive. 

Article 24 
Cooperation between Member States’ authorities, the Commission, Europol, Eurojust, the 
European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor's Office 

Without  prejudice  to  the  rules  on  cross-border  cooperation  and  mutual  legal  assistance  in 
criminal  matters,  Member  States’  authorities,  Europol,  Eurojust,  the  European  Public 
Prosecutor's  Office,  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  and  the  Commission  shall, 
within  their  respective  competences,  cooperate  with  each  other  in  the  fight  against  the 
criminal  offences  referred  to  in  this  Directive.  To  that  end,  where  appropriate,  Europol, 
Eurojust, the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), 
and  the  Commission  shall  provide  technical  and  operational  assistance  in  accordance  with 
their respective mandates to facilitate the coordination of investigations and prosecutions by 
the competent authorities. 

EN 

Article 25 

40 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
Commission support to Member States and their competent authorities 

1. 

2. 

The  Commission  shall,  where  appropriate,  support  Member  States  and  competent 
authorities in complying with their obligations under this Directive. 

The  Commission  shall  prepare  an  overview  of  sectoral  risks  of  corruption  in  the 
Union and facilitate information exchange among Member States and experts across 
the Union. 

3. 

The Commission, through the EU network against corruption, shall in particular: 

(a) 

(b) 

facilitate  cooperation  and  exchange  of  best  practices  among  Member  States’ 
practitioners, experts, researchers and other stakeholders; 

complement  activities,  such  as  those  referred  to  in  Article 3  and  point  (b)  of 
Article  18(2)  by  developing  best  practices,  guidance  materials  and 
methodologies. 

4.  

The Commission shall inform Member States about financial resources at Union level 
available to Member States for the fight against corruption. 

Article 26 
Data collection and statistics 

1. 

2. 

Member States shall collect statistical data on the criminal offences as referred to in 
Articles 7 to 14 of this Directive. 

The statistical data referred to in paragraph 1 shall include at least the following: 

(a) 

the number of cases reported; 

(b) 

the number of cases investigated; 

(c) 

the number of indictments; 

(d) 

the average length of the criminal investigations of cases; 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

the  average  length  of  courts  proceedings  of  cases  in  first  instance,  second 
instance and cassation; 

the number of convictions ; 

the number of natural persons convicted and sanctioned, with specification of 
the number of public officials and high level officials; 

(h) 

the number of legal persons held liable and sanctioned; 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

the  number  of  dismissed  court  cases  for  corruption,  distinguishing  between 
dismissals on the substance or not and including non-trial resolutions; 

the  types  and  levels  of  sanctions  imposed  for  each  of  the  criminal  offences 
referred to in Articles 7 to 14; 

the  number  of  convictions  pardoned,  with  specification  of  the  number  of 
pardons to public officials and to high level official. 

3. 

Member States shall, on an annual basis and by 1 June, publish, in a machine-readable 
and  disaggregated  format,  the  statistical  data  referred  to  in  paragraph  2  for  the 
previous year and inform the Commission thereof. 

EN 

41 

  EN 

 
Article 27 
Replacement of Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA and the Convention on the fight 
against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member 
States of the European Union 

1. 

2. 

Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  is  replaced  with  regard  to  the  Member  States 
bound by this Directive, without prejudice to the obligations of those Member States 
with  regard  to  the  date  for  transposition  of  that  Framework  Decision  into  national 
law. 

With regard to the Member States bound by this Directive, references to Framework 
Decision 2003/568/JHA shall be construed as references to this Directive. 

The  Convention  on  the  fight  against  corruption  involving  officials  of  the  European 
Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union is replaced with 
regard to the Member States bound by this Directive. 

With  regard  to  the  Member  States  bound  by  this  Directive,  references  to  that 
Convention shall be construed as references to this Directive. 

Article 28 
Amendments to Directive (EU) 2017/1371 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial 
interests by means of criminal law 

Directive (EU) 2017/1371 is amended as follows: 

(1) 

In Article 2(1), the following point (c) is inserted: 

‘(c) ‘high level officials’ are those defined in Article 2(8) of Directive (EU) XXX on 
combating corruption.’ 

(2) 

In  Article  4(2),  the  words  ‘passive  and  active  corruption’,  ‘passive  corruption’  and 
‘active  corruption’  are  replaced  respectively  by  ‘passive  and  active  bribery  in  the 
public sector’, ‘passive bribery in the public sector’ and ‘active bribery in the public 
sector’. 

(3) 

Article 7(3) is replaced by the following: 

‘3.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 3, 4(1) and (2) are punishable by a maximum penalty 
of  at  least  six  years  of  imprisonment  when  they  involve  considerable  damage  or 
advantage. 

Member States  shall take the necessary measures to  ensure that the  criminal  offence 
referred to in Article 4(3) is punishable by a maximum penalty of at least five years of 
imprisonment when it involves considerable damage or advantage. 

The damage or advantage resulting from the criminal offences referred to in points (a), 
(b) and (c) of Article 3(2) and in Article 4 shall be presumed to be considerable where 
the damage or advantage involves more than EUR 100 000. 

The damage or advantage resulting from the criminal offences referred to in point (d) 
of  Article  3(2)  and  subject  to  Article  2(2)  shall  always  be  presumed  to  be 
considerable.’ 

(4) 

In Article 7, paragraph (4) is replaced by the following: 

EN 

42 

  EN 

 
 
 
‘4. Where a criminal offence referred to in points (a), (b) or (c) of Article 3(2) or in 
Article  4(1)  and  (3)  involves  damage  of  less  than  EUR  10  000  or  an  advantage  of 
less   than  EUR  10  000,  Member  States  may  provide  for  sanctions  other  than 
criminal sanctions.’ 

(5) 

In Article 7, the following paragraph 6 is inserted: 

‘7. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 to 5, Member States shall take the necessary 
measures  to  ensure  that  natural  persons  who  have  been  convicted  of  committing 
one  of  the  criminal  offences  referred  to  in  this  Directive  may  be  subject  to 
sanctions or measures as referred to in Article  15(4) of Directive (EU) XXX on 
combating corruption.’ 

(6) 

Article 8 is replaced by the following: 

‘Article 8 

Aggravating and mitigating circumstances 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the circumstances 
referred to in Article 18 of Directive (EU) XXX on combating corruption are to be 
regarded  as  aggravating  and  mitigating  circumstances,  in  relation  to  the  criminal 
offences referred to in this Directive.’ 

(7) 

Article 9 is replaced by the following: 

‘Article 9 

Sanctions with regard to legal persons 

1. 

 Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person 
held  liable  for  criminal  offences  pursuant  to  Article  6  shall  be  punishable  by 
effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. 

2.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  sanctions  or 
measures for legal persons held liable pursuant to Article 6 shall include those 
referred to in Article 17(2) of Directive (EU) XXX on combating corruption.’ 

(8) 

In Article 12, paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) are replaced by the following: 

‘2. The limitation period as referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be shorter than: 

(a) 

(b) 

fifteen  years from the time when the offence was committed, for the criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 3, 4(1) and (2); 

ten  years  from  the  time  when  the  offence  was  committed  for  the  criminal 
offence referred to in Article 4(3). 

3.  By  way  of  derogation  from  paragraph  2,  Member  States  may  establish  a  shorter 
limitation  period,  provided  that  the  period  may  be  interrupted  or  suspended  in  the 
event of specified acts  and that the applicable rules on the suspension and limitation 
periods  do  not  hamper  the  effectiveness  of  the  judicial  process  and  the  dissuasive 
application of penalties. This period shall not be shorter than: 

(a) 

(b) 

ten years for the criminal offences referred to in Articles 3, 4(1) and (2); 

eight years for the criminal offence referred to in Article 4(3). 

EN 

43 

  EN 

 
 
 
4.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  enable  the  enforcement  of  a 
penalty of imprisonment following a final conviction for at least: 

(a) 

(b) 

fifteen  years  from  the  date  of  the  final  conviction  for  any  of  the  criminal 
offences referred to in Articles 3, 4(1) and (2); 

ten years from the date of the final conviction for the criminal offence referred 
to in Article 4(3). 

5.  By  way  of  derogation  from  paragraph  4,  Member  States  may  establish  a  shorter 
limitation  period,  provided  that  the  period  may  be  interrupted  or  suspended  in  the 
event of specified acts  and that the applicable rules on the suspension and limitation 
periods  do  not  hamper  the  effectiveness  of  the  judicial  process  and  the  dissuasive 
application of penalties. This period shall not be shorter than: 

(a) 

(b) 

ten years from the date of the final conviction for any of the criminal offences 
referred to in Articles 3, 4(1) and 4(2); 

eight  years  from  the  date  of  the  final  conviction  for  the  criminal  offence 
referred to in Article 4(3).’ 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Article 29 
Transposition 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [18 months after adoption] at 
the  latest.  They  shall  forthwith  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  those 
provisions. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 30 
Evaluation and reporting 

By  [24  months  after  the  deadline  for  implementation  of  this  Directive],  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 
to comply with this Directive. 

Every  two  years  as  of  [12  months  after  the  deadline  for  implementation  of  this 
Directive], Member States shall send the Commission  a report within three months 
which includes a summary about implementation of and actions taken in accordance 
with Articles 3 to 6. 

By  [48  months  after  the  deadline  for  implementation  of  this  Directive],  the 
Commission  shall  submit  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council, 
assessing the added value of this Directive with regard to combating corruption. The 
report  shall  also  cover  the  impact  of  this  Directive  on  fundamental  rights  and 
freedoms. On the basis of this evaluation, the Commission shall, if necessary, decide 
on appropriate follow-up actions. 

EN 

44 

  EN 

 
 
Article 31 
Entry into force 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 32 
Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

45 

  EN