The EU’s against financial crimes takes place at multiple levels in the EU regulatory machinery: both within the framework and endeavor of the establishment of an of Freedom, Security and “Area Justice” and within the traditional playing field of the EU internal market and the need to ensure market integrity. Furthermore, the EU and the Member States are required by the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU, Article 325) to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU. While much has been said about the purpose of fighting financial crimes within the internal market, much less has been said with regard to the impact of these findings on the operation of the crime fighting project of the AFSJ. So while the internal market objectives are well dissected this is different in the AFSJ in the context of financial crimes legislation. We argue that this is a mistake if one truly wants to understand the EU’s fight against irregularities in the internal market. After all, the AFSJ embodies a complicated hybrid system of interacting norms (global, EU and national) and should therefore be understood in the light of the classic EU law policy of the internal market. In short, the AFSJ deals with, inter alia, security issues, border control, anti-terrorism law and crime. While market creation has always been focused on principally justifying aims of the Union’s increased powers and curtailment of Member State competences, the
The EU’s against financial crimes takes place at multiple levels in the EU regulatory machinery: both within the framework and endeavor of the establishment of an “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice” and within the traditional playing field of the EU internal market and the need to ensure market integrity. Furthermore, the EU and the Member States are required by the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU, Article 325) to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU. While much has been said about the purpose of fighting financial crimes within the internal market, much less has been said with regard to the impact of these findings on the operation of the crime fighting project of the AFSJ. So while the internal market objectives are well dissected this is different in the AFSJ in the context of financial crimes legislation. We argue that this is a mistake if one truly wants to understand the EU’s fight against irregularities in the internal market. After all, the AFSJ embodies a complicated hybrid system of interacting norms (global, EU and national) and should therefore be understood in the light of the classic EU law policy of the internal market. In short, the AFSJ deals with, inter alia, security issues, border control, anti-terrorism law and crime. While market creation has always been focused on principally justifying aims of the Union’s increased powers and curtailment of Member State competences, the
The%20Robustness%20of%20EU%20Financial%20Crimes%20Legislation-%20A%20Critical%20Review%20of%20the%20EU%20and%20UK%20Anti-Fraud%20and%20Money%20Laundering%20Scheme.docx