Mon 28 Jul 2008
The following disclosures about the EU Commission´s fraud and its mismanagement of its economical responsibilities as for our tax-payer money in Bulgaria and Romania, as well as its discriminatory treatment of corruption and organized criminality in these 2 countries - because of clever Romania being a lucrative personal gain to the eurocrats, and not so clever Bulgaria offering the eurocrats no personal gains, therefore becoming the EU whipping boy - is a scandal that tells volumes about the nature and motives of the New World Order branch, which calls itself the EU!
I have previously reported on EU irregularities discovered by its Court of Auditors who have even refused to approve of the EU budget for 13 consecutive years – the greatest scandal being the sacking by the EU Commission of its Chief Accountant, Marta Andreasen, for refusing to approve of budget irreguarities!!
According to the COMMISSION REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL
Protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report
2007 [SEC(2008) 2300] , [SEC(2008) 2301]
“The statistics must be read and used with great care: a reported irregularity is not in most cases a possible fraud (which is a deliberate act). A reported suspicion of fraud is not necessarily a fraud confirmed by a court judgment.”
I.e.: If it works, it works!!!
Nevertheless, the irregularities cost us taxpayers a lot of money!
But there is another instance to check the fraud of the EU: OLAF.
The EUObserver July 23, 2008: The European Commission was the target of most of the internal investigations last year by the EU anti-fraud office (OLAF).
Eighty-four cases of suspected fraud in the Commission remained under evaluation or were ongoing at the end of 2007, compared to just seven for the EU Council and five for the European Parliament, according to OLAF's annual report out on 22 July. However, this is only considered to be the tip of the iceberg!
One example concerned an "agent" employed at an unnamed commission office abroad who stole money, fiddled books and tried to corrupt colleagues to the tune of "tens of thousands of euros," the OLAF survey said.
In another case, a retired EU official pretended to live in a different country in order to claim a bigger pension, with an OLAF investigator flying around Europe to find out where the former worker actually spent his time.
The findings were forwarded to national police, with the "agent" blocked from managing EU funds in future - but not sacked - and the retiree docked pension income.
"As the European Commission manages a far greater part of the budget than the other institutions and accounts for most EU officials and other staff, it is more frequently the subject of investigations," the annual report explained.
Meanwhile, Romania topped the list of new cases opened in EU members, with 95 new investigations, while Italy (80), Germany (75), Belgium (72), Bulgaria (52), Spain (42), Greece (41) and Poland (38) also featured near the top of the list.
In proportion to their populations, Belgium, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece received the most new attention from OLAF last year.
The bulk of investigations involve agricultural subsidies, cigarette smuggling and EU "external aid" - projects related to development and humanitarian goals.
The anti-fraud office itself has in the past been criticised for inefficiency by the European Court of Auditors and accused by journalists and MEPs of hushing up internal EU fraud investigations.
The anti-fraud unit employed a total of 467 staff in 2007 on a budget of €72.6 million, up from 388 people on €67.5 million the year before.
It recovered €204 million mis-spent EU funds, compared to just €114 million in 2006, with the average length of investigations creeping up from 27 months to 28 months per case.
EurActiv July 23, 2008: The 2007 report on the 'Protection of the Communities' financial interests' revealed that despite the number of reported irregularities "decreasing in every area apart from that of structural measures," their financial impact "has increased in every sector". The most significant example of the trend identified by the 2007 report relates to agriculture, where despite a decrease of over 50% in the number of irregularities reported (2007: 1,548; 2006: 3,149), their estimated financial impact almost doubled from €87m in 2006 to €155m in 2007.
What's more, the report estimates that irregularities regarding pre-accession funding for the new EU members have "a heavy financial impact". Last week, for example, a leaked report from EU anti-fraud watchdog OLAF revealed misuse in Bulgaria of up to €6.1m of such funding, originally earmarked for agriculture and rural development (EurActiv 17/07/08).
The figures are preliminary and require further investigation. "80% of the EU budget is not implemented by the Commission in Brussels - but by member states".
EurActiv July 23, 2008:Leaks to the press by the Commission of a monitoring report on Bulgaria's performance in the EU have badly tarnished the country's international image, lamented Bulgaria's Deputy Prime Minister Ivaylo Kalfin, expressing his hope that the final report will be less damaging!
Financial Times July 21, 2008: In a report leaked last week, the European Commission lambasted Bulgaria in some of the toughest language used about a member, saying that "high-level corruption and organised crime" exacerbated "problems of general weakness in administrative and judicial capacity". In a separate leaked document, Olaf, the Commission's anti-fraud unit, accused a suspected criminal-business group of defrauding the European Union of pre-accession funds, and accused authorities of failing to handle the case properly. Both reports were drafts, subject to revision before they are presented to EU foreign ministers this week.
t might seem unfair to pick on a vulnerable new member when, in past years, even bigger frauds involving EU funds - in Greece, for example - did not prompt such radical action.
The political impact will be greater, with a row raging over responsibility for the country's humiliation. The public is furious with its leaders and grateful to the EU for probing in the dung-heap
Financial Times, July 21, 2008
The fact that Britain and the Netherlands find themselves isolated inside the EU in calling for tough action against corruption driven from the top in Romania is a crushing indictment of the EU’s inability to stand up for basic standards of governance that are surely indispensable if it hopes to survive as a force for influence in the world.
Corruption remains entrenched and efforts to counter it are blocked at high level.
Bulgaria will suffer some penalties but Romania, now the seventh largest EU state, will emerge largely unscathed.
Adrian Nastase, a Social Democrat and, since 2004, the Liberal Calin Tariceanu, launched numerous action plans and other reform rituals which were essentially just public relations gimmicks in order to satisfy Eurocrats that Romania was busy internalising European norms and values.
The EU failed to launch a searching appraisal. Brussels officials, sometime under political pressure or in order to save their own face, were prepared to dilute the incompleted targets in the year before entry, Bucharest was openly defying the EU by refusing to approve key anti-corruption undertakings.
In 2007, Tudor Chiuariu, a 29-year-old justice minister, appointed to disable a prosecuting unit investigating high-level corruption, openly disparaged the EU.
The EU said the initiative lay with the Romanians and the EU’s influence was limited. But this is a rather disingenuous argument. The timetable for entry, particular reforms in the judicial and administrative spheres, the disastrous form of regionalisation through which funds were channelled, the privatisation of most strategic sectors of the economy and the lifting of price controls were all worked out in advance by the EU.
Former communists and rogue capitalists who became extraordinarily rich through manipulating an unregulated economic system after 1989 are among the main beneficiaries of the €30bn in structural funds flowing into the country by courtesy of the EU taxpayer.
The elite´s ace card was its ability to offer contracts for infrastructure projects to companies that enjoyed influence both in Brussels and in the parties that dominated some of the core EU states.
In this way, the EU was gradually disarmed by a calculating local elite well versed in simulating change. Judges continue to acquit, give derisory sentences or postpone the cases of politicians who come before them on corruption charges.
Meanwhile, a huge human exodus of talented professionals, as well as several million manual workers, is causing grave labour shortages and producing a demographic time-bomb .
Here is a comment from EU Commission President Barroso, who confirms the EU has withdrawn infrastructure funding and funding for implementing agencies in Bulgaria due to organized crime and high level corruption – this latter phenomenon also being problematic in Romania.
3 Responses to “ EU Corruption: Money Makes the Difference between Favourite and Whipping Boy ”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.