Specialisation
Defence in Next Generation EU and ERDF funds fraud cases
Arts. 306 and 308 Criminal Code
The rollout of the Next Generation EU funds has multiplied the number of repayment files and, with them, referrals to the criminal courts. A single question runs through all of these cases: where administrative irregularity in justifying the grant ends, and where the offence begins.
The administration detects deviations between the funding application and actual execution, and the criminal referral is sometimes built on that deviation as though it were, by itself, proof of deceit. It is not: these funds operate over multi-year projects, with milestones that get redefined and complex subcontracting chains, where divergence between what was planned and what was actually carried out is the rule rather than the exception.
A poorly handled repayment file can end up damaging not only the grant itself, but the company's reputation for future funding rounds and with its own partners.
Scope of work
- Defence in proceedings for grant fraud (article 308 of the Criminal Code)
- Defrauding the European Union budget (article 306 of the Criminal Code)
- Coordinating the administrative repayment file with the criminal case
- Documentary reconstruction of the beneficiary's decision-making process
- Early assessment of possible EPPO jurisdiction
When to call
- You have received a justification request or the start of a repayment procedure
- The file mentions a possible referral to the Public Prosecutor's Office
- The grant comes from EU funds and the amount involved is significant
- You must sign administrative submissions and are unsure how they will read in a criminal context
Frequently asked questions
Is every deviation in execution a criminal offence?
No. Administrative irregularity and criminal fraud are different things, and the difference lies in deceit and intent, not in the mere existence of a deviation. These projects run over several financial years, with milestones that get redefined and suppliers that change: diverging from the original application is common and has administrative, not necessarily criminal, consequences.
Which article of the Criminal Code applies?
Two routes should not be confused: grant fraud under article 308 and defrauding the European Union's general budget under article 306. They differ in their monetary thresholds and in how the conduct is defined, so working out which one is being invoked, and why, is the first line of defence, not a technical footnote.
Could the matter end up before the European Public Prosecutor's Office?
When the fraud affects the Union's financial interests, jurisdiction may fall to the EPPO. That possibility should be assessed from the outset, because it changes which body investigates, the legal framework governing each measure, and the remedies available to challenge it.
Does repaying the grant close the criminal matter?
Repayment resolves the administrative side and may have a mitigating effect, but does not by itself extinguish criminal liability if the elements of the offence are present. What matters is that the decision to repay, and the terms in which it is documented, are taken with an eye to its criminal reading as well, not only its administrative one.