EU ¦ Agreement Reached on the First EU-Wide Criminal Law Rules Against Corruption

EU Reaches Landmark Deal on First-Ever Anti-Corruption Criminal Law Directive

The European Union has taken a major step towards a more unified and forceful response to corruption, with negotiators from the European Parliament and the Council reaching a provisional agreement on the EU’s first directive harmonising criminal laws to fight corruption. For compliance teams, financial institutions, and anyone working in financial crime prevention, this deal signals a tightening landscape and a move towards more consistent enforcement across the bloc.

A Unified EU Framework Against Corruption

The directive is designed to address a longstanding problem: offenders exploiting the patchwork of national criminal laws and enforcement practices across EU member states. By putting in place EU-wide definitions of corruption offences, a common approach to sanctions, and more consistent operational rules, the new framework reduces opportunities for “jurisdiction shopping” and regulatory arbitrage.

Key corruption offences such as bribery, misappropriation of funds, and obstruction of justice will now be defined in a harmonised way at EU level. For cross-border investigations and multinational businesses, this should simplify risk assessments and legal analyses, because the underlying concepts will be more consistent across the Union.

The legal basis for this initiative is Article 83 TFEU, which allows the EU to define common rules in areas considered particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension. The move reflects the EU’s view that corruption is not merely a domestic governance issue, but a structural threat to fair competition, the integrity of markets, and the sound management of public funds.

Stronger Sanctions and a Clearer Deterrent

One of the central features of the directive is the establishment of a common level for maximum prison sentences for corruption-related offences across member states. While national authorities will retain the power to set stricter penalties if they wish, the directive sets a shared baseline that all must respect.

For practitioners in financial crime, this matters in two ways. First, higher and more consistent penalties strengthen deterrence and make it harder for corrupt actors to identify “soft spots” in the EU. Second, it supports more effective cross-border cooperation, including mutual recognition of judgments and streamlined extradition, because offences and sanctions will be more aligned.

Judicial discretion is preserved: courts in each country will still calibrate penalties based on the gravity of specific offences. However, they will be doing so within a more robust and coherent European framework. For companies operating in multiple member states, the risk profile associated with corruption offences is likely to converge upward rather than downward.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"The new EU anti-corruption directive marks a decisive shift towards more consistent and tougher action against corruption across member states. By harmonising offences, sanctions, and operational rules, it reduces gaps that have long been exploited by sophisticated offenders.

For financial crime professionals, the message is clear: the bar for compliance is rising, and enforcement will become more coordinated and data-driven. Firms that invest early in strengthening their anti-corruption controls and governance will be better placed to navigate this new landscape."

Corporate Liability and Alignment With EU Financial Interests

The directive does not stop at individuals. It reinforces rules on the liability of legal persons, ensuring that companies can be held responsible where corruption is committed for their benefit, or where they have failed to prevent it through adequate controls.

This is especially significant for financial institutions, large corporates, and other high-risk sectors. In practice, it increases pressure to maintain effective anti-corruption compliance programmes, including third-party due diligence, robust internal controls, clear reporting channels, and a strong compliance culture.

The new rules are also better aligned with existing legislation on the protection of the EU’s financial interests. That alignment is important because corruption often intersects with fraud involving EU funds, procurement irregularities, and misuse of public money. Bringing these regimes closer together helps avoid gaps and overlaps and strengthens the overall integrity framework.

Reinforced Cooperation: OLAF, EPPO, Europol and Eurojust

A critical part of the directive is the reinforcement of cooperation among national authorities and EU-level bodies. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), Europol, and Eurojust are all expected to play a stronger, more coordinated role in preventing and prosecuting corruption.

For financial crime professionals, this suggests several trends:

• Cross-border corruption cases are more likely to be coordinated at EU level.
• Information-sharing channels between national law enforcement and EU bodies will be strengthened.
• Complex cases involving multiple jurisdictions, public funds and organised networks will have a clearer institutional framework for investigation and prosecution.

This is likely to translate into more sophisticated, multi-jurisdictional investigations and a higher probability that large and complex corruption schemes will be detected and pursued.

Transparency, Data, and National Anti-Corruption Strategies

One of the important achievements for the European Parliament in the negotiations was securing stronger transparency requirements and a more data-driven approach.

The directive will require EU-wide corruption data to be published annually in accessible formats. This has several implications:

• Policymakers will have a clearer picture of emerging risks and trends.
• Civil society, the media, and researchers will have better tools to assess the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures.
• Businesses and financial institutions will be able to incorporate more reliable EU-wide data into their risk assessments.

In addition, every member state will be obliged to publish a national anti-corruption strategy. These strategies must be developed in consultation with civil society and relevant authorities, which should encourage more inclusive and realistic policy-making.

From a financial crime perspective, these strategies will be worth monitoring. They will likely define priority sectors, outline planned reforms, and indicate where enforcement efforts will concentrate. For compliance teams, national strategies can serve as a guide for calibrating risk-based controls and engagement with local regulators.

Public Expectations and the Enforcement Gap

The political momentum behind this directive is backed by public opinion. According to the 2025 Eurobarometer survey on citizens’ attitudes towards corruption, 69% of Europeans think corruption is widespread in their country, and two-thirds believe that high-level corruption cases are not pursued sufficiently.

The deal reached by Parliament and Council negotiators responds directly to these concerns. Her remarks highlight both the public demand for tougher action and the expectation that the EU will use its powers to make a concrete difference.

For financial institutions and corporates, this growing public and political pressure means that enforcement agencies are likely to be more assertive. When institutions fail to detect or report corruption risks, they may not only face legal consequences but also reputational damage in a climate of heightened expectations.

What Happens Next?

The agreement reached is provisional and still needs formal approval by both the European Parliament and the Council. Once adopted and published, member states will have to transpose the directive into national law within a set timeframe.

There are several practical implications for those working in financial crime and compliance:

• Legal teams will need to track the transposition process in each member state, as some will go beyond the minimum standards.
• Risk and compliance functions should review existing anti-corruption frameworks, especially corporate liability, third-party risk management, and internal reporting mechanisms.
• Multinationals operating across the EU should prepare for more consistent and potentially stricter enforcement, and for closer scrutiny of cross-border operations.

Although the exact timelines and details will depend on the final text and how each state implements it, the direction of travel is clear: corruption is being treated as a serious cross-border crime, with more unified rules and stronger enforcement tools.

Why This Matters for Financial Crime Professionals

For a financial crime audience, this directive sits at the intersection of several key areas: anti-bribery and corruption (ABC), fraud involving public funds, and cross-border criminal enforcement. It will likely:

• raise the baseline standards for criminalisation and sanctions across the EU;
• increase expectations around corporate compliance, especially in high-risk sectors;
• strengthen the EU’s ability to detect, investigate, and prosecute complex corruption cases;
• mprove the data environment for risk assessment and policy design.

In short, the EU is moving towards a more coherent and robust anti-corruption framework. Firms that proactively adapt their policies, controls, and culture to this new environment will be better positioned to manage legal, regulatory, and reputational risks as the directive comes into force and begins to reshape the European anti-corruption landscape.

Dive deeper

• EP ¦ Agreement reached on the first EU-wide criminal law rules against corruption ¦ Link