INVESTIGATION

Belgium received €31.2 billion in EU funding. OLAF closed four (4) cases in ten years.

Belgium received €31.1 billion in direct-management EU funding over that decade. It hosts the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, and OLAF itself. It is the administrative centre of the union that funds it. And across ten years of anti-fraud activity, it generated fewer concluded OLAF investigations than the Democratic Republic of Congo, which generated seven, or Uganda, which generated six.

KEY FINDINGS

➤ 1,239 total OLAF concluded cases, 2014–2023: 915 concerned EU member states; 324 concerned countries outside the EU.
➤ Belgium: 4 concluded investigations, against €31.16 billion in total EU funding received over the same decade.
➤ Romania: 164 investigations (€16.66bn in funding) · Hungary: 110 (€9.11bn) · Bulgaria: 97 (€7.61bn) · Italy: 87 (€88.05bn)
➤ Congo recorded 7 OLAF investigations in this period. Uganda: 6. Belgium: 4.
➤ Belgium has no dedicated national anti-fraud office. Luxembourg, with zero OLAF investigations, has none either.
➤ OLAF’s press office responded to seven specific questions on this disparity. It answered none of them

SOURCES - links at the end of the article

⦿ OLAF Annual Reports, 2014–2023 (full cross-audit)
⦿ European Commission Financial Transparency System, direct management, 2014–2023
⦿ Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013

🛡️ LEGAL DISCLAIMER:
This article is published in the public interest and is based on verifiable public records, and protected under Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 10 of the ECHR. It does not allege criminal wrongdoing by any country, institution, organisation or individual unless publicly charged or convicted. Right of correction: trace@money-monitor.eu 

915 concluded OLAF investigations across the EU-27 between 2014 and 2023. 324 more outside the EU. Belgium appears in four of them in the decade 2014-2023.

Not four percent, not four per year. Four total, across a decade, two concluded investigations during each mandate, Giovanni Kessler and Ville Itälä.

Romania recorded 164. Hungary 110. Bulgaria 97. Italy 87. Belgium recorded 4. On the same public record, Belgium also sits below Congo, with 7, and Uganda, with 6.

That matters because Belgium is not marginal to the EU funding system, it is one of its main centres. Between 2014 and 2023, Belgium received roughly €31.16 billion in EU funding under direct management, placing it sixth in the Union by total volume. It sits behind Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Poland. It is not a small player at the edge of the budget, it is one of the places where EU money lands at scale.

The OLAF Fraud Index

This article includes the OLAF Fraud Index, which plots concluded OLAF investigations per €1 billion of EU funding received under direct management between 2014 and 2023. The formula is simple: number of concluded investigations × 1000 ÷ funding in million euro.

It is not a fraud map, it is a scrutiny map. It shows where OLAF’s activity concentrates, and where it is almost absent, compared with the money each country receives.

On that measure, Belgium, which hosts the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, and OLAF itself, records about 0.13 concluded investigations per €1 billion received. Romania records about 9.8. Hungary about 12.1. Bulgaria about 12.75, the highest value in the dataset. Italy stands at just under 1

Raw totals tell part of the story. Adjusting for funding volume makes it impossible to ignore.

The OLAF Fraud Index

OLAF Fraud Index: concluded OLAF investigations per €1 billion of EU funding received under direct management, 2014–2023. The map does not measure actual fraud prevalence. It shows where OLAF’s visible administrative activity is concentrated, and where it remains unusually thin, relative to the money involved.

EU map1

BULGARIA

Total EU funding: €7,61 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 97

Cases/€bn: 12.75
*FI Score: 100

HUNGARY

Total EU funding: €9,11 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 110 

Cases/€bn: 12.07
*FI Score: 94.7

ROMANIA

Total EU funding: €16,65 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 164

Cases/€bn: 9.85
*FI Score: 77.2

SLOVAKIA

Total EU funding: €8,05 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 61

Cases/€bn: 7.58
*FI Score: 59.4

MALTA

Total EU funding: €0,63 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 4

Cases/€bn: 6.37
*FI Score: 50.0

CROATIA

Total EU funding: €7,46 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 32

Cases/€bn: 4.29
*FI Score: 33.6

LATVIA

Total EU funding: €3,37 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 10

Cases/€bn: 2.97
*FI Score: 23.3

CZECH REPIBLIC

Total EU funding: €11,92 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 31

Cases/€bn: 2.60
*FI Score: 20.4

GREECE

Total EU funding: €24,62 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 63

Cases/€bn: 2.56
*FI Score: 20.1

POLAND

Total EU funding: €35,21 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 86

Cases/€bn: 2.44
*FI Score: 19.2

ESTONIA

Total EU funding: €2.48 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 6

Cases/€bn: 2.42
*FI Score: 19.0

LITHUANIA

Total EU funding: €4.63 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 11

Cases/€bn: 2.37
*FI Score: 18.6

PORTUGAL

Total EU funding: €20,06 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 28

Cases/€bn: 1.40
*FI Score: 11.0

CYPRUS

Total EU funding: €2,51 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 3

Cases/€bn: 1.19
*FI Score: 9.4

ITALY

Total EU funding: €88,05 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 87

Cases/€bn: 0.99
*FI Score: 7.8

SLOVENIA

Total EU funding: €3.37 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 3

Cases/€bn: 0.89
*FI Score: 7.0

FRANCE

Total EU funding: €62,69 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 45

Cases/€bn: 0.72
*FI Score: 5.6

AUSTRIA

Total EU funding: €9.25 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 6

Cases/€bn: 0.65
*FI Score: 5.1

NETHERLANDS

Total EU funding: €18.1 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 11

Cases/€bn: 0.61
*FI Score: 4.8

SWEDEN

Total EU funding: €9.57 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 5

Cases/€bn: 0.52
*FI Score: 4.1

IRELAND

Total EU funding: €5.12 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 2

Cases/€bn: 0.39
*FI Score: 3.1

DENMARK

Total EU funding: €8.2 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 3

Cases/€bn: 0.37
*FI Score: 2.9

GERMANY

Total EU funding: €53,65 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 19

Cases/€bn: 0.35
*FI Score: 2.8

SPAIN

Total EU funding: €95,8 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 24

Cases/€bn: 0.25
*FI Score: 2.0

BELGIUM

Total EU funding: €31.16 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 4

Cases/€bn: 0.13
*FI Score: 1.0

FINLAND

Total EU funding: €6.3 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 0

Cases/€bn: 0.0
*FI Score: 0.0

LUXEMBOURG

Total EU funding: €6.1 bn
OLAF concluded investigations: 0

Cases/€bn: 0.0
*FI Score: 0.0

Why the numbers look the way they do

Under Article 5 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, OLAF opens investigations when there is sufficient suspicion of fraud, corruption, or another illegal activity affecting EU financial interests. That suspicion must come from somewhere.

The countries with the most concluded OLAF investigations share one structural characteristic: each operates a dedicated national anti-fraud body that systematically generates referrals. Romania’s DLAF and DNA, Hungary’s Központi Nyomozó Főügyészség, Bulgaria’s AFCOS, Italy’s Guardia di Finanza — each produces a consistent pipeline of signals that OLAF can act on.

Belgium has no dedicated national anti-fraud office for EU funds. Luxembourg has none either.

The result is a feedback loop. No dedicated referral body means fewer signals reach OLAF. Fewer signals mean fewer investigations. Fewer investigations produce a clean statistical record. A clean statistical record reduces external pressure for scrutiny. The system rewards the absence of anti-fraud infrastructure with the appearance of anti-fraud integrity.

OLAF did not address one single question we asked. They do not publish the number of allegations received per country, nor did they refer to the number of fraud suspicions reported in Belgium.

The questions we asked OLAF
  1. Does OLAF actively prioritize certain countries while ignoring others?
  2. Why doesn’t OLAF publish the number of allegations received per country?
  3. How many fraud suspicions were reported in Belgium and Luxembourg but not pursued?
  4. Does OLAF rely disproportionately on incoming allegations from national anti-fraud offices? If so, how does this impact countries without such offices?
  5. How does OLAF ensure balanced scrutiny across all member states? Are there mechanisms to proactively investigate underreported countries?
  6. Does OLAF believe that fewer investigations correlate with lower fraud levels, or could this indicate systemic underreporting?
  7. Would OLAF recommend mandatory anti-fraud offices for all member states to ensure consistent reporting and oversight?
What OLAF did answer:

“Please note that OLAF’s investigative decisions are not based on geographical distribution or volume targets per country. OLAF does not and cannot initiate investigations merely to “balance” numbers across Member States. OLAF’s Director-General may open an investigation based on Article 5 Regulation 883/2013, if there is sufficient suspicion of fraud, corruption or other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. The volume of OLAF investigations per country cannot be interpreted as a proxy for the level of fraud with EU funds in that country.

OLAF Press Office”

Last published:

No name No rate No hours
The invisible people behind 111 billion euros of EU-funded work.
We managed to convince them - LinkedIn
Brussels’ transparency lobby faces the transparency test
Same institution. Same database. Six months. Different answer
OLAF stopped publishing two fraud tables. Belgium was first in both.
OLAF public answer
⚠ OLAF finally disclosed: 975 fraud signals about Belgium. It closed 6 cases.
RRF 0
EU's COVID recovery fund: the Commission does not collect the data needed to verify €577 billion.

🛡️ EDITORIAL NOTE: All facts are based on public records, annual financial filings, internal communications, or documents obtained through lawful employment or protected whistleblowing channels.

Remember: Citizens fund it, citizens should see it.

Power fearless independent journalism

Keep institutions honest: your support means more pressure on those who think they’re untouchable, more investigations, more evidence.

Name your amount

more insights

EU Money Monitor Embargo Agreement Form