EU prepares to rewrite organized crime rules for fluid networks and “crime-as-a-service”

The European Union is preparing the first major revision of its general rules on organized crime in nearly two decades, against the backdrop of the development of more fluid networks, digital criminal markets, and “crime-as-a-service” models.

A briefing by the European Parliamentary Research Service shows that the 2008 Framework Decision no longer sufficiently reflects the structure of modern networks and is transposed differently into national legislation. The Commission is preparing a proposal for a directive, but the final legislative text has not yet been adopted.

In brief The 2008 European framework only partially harmonizes the definitions and penalties concerning participation in a criminal organization. Current networks may be temporary, decentralized, and built around service providers who work for multiple groups. The Commission is examining a modernized definition of a criminal organization and clearer rules on participating in, leading, and facilitating the activities of a network. One option is to establish common minimum thresholds for maximum sentences and more severe penalties for people who lead criminal groups. Special investigative techniques, cooperating witnesses, specialized units, and national strategies against organized crime are also being examined.

Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA was adopted to bring national legislation on participation in criminal organizations closer together and to facilitate cross-border cooperation.

However, subsequent assessments have shown considerable differences between states in how a criminal organization is defined, in the applicable penalties, and in the tools available to investigators.

These differences may become relevant when the same network operates in multiple jurisdictions and authorities must prove similar offenses or use European cooperation instruments.

Another issue is the changing structure of networks.

Organized crime does not always operate through stable and hierarchical structures. Groups may purchase logistics, financial expertise, documents, IT infrastructure, money laundering, or violence services from providers who work for multiple clients.

This model is increasingly described as “crime-as-a-service”.

Eurojust observes the phenomenon, including in cases concerning illegal migration, where digital tools and on-demand services enable networks to change their structure rapidly.

In its preparatory documents, the Commission indicates that future legislation could address roles within an organization separately.

One issue is the difference between mere participation and leading a network. Some states already provide for higher penalties for founders or leaders, while current European legislation does not sufficiently harmonize this distinction.

During the consultation process, the establishment of a common threshold for the maximum penalty applicable to participation in a criminal organization was also discussed.

Such harmonization could also affect judicial cooperation, since certain European instruments are easier to use when offenses exceed certain sentencing thresholds.

The Commission is also examining the availability of special investigative techniques. These may include forms of surveillance, undercover operations, financial investigations, and other methods used for networks that are difficult to document through traditional means.

Another topic is cooperation with members or former members of criminal groups who provide information to the authorities.

States have different systems for such cooperating witnesses, and the Commission is examining whether a more closely aligned framework is needed at European level.

Institutional measures that do not directly concern criminal law are also being examined, such as dedicated national strategies, specialized multidisciplinary units, and more systematic use of administrative tools to prevent the infiltration of the legitimate economy.

The new rules are linked to the ProtectEU strategy, through which the Commission announced an intensification of action against high-risk networks, leaders, and facilitators.

Europol has identified in its analyses hundreds of networks with cross-border activity and widespread use of legitimate commercial structures.

The EPRS briefing summarizes the debate and the existing options. It is not the legislative position of the Parliament and should not be confused with the text of the future directive.

The exact form of the new offenses, penalties, and investigative powers will be known only after the Commission presents its proposal and the negotiations between Parliament and the Council.