The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)

Again, the EU’s provision was broader than many national ones. Finland and France
initiated new legislation to fully criminalise conducts referred to in Article 2 of the
Framework Decision, whilst in 2004 Spain still did not criminalise the fraudulent
altering of payment instruments. 641 Likewise, Sweden provided for a narrow framework
of criminalisation and did
“not provide for punishment if the fraudulent use of a stolen o otherwise unlawfully
appropriated, or of a counterfeited or falsified, payment instrument.” 642
Latvia and Lithuania introduced new offences in their national legislation with
particular reference to computer programmes in order to comply with Article 4 of the
Framework Decision. 643 In 2006, Portuguese legislation also did not cover the offences
under Article 4 (2), whilst Luxembourg did not contain any criminal offences as
referred to in Article 4 of the Framework Decision. 644 Finland in turn introduced a
provision criminalising the possession of accessories and material for counterfeiting in
order to comply with EU’s measure. 645
Still in the context of economic crime, Elholm notes how the implementation of the
Framework Decision on counterfeiting of the Euro 646 led to an increase in the scope of
the offence of counterfeiting of coins and banknotes in Finland in order to include the
import and export of forged coins and banknotes. Similarly in Sweden, it led to an
introduction of a special offence on the purchasing of counterfeited money. 647
Similarly, the Framework Decision on combating corruption in the private sector
requires Member States to criminalise intentional active and passive corruption, namely
promising, offering or giving a person who directs or works for a private sector entity
an undue advantage of any kind in order for that person to perform or refrain from
performing any act in breach of his or her duties; or requesting or receiving an undue
advantage of any kind or accepting the promise of such advantage while in any
641 European Commission, Report from the Commission based on Article 14 of the Council
Framework Decision of 28 May 2001 combating fraud and counterfeiting of non cash means of
payment, COM (2004)346 final, Brussels, 30.4.2004, 18.
642 Ibid.,18.
643 European Commission, Second Report based on Article 14 of the Council Framework
Decision of 28 May 2001 combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment,
COM (2006)65final, Brussels, 22.02.2006, 4.
644 Ibid., 4.
645 T. Elholm, “Does EU Criminal Cooperation Necessarily Mean Increased Repression”, supra
note 637, 194.
646 Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA, supra note 452.
647 T. Elholm, “Does EU Criminal Cooperation Necessarily Mean Increased Repression”, supra
note 637, 194.
171