Fraud fighters: trilateral taskforce unveiled

July 2025  |  FEATURE | FRAUD & CORRUPTION

Financier Worldwide Magazine

July 2025 Issue

Fraud is a global phenomenon and is escalating rapidly. Permeating the world like a plague, it costs the global economy $4.69 trillion annually, according to the University of Portsmouth’s Centre for Counter Fraud Studies, with losses having risen by 56 percent over the past 10 years.

On a corporate level, in its ‘2024 Report to the Nations’, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) reveals that global corporate fraud costs companies an estimated 5 percent of their annual revenue, with the average loss per case being $145,000.

As fraud, in all its manifestations, becomes more pervasive, it impacts companies of all sizes and in a range of sectors and industries. The result is not only the most obvious and often visible impact of financial losses, but may also lead to considerable damage to corporate reputations and goodwill.

“The ‘digital’ and global nature of criminal organisations is increasing the complexity and transnational nature of bribery and corruption, which necessitates a response by law enforcement that can be nimble while having a global reach,” says Nick Parfitt, an anti-money laundering (AML) strategist at Feedzai. “Key is the ability to share information and coordinate responses across jurisdictions that are not legally harmonised, which can make enforcement challenging.”

Fraud across Europe

In a European context, fraud is generally trending upwards, increasingly driven by evolving technologies and the sophistication of criminal networks. According to Europol, fraud impacts the European Union’s (EU’s) economy to the tune of around 1 percent of the bloc’s gross domestic product annually.

Also escalating is the types of fraud being perpetrated. In its ‘Report to the Nations’ analysis, the ACFE highlights the most common and costly types of fraud impacting corporates: (i) asset misappropriation (the most common, representing 89 percent of cases); (ii) corruption (present in nearly half of cases, encompassing bribery, conflicts of interest and extortion); and (iii) financial statement fraud (less common but much more costly).

“According to the EU, corruption is estimated to cost between €179bn and €990bn per year,” says Luke Cass, a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson. “Although Europe is among the least corrupt regions on the planet, 70 percent of Europeans believe that corruption is widespread in their countries. Also, 35 percent of EU companies consider corruption to be a problem in doing business, and nearly 60 percent agree with the statement that bribery and the use of connections is often the easiest way to obtain certain public services.”

Remedial efforts, however, have had mixed success over the years, due largely to an inconsistent regulatory environment between EU member states, though a more proactive approach to fighting fraud has become evident in recent years. “European enforcement has been increasing steadily and regulators are bringing sophisticated investigations that span numerous industries,” adds Mr Cass. “To that end, European regulators have not shied away from innovation in service to combatting anti-corruption.”

Examples of EU efforts to combat fraud in all its forms include a new European Commission directive aimed at addressing both public and private sector corruption in one mechanism. The proposed directive seeks to harmonise, across all EU member states, the definition of corruption offences, penalties imposed, as well as related prevention and enforcement measures.

“In June of 2024, the European Council agreed on its approach regarding the directive, constituting the mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament,” explains Mr Cass. “While the directive has not yet been formally adopted, it is an important step toward unifying anti-corruption legal standards throughout the EU.”

Despite such endeavours, however, a key issue has always been the extent to which the legislative resources available to European anti-corruption agencies can effectively be deployed – resources that generally compare unfavourably with other jurisdictions, particularly that of the US.

“For years, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission were the most active authorities pursuing anti-corruption cases,” asserts Andrew M. Good, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates. “Simply put, there were a large number of professionals at those agencies working day to day to fight corruption – resources unmatched by any individual European country.”

A new taskforce

With the majority of anti-fraud enforcement actions brought by European authorities tending to accompany those of the DOJ, agencies across Europe have recognised the inadequacy of this relationship and that a new approach is needed if European dependency on US provision is to be reduced.

“Publicly, and for many years, the EU has acknowledged the importance of fighting fraud through its 2014-20 ‘Fight against corruption’ guiding home affairs priorities and the ‘Control of Corruption’ component of its Europe 2020 growth strategy,” says Mr Parfitt. “However, a 2024 Eurobarometer survey indicates that these policies are not working effectively. Clearly, it is time for a new approach.”

Against this backdrop, on 20 March 2025, a new trilateral anti-bribery taskforce – ‘The International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce’ – was unveiled by the UK, France and Switzerland: its founding statement recognising the significant threat of fraud and the trio’s intention of standing firm in their commitment to tackling it.

Comprising of the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO), France’s Parquet National Financier (PNF) and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), the taskforce aims to strengthen collaboration between the three nations – all of which have wide-reaching anti-bribery legislation with jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct that occurs overseas, if there is a link to the prosecuting country.

“The commitment we have made reaffirms our individual and collective commitment to tackling the pernicious threat of international bribery and corruption, wherever it occurs,” said Nick Ephgrave, director of the SFO, with Stefan Blättler, attorney general of the Swiss Confederation, and Jean-François Bohnert, head of the PNF, adding that within the framework of the alliance, the taskforce will be able to help ensure that fraud and crime can be better combatted in the future.

“All three agencies have powerful legislation on their books to combat bribery and corruption,” concurs Mr Good. “So, too, do many other EU member states. However, there have not been substantial numbers of resolutions under the statutes. This may, in part, be due to a lack of prosecutorial and judicial resources. Investigations take time and attention from enforcement authorities.”

Ultimately, the heads of the SFO, PNF and OAG have committed to using all available powers and partnerships to confront criminality, with the taskforce drawing on 10 years of operational cooperation.

Key priorities

As set out in its founding statement, the key priority of the taskforce is to enhance cooperation among the three nations in combatting international bribery and corruption, facilitating the joint handling of complex cases, sharing crucial intelligence and exchanging expertise.

According to the ‘founding statement’ itself, the key priorities of the taskforce are to deliver: (i) a ‘leaders group’ focused on the regular exchange of insight and strategy; (ii) a ‘working group’ for the purpose of devising proposals for cooperation on cases; (iii) increased best practice sharing to make full use of combined expertise; and (iv) a strengthened foundation for seizing opportunities for operational collaboration.

“Essentially, the taskforce will further cement existing ties between respective countries and the sharing of insights, resources and best practices,” says Mr Parfitt. “International bribery and corruption crime is regarded as a pernicious threat and, as such, the language is also changing to that of a ‘prosecutorial taskforce’ to perhaps rival the US’ extraterritorial reach and success.”

The founding statement also states that the alliance will invite other “like-minded agencies involved in tackling international bribery and corruption” to join the taskforce. This request for collaboration, in the view of Mr Cass, is likely a recognition of the jurisdictional challenges of their respective anti-corruption laws.

“None of these statutes have the broad reach of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act,” states Mr Cass. “The closest analogue is in the UK laws, which apply to potentially extraterritorial conduct having an impact in the UK, but even then, it is limited only to companies that have more than 250 employees, €36m in revenue or a balance sheet over €18m.”

Direct response

While welcome in many quarters, in others the launch of the trilateral alliance has been met with raised eyebrows, as if suggesting that the existence of the taskforce is little more than a direct response to the ‘pause’ in FCPA enforcement ordered by President Trump earlier this year.

“The timing is curious, but given how long these sorts of initiatives take to become a reality, I suspect it is more fortuitous than planned, especially given that FCPA enforcement has not stopped,” opines Mr Parfitt. “This is about Europe after all, and the recent Huawei case, where it is suspected of bribing EU lawmakers, may be more of a catalyst.”

Whatever its true origin, what is not in doubt is the likelihood that, given their mutual goal to fight fraud worldwide, the taskforce is likely to boost opportunities for cooperation between European and US agencies.

“I think you have to take the director of the SFO at his word when he says that this taskforce is not a response to the DOJ’s FCPA pause,” suggests Mr Good. “It is very difficult to predict what new guidance the DOJ will ultimately issue around the FCPA. I expect that the taskforce would be willing to collaborate with US enforcement authorities if there is willingness to do so on the US authorities’ part.

“The priorities of US enforcement authorities are still developing under the new administration, so it is difficult to predict to what extent they will seek to collaborate with European authorities,” he continues. “That said, on issues the US has declared to be enforcement priorities, cooperation seems likely. For example, if there are links between bribery and corruption and human or narcotics trafficking, it seems likely that US authorities will be open to cooperation.”

Metrics for success

As with any new initiative, and particularly one with the trilateral alliance’s lofty ambitions, the taskforce will be expected to account for itself in good time and, ultimately, justify its continued existence.

“The taskforce clearly has ambitions to grow through its open invitation to other ‘like-minded agencies’, which is natural given the complexity and global nature of the threats which are likely to only increase,” observes Mr Parfitt. “At some point, it may increase its mandate beyond ‘just’ bribery and corruption or, essentially, partner with AML agencies, as bribery and corruption is an AML-predicate crime.”

So, as the taskforce beds in and additional countries enter the fray, the means of measuring its success becomes an obvious question, likely answered by metrics such as how many joint investigations have been launched as a consequence of the alliance, as well as the number of successful prosecutions.

“The metric for success is likely to be the number of successful cases that have been brought by taskforce member enforcement agencies,” concludes Mr Good. “If there is an uptick in successful enforcement actions, and if the releases around these actions cite the taskforce as a source of help in obtaining the resolutions, that should be viewed as a success.”

© Financier Worldwide

BY

Fraser Tennant