Valletta: The Commission wants to rebuild the EU anti-fraud architecture before the next long-term budget, after its 2025 report on protecting the Union’s finances recorded 13,010 irregularities worth 2.1 billion euros. The Brussels Times summarised the report on 4 August 2026, and the plan remains live as the budget talks continue.

The report, known as the PIF Report, supports the case for a stronger anti-fraud architecture and is the first to assess the full anti-fraud cycle, from prevention and detection to investigation, prosecution, recovery and reporting. Of the irregularities recorded in 2025, 986 were classed as fraudulent and involved 274.3 million euros. The number of reported irregularities fell by 7.6 percent against 2024, but the amounts involved rose by 12.8 percent, and the number of fraud cases also declined.

Over ten years, OLAF and the Commission prevented more than 658 million euros from being spent unduly. Where follow-up on OLAF’s financial recommendations has been completed, recovery rates exceed 96 percent. Those figures suggest that the system recovers money well once it acts, though the report cannot show how much fraud never enters the statistics.

The Commission recommends wider use of risk analysis and IT tools such as Arachne+ to strengthen detection. It also wants systematic referral of suspected fraud to prosecutors, with timely reporting back to the Commission, and better coordination among administrative, investigative and judicial authorities to speed recovery.

The wider plan covers the anti-fraud architecture itself. The Commission intends to propose mandatory national anti-fraud strategies, stronger reporting duties for member states, and a review of the legislative framework for the EU bodies involved. A communication on the anti-fraud architecture is expected in 2026 and could lead to legislative proposals that change how OLAF, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and others cooperate.

The coverage leaves gaps that matter for anyone judging the anti-fraud architecture. National administrations, the Commission and prosecutors all play a part, and the report is only as complete as the data they submit. It gives no EPPO figures, quotes no official, and relies on secondary reporting, so readers should check exact numbers in the PIF Report. The communication has also not been confirmed as published.

The direction is still clear, and it matters because Brussels has to defend its budget against fraud while spending grows. Member states manage most EU spending, and a falling count of irregularities alongside rising amounts means individual cases are getting larger. If the communication arrives with binding national strategies, the anti-fraud architecture could become a condition of receiving money in the next budget period.