Porto: European prosecutors have opened a summer of raids and indictments over money siphoned from the bloc’s pandemic rescue package, sharpening a fight that now defines the defence of the EU budget. The recovery fund, built to rebuild economies after the pandemic, has become a magnet for organised fraud.
The scale is striking. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is running more than five hundred investigations tied to the Recovery and Resilience Facility, with suspected damage to the EU budget reaching some five billion euro. The cases stretch from small contractors to networks of officials and companies.
This month the pressure landed in several countries at once. In Porto, prosecutors indicted a group of individuals and companies, including public officials, over a scheme to rig recovery fund contracts for IT and cybersecurity equipment in public schools. Investigators say the suspects traded privileged information to win the deals.
Italy saw parallel action. In Bologna prosecutors charged six people over misused EU money meant for sustainable mobility in Tuscan towns, alleging that a project coordinator and beneficiaries diverted a large share of the funding awarded to them.
Germany faced searches too. In Hamburg, investigators raided premises and ordered asset seizures in a case involving the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, where an association allegedly faked its eligibility to capture money intended for integration work.
Each case follows a familiar template. Fraudsters chase funds tied to political priorities, from digital classrooms to green transport, because that money moves quickly and carries the presumption of good faith. Prosecutors say organised networks, not lone opportunists, increasingly run the schemes.
The pattern exposes a design tension. The Commission pushed the recovery fund out fast to cushion the economic shock, and speed created openings that fraudsters exploited. Prosecutors and auditors now warn that disbursing money quickly and policing it rigorously pull in opposite directions.
The prosecutor’s office frames its work as proof that a central enforcer can outpace scattered national efforts. By seizing assets early, it aims to recover cash before it vanishes and to deter the next scheme through visible, cross-border cases. The office’s Portuguese indictment offers one detailed example.
The reckoning carries political weight. As member states debate the next long-term budget and new joint borrowing, the fraud figures hand sceptics an argument that shared EU money invites shared abuse. How firmly prosecutors claw back the missing billions will shape trust in the next round of common spending.




