Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 38kWORD 9k
5 February 2020
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
José Gusmão
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: ‘Luanda Leaks’

The ‘Luanda Leaks’ show just how weak EU regulations are, as well as the fact that highly favourable conditions for money laundering exist in the European Economic Area. These include shortcomings in rules to enforce transparency and root out fraudulent financial transactions, as well as politicians and governmental bodies turning a blind eye to the appointment of people liable to tolerate such behaviour to posts of influence. This case has uncovered vast economic losses for countries and taxpayers, but has also dealt a serious blow to the credibility of the agencies involved, from public, national and European institutions to private financial entities.

What measures is the Commission considering to address the tax haven that is Malta and others implicated in this and other cases?

How will the Commission react to the many proposals recommending a ban on ‘golden visas’, particularly from the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee?

Will the Commission continue to hire the same consultants – which it should keep strictly at arm’s length – that work for almost the entire international financial industry to provide auditing services?

Original language of question: PT
Last updated: 26 February 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy