Categories
Uncategorized

EPPO Freezes: how to unlock your bank accounts and assets (ANABI, Reg. 2018/1805) — a rapid guide for defendants and companies

This rapid guide explains what happens when EPPO secures your assets under Regulation 2018/1805 and how ANABI steps in to manage or sell seized property. You get concrete options for challenging freezes, narrowing their scope, replacing them with guarantees and protecting assets that risk devaluation or early sale.

Lead

When the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) gets involved, the first hit you feel is financial: account freezes, asset seizures, document pickups, and sometimes early sales of movable assets. This guide explains what EPPO can block under Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, how cross-border enforcement connects to Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing/confiscation orders, what ANABI does in Romania (Law no. 318/2015), and the concrete steps to challenge, lift, or substitute precautionary measures—fast.

1) What EPPO can block—and why: grounds, competence, and types of measures

What EPPO is after. EPPO was created by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to investigate and prosecute criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests (“PIF”: fraud with EU funds, corruption impacting the EU budget, related money-laundering, etc.). For VAT, competence covers serious cross-border schemes meeting statutory thresholds. In these cases, precautionary measures (freezing/seizure) are standard to preserve crime proceeds and secure future confiscation.

Legal bases for intrusive acts. Articles 30–32 of the EPPO Regulation require that European Delegated Prosecutors (EDPs) can order/request searches, seizures, freezes and other intrusive steps under national law, including cross-border via the handling/assisting EDP mechanism in Article 31. Execution follows the law of the State of execution.

Recognition across borders. When a freeze/confiscation must be executed in another Member State, Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 applies: an authority in State A issues a freezing/confiscation order; State B recognises and executes it using streamlined procedures. In practice, a seizure ordered in Romania can be recognised fast elsewhere in the EU—and vice versa.

2) Where ANABI fits in (Romania)

Who manages seized assets. In Romania, ANABI (Law no. 318/2015) maintains registers, administers assets placed under restraint, and—in strictly defined conditions—organises early sales of certain movables (perishable or fast-depreciating goods). For defendants and companies, understanding ANABI’s workflows (intake, valuation, conservation, potential sale) is crucial to prevent irreversible losses.

3) Challenging the freeze: the first checks that matter

Legality and proportionality. The measure must be lawfully authorised (where required), proportionate to the estimated loss, and concretely linked to the alleged offence. In cross-border execution, verify the dual layer of authorisation: if the measure was carried out in another Member State, the assisting EDP must obtain the authorisations required by that State’s law (Article 31(3) EPPO). Missing or flawed authorisations can lead to exclusion/curtailment of evidence—or revocation of the measure.

Who decides and where to appeal. EPPO requests; national courts authorise where national law requires and execution follows domestic rules. In parallel, where recognition runs through 2018/1805, appeals are generally limited to the Regulation’s grounds for non-recognition/adaptation. Strategy must combine merits-based challenges (legality, proportionality) with recognition defences when the order circulates cross-border.

4) Three practical routes to unlock or soften the impact

  1. Substitution with guarantees. Propose real/financial guarantees (cash deposits, bank guarantees) to obtain partial lifting of freezes on critical assets (operational accounts, essential machinery). The touchstones remain proportionality and securing the measure’s purpose (potential confiscation/recovery). Legal hooks: EPPO Reg. 30–32 + national law; in cross-border setups, 2018/1805 governs recognition/execution.
  2. Carving out third-party property. If the freeze hits property of good-faith third parties (shareholders, family members, contracting partners), document title and lawful origin. Reg. 2018/1805 requires respect for third-party rights at recognition; use this safety valve especially where execution occurs abroad.
  3. Competence and PIF linkage. If the facts do not fall under the PIF Directive (EU) 2017/1371 or the VAT criteria are not met, argue lack of EPPO competence and request referral to the national prosecution service. Measures hinging on EPPO competence may then be re-assessed.

5) Early sale of movables: when it can happen—and how to avoid it

The rule. For movables that are perishable or rapidly depreciating, ANABI may propose early sale. The real risk is final loss of the asset at a suboptimal price before trial.

Your response. Move quickly on: (i) valuation (challenge the report; request re-valuation), (ii) necessity (show the asset can be preserved safely), (iii) substitution (offer an equivalent guarantee). Invoke third-party rights (co-owners/secured creditors) and the true purpose of the measure (value preservation for potential confiscation, not anticipatory punishment).

6) How precautionary measures interact with “extended confiscation” and the PIF horizon

PIF as the backdrop. The PIF Directive (EU) 2017/1371 sets minimum rules on offences that affect the EU budget (fraud, corruption, related laundering) and on limitation periods adequate to the seriousness (often ≥ 5 years where national maximums are ≥ 4 years, subject to transposition). Practically, expect more robust precautionary measures and longer-running files, increasing cash-flow pressure.

Confiscation & 2018/1805. Once confiscation (or a provisional step) is ordered, Reg. 2018/1805 enables near-automatic recognition across the EU—another reason to raise legality/proportionality objections early, before orders “go on tour”.

7) Collateral effects: salaries, operating accounts, tax obligations

“Blind” freezes can block payroll, current taxes, or vital supplier payments. Request tailored carve-outs (e.g., capped monthly sums for wages/taxes) and insist the measure be calibrated to the loss estimate and to business-continuity needs. In cross-border execution under 2018/1805, file simultaneous requests in the State of execution to permit essential payments.

8) Q&A

“How do I unfreeze a bank account blocked in an EPPO case?”
Challenge legality/proportionality before the competent national court; where the order is executed abroad, rely on Reg. 2018/1805 grounds for non-recognition/adaptation (third-party rights, formal/substantive defects). Offer security to substitute the measure.

“Can ANABI sell my car before trial?”
Yes—but only under strict conditions (perishable or fast-depreciating items). Counter-moves: re-valuation, prove safe conservation, and offer a guarantee.

“Can a freeze ordered in Romania block my apartment in another EU country?”
Yes, via recognition under 2018/1805; mind the appeal channels in the State of execution.

“If I repay the alleged damage, does the freeze disappear?”
Repayment may affect necessity and civil liability, but lifting depends on judicial analysis (legality, proportionality, aim of the measure). There is no automatic rule.

“Do I have procedural rights at each step?”
Yes. At minimum: right to information (Directive 2012/13/EU) and right of access to a lawyer (Directive 2013/48/EU). Invoke them expressly in challenges and hearings.

9) Ten-day action checklist

  1. Inventory all frozen assets/accounts; obtain the orders/warrants in full.
  2. Identify whether execution is Romania-only or also cross-border (triggers 2018/1805).
  3. Raise legality/proportionality objections and seek substitution with guarantees where feasible.
  4. Evidence minimum funds needed for wages/taxes and request targeted carve-outs.
  5. Engage with ANABI early (administration, valuation, potential early sale).
  6. Map the PIF link (Directive 2017/1371); without it (or VAT criteria), argue declination.

10) Smart clause ideas (for motions and briefs)

  • “On the basis of proportionality, the defence seeks partial lifting of the freeze over the company’s operating accounts, to be substituted with a bank guarantee of …, sufficient to secure the estimated loss.”
  • “In cross-border execution we invoke Reg. 2018/1805 and third-party rights to limit the measure over the asset …, co-owned with …, evidenced by … .”
  • “We request re-valuation of movable asset … and postponement of any early sale, offering an equivalent guarantee and evidence of safe conservation.”

11) Timing beats everything

EU freezing/confiscation orders travel quickly. A late challenge is often pointless once recognition has propagated across multiple jurisdictions. Attack immediately the basis, scope, and proportionality, propose guarantees, and protect third-party rights. The anchors remain Reg. 2017/1939 (Arts. 30–32), Reg. 2018/1805, and Law 318/2015 (ANABI).

Official references (for your own verification)

  • Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (EPPO) — competences, measures, cross-border mechanism (Arts. 30–32).
  • Directive (EU) 2017/1371 (PIF) — scope; minimum rules incl. limitation.
  • Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 — mutual recognition of freezing/confiscation orders.
  • Romania: Law no. 318/2015 (ANABI) — administration, valuation, early sale of seized assets.
  • Minimum rights: Directive 2012/13/EU (information), Directive 2013/48/EU (access to a lawyer).