Report Fraud to European Authorities

Which European Authority Should You Report Financial Fraud To?

The correct authority depends on three factors: whether the operator was licensed or unlicensed, the EU member state where the operator is registered or primarily operated, and the nature of the violation whether it is primarily a securities regulatory breach, an AML failure, a payment services violation, or a criminal fraud. In most cases, the answer is more than one authority and simultaneous reporting to the financial regulator, the national financial intelligence unit, and the relevant law enforcement body is the standard approach for cases where the evidence record is complete. Veritas Advisory Group maps every case to the correct authorities across all three categories, prepares a structured report for each, and files simultaneously ensuring no enforcement avenue is left unopened.

What Is Fraud Reporting to European Authorities and Why It Matters

Reporting fraud to a European authority is the formal act of placing the fraudulent conduct on the official record of a public enforcement body initiating a process that operates on that body’s authority and timeline, independently of any civil proceedings the victim pursues. The practical significance of this is substantial. A civil claim is prosecuted by the victim’s legal representatives. A regulatory complaint is investigated by the supervisory authority. A criminal report is investigated by law enforcement. Each pathway produces outcomes that the others cannot: civil proceedings produce damages judgments; regulatory proceedings produce license actions and restitution orders; criminal proceedings produce asset seizure, prosecution, and criminal confiscation. All three are worth pursuing where the evidence supports them and all three are significantly more effective when coordinated from the same evidentiary foundation. For fraud victims whose losses involve European operators, the act of reporting to the correct European authority is both a recovery tool and a protective one it creates a public record that prevents the operator from continuing to solicit new victims, triggers investigation that may identify assets not yet known to the victim, and in the most serious cases, initiates criminal prosecution that leads to asset confiscation and court-ordered compensation.

Scope of Services Within Fraud Reporting to European Authorities:

Financial Regulatory Authorities by EU Member State

Every EU member state maintains a national competent authority responsible for supervising financial services firms and enforcing the EU financial services regulatory framework. The following is the complete list of national financial regulatory authorities across all EU member states and key EEA jurisdictions, alongside their primary enforcement mandate.

Austria

FMA – Finanzmarktaufsicht Regulates banks, insurance companies, investment firms, and payment institutions. Jurisdiction over MiFID II conduct violations, unauthorized investment services, and AML compliance failures by Austrian-authorized entities.

Belgium

FSMA – Financial Services and Markets Authority Supervises financial markets, investment products, and financial intermediaries. The FSMA maintains a blacklist of unauthorized financial operators and has active enforcement powers over mis-selling, unauthorized investment services, and investor protection violations.

Bulgaria

FSC – Financial Supervision Commission Regulates capital markets, insurance, and supplementary pension security in Bulgaria. Relevant for complaints against Bulgarian-authorized investment firms and for unauthorized financial services activity targeting Bulgarian-connected infrastructure.

Croatia

HANFA – Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency Supervises financial services in Croatia including capital markets, investment funds, and insurance. Relevant for complaints against Croatian-authorized entities and for fraud involving Croatian financial infrastructure.

Cyprus

CySEC – Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission One of the most directly relevant regulators for cross-border investment fraud Cyprus is the preferred registration jurisdiction for a large proportion of European-facing investment platforms targeting Asian retail investors. CySEC has extensive enforcement experience, active supervisory programs, and direct powers to impose fines, suspend licenses, and order client restitution.

Czech Republic

CNB – Czech National Bank Acts as the integrated financial supervisor for the Czech Republic covering banks, investment firms, payment institutions, and insurance. Relevant for complaints against Czech-authorized financial services entities and for AML failures by Czech banking institutions.

Denmark

Finanstilsynet – Regulates financial services in Denmark including investment firms, banks, and payment institutions. Relevant for complaints against Danish-authorized entities or where Danish financial infrastructure has been used in cross-border fraud operations.

Estonia

Finantsinspektsioon – Supervises banks, investment firms, and payment institutions in Estonia a jurisdiction increasingly used for fintech and e-money institution licensing relevant to cross-border fraud fund transfer chains. Finantsinspektsioon complaints are particularly relevant for AML compliance failures by Estonian-licensed payment institutions.

Finland

FIN-FSA – Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanssivalvonta) Supervises banks, insurance companies, and investment firms in Finland. Relevant for complaints against Finnish-authorized financial services entities and for fraud involving Finnish banking or payment infrastructure.

France

AMF – Autorité des marchés financiers Regulates financial markets and investment services in France. The AMF maintains a REGAFI register and a blacklist of unauthorized operators and has been particularly active in pursuing crypto-asset fraud and unauthorized investment service providers. The AMF operates alongside the ACPR (Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution), which supervises banks and payment institutions from a prudential and AML perspective.

Germany

BaFin – Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht Regulates financial services in Germany with direct enforcement powers over investment firms, banks, and payment institutions. BaFin is particularly effective against unauthorized investment services and AML compliance failures. BaFin operates alongside the Deutsche Bundesbank for prudential banking supervision.

Greece

HCMC – Hellenic Capital Market Commission Supervises capital markets and investment services in Greece. Relevant for complaints against Greek-authorized investment firms and for unauthorized financial services activity with Greek-connected corporate or banking infrastructure.

Hungary

MNB – Magyar Nemzeti Bank (Central Bank of Hungary) Acts as the integrated financial supervisor in Hungary covering banks, investment firms, and payment institutions. Relevant for complaints against Hungarian-authorized entities and for AML failures by Hungarian financial institutions.

Ireland

CBI – Central Bank of Ireland Regulates financial services in Ireland an important jurisdiction given Ireland’s role as a European hub for major financial institutions and fund structures. The CBI has direct enforcement powers over Irish-authorized investment firms, payment institutions, and funds relevant where fraud operations use Irish corporate structures or fund vehicles.

Italy

CONSOB – Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa Regulates investment services and financial markets in Italy. CONSOB maintains an active blacklist of unauthorized operators and has enforcement powers covering unauthorized investment services, market manipulation, and investor protection violations. CONSOB operates alongside Banca d’Italia, which supervises banks and payment institutions from a prudential perspective.

Latvia

FKTK – Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija Supervises financial markets in Latvia a jurisdiction historically associated with elevated cross-border AML risk. FKTK complaints are particularly relevant where Latvian-authorized banks or financial intermediaries have processed fraud-related fund transfers without adequate monitoring.

Lithuania

Lietuvos Bankas – Bank of Lithuania Regulates financial services in Lithuania a significant hub for European fintech and e-money institution licensing. Lithuanian-authorized payment institutions are frequently used in cross-border fraud fund transfer chains. Lietuvos Bankas complaints are among the most directly relevant for AML compliance failures in payment processing infrastructure.

Luxembourg

CSSF – Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier Regulates financial services in Luxembourg a major European financial center hosting investment funds, payment institutions, and holding structures. CSSF complaints are relevant where fraud involves Luxembourg-registered fund structures, authorized entities, or banking relationships forming part of the fraud architecture.

Malta

MFSA – Malta Financial Services Authority Regulates financial services in Malta another preferred registration jurisdiction for EU-passporting investment platforms. MFSA has enforcement powers including license withdrawal, mandatory restitution orders, and criminal referral. Relevant for a significant proportion of EU-regulated broker fraud cases.

Netherlands

AFM – Autoriteit Financiële Markten Regulates financial markets and investment services in the Netherlands. The AFM has strong enforcement powers and has been a leader in EU cross-border fraud enforcement coordination. Operates alongside De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), which supervises banks and payment institutions for AML and prudential compliance.

Poland

KNF – Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (PFSA) Regulates financial markets in Poland including investment firms, banks, and payment institutions. Relevant where fraudulent operators are registered or authorized in Poland, or where Polish fintech and payment processing infrastructure has been identified in the fund transfer chain.

Portugal

CMVM – Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários Supervises financial markets and investment services in Portugal. Relevant for complaints against Portuguese-authorized entities and for fraud involving Portuguese financial infrastructure or corporate structures.

Romania

ASF – Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară Supervises financial markets, insurance, and pension funds in Romania. Relevant for complaints against Romanian-authorized financial services entities and for unauthorized investment services activity with Romanian-connected infrastructure.

Slovakia

NBS – Národná banka Slovenska (National Bank of Slovakia) Acts as the integrated financial supervisor in Slovakia. Relevant for complaints against Slovak-authorized financial services entities and for AML failures by Slovak banking institutions processing fraud-related transfers.

Slovenia

ATVP – Agencija za trg vrednostnih papirjev (Securities Market Agency) Supervises capital markets and investment services in Slovenia. Relevant for complaints against Slovenian-authorized investment firms and for unauthorized financial services activity with Slovenian-connected infrastructure.

Spain

CNMV – Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores Regulates financial markets in Spain. CNMV complaints are relevant where fraudulent operators are registered or operating through Spanish entities or where Spanish banking infrastructure has been used in the fund transfer chain. Operates alongside Banco de España for banking and payment institution supervision.

Sweden

Finansinspektionen – Supervises financial services in Sweden including investment firms, banks, and payment institutions. Relevant for complaints against Swedish-authorized entities or where Swedish financial infrastructure has been identified in cross-border fraud operations.

Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) by EU Member State

Financial intelligence units receive suspicious transaction reports and coordinate financial crime intelligence. Reporting fraud-related fund flows to the FIU in the relevant jurisdiction creates an official suspicious activity record that supports both regulatory enforcement and criminal prosecution.

Member State	Financial Intelligence Unit
Austria	A-FIU – Bundeskriminalamt Financial Intelligence Unit
Belgium	CTIF-CFI – Cellule de Traitement des Informations Financières
Bulgaria	DANS – State Agency for National Security, Financial Intelligence Directorate
Croatia	AMLD – Anti-Money Laundering Office
Cyprus	MOKAS – Unit for Combating Money Laundering
Czech Republic	FAU – Financial Analytical Unit
Denmark	SØIK / HMIC – Danish FIU within the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime
Estonia	RAB – Financial Intelligence Unit (Rahapesu andmebüroo)
Finland	NBI FIU – National Bureau of Investigation Financial Intelligence Unit
France	TRACFIN – Traitement du renseignement et action contre les circuits financiers clandestins
Germany	FIU Germany – Zentralstelle für Finanztransaktionsuntersuchungen (within Customs)
Greece	HELLENIC FIU – Hellenic Unit for Combating Money Laundering
Hungary	NVSZ – National Directorate General for Aliens Policing, Financial Intelligence Unit
Ireland	MLIU – Money Laundering Investigation Unit (An Garda Síochána)
Italy	UIF – Unità di Informazione Finanziaria per l’Italia (Bank of Italy)
Latvia	FID – Financial Intelligence Unit (within the State Revenue Service)
Lithuania	FNTT – Financial Crime Investigation Service
Luxembourg	CRF – Cellule de Renseignement Financier
Malta	FIAU – Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit
Netherlands	FIU-Netherlands – Financial Intelligence Unit Netherlands
Poland	GIIF – General Inspector of Financial Information
Portugal	UIF – Unidade de Informação Financeira (Judiciary Police)
Romania	ONPCSB – National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering
Slovakia	SJFK – Slovak Financial Intelligence Unit
Slovenia	OMLP – Office for Money Laundering Prevention
Spain	SEPBLAC – Executive Service of the Commission for the Prevention of Money Laundering
Sweden	FIU Sweden – Financial Intelligence Unit (within the Swedish Police Authority)

Law Enforcement and Financial Crime Units by EU Member State

For organized fraud, criminal referrals to national financial crime law enforcement units initiate criminal investigation which can lead to arrest, prosecution, asset seizure, and criminal confiscation orders with victim compensation provisions.

Member State	Law Enforcement / Financial Crime Unit
Austria	Bundeskriminalamt – Federal Criminal Police Office, Economic Crime Division
Belgium	FCCU – Federal Computer Crime Unit; Federal Judicial Police, Economic and Financial Crime Division
Bulgaria	GDBOP – General Directorate for Combating Organized Crime
Croatia	USKOK – Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime
Cyprus	CAID – Cyprus Police Financial Crime Investigation Department
Czech Republic	ÚOKFK – Unit for Combating Corruption and Financial Crime
Denmark	SØIK – State Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime
Estonia	KaPo – Estonian Internal Security Service; Police and Border Guard Board, Financial Crime Unit
Finland	NBI – National Bureau of Investigation, Financial Crime Unit
France	JUNALCO – National Jurisdiction for Combating Organized Crime; OCLCIFF – Central Office for Combating Major Financial Crime
Germany	BKA – Bundeskriminalamt, Financial Crime Division; LKA State Criminal Investigation Offices
Greece	SDOE – Financial and Economic Crime Unit
Hungary	NVSZ – National Protective Service; BRFK Economic Police
Ireland	GNECB – Garda National Economic Crime Bureau
Italy	GdF – Guardia di Finanza (financial police with broad economic crime jurisdiction)
Latvia	KNAB – Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau; Economic Police
Lithuania	FNTT – Financial Crime Investigation Service (also serves as FIU)
Luxembourg	PJ – Judicial Police, Financial Crime Division
Malta	FCID – Financial Crimes Investigation Department
Netherlands	FIOD – Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service; National Police, Financial Crime Team
Poland	CBŚ – Central Bureau of Investigation; CBZC Central Office for Combating Cybercrime
Portugal	PJ – Judiciary Police, Financial Crime Department; AT Tax and Customs Authority
Romania	DIICOT – Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism
Slovakia	NAKA – National Criminal Agency, Economic Crime Division
Slovenia	NPU – National Bureau of Investigation
Spain	UCO – Central Operative Unit (Guardia Civil); UDEF Economic and Financial Crime Unit (National Police)
Sweden	Ekobrottsmyndigheten – Swedish Economic Crime Authority

Supranational and EU-Level Reporting Bodies

ESMA European Securities and Markets Authority ESMA coordinates regulatory enforcement across EU member states. Where national regulators have failed to act adequately on individual complaints, ESMA’s breach of union law mechanism under Article 17 of the ESMA Regulation provides an EU-level escalation pathway compelling the national authority to act or explaining its inaction. EBA European Banking Authority The EBA coordinates AML supervision across EU member states. Breach of union law complaints to the EBA are relevant where national banking supervisors have failed to enforce AMLD obligations against financial institutions that processed fraud-related transfers. Europol European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) Europol’s EC3 handles cross-border organized cybercrime and online fraud directly relevant for pig butchering operations, organized investment fraud networks, and large-scale crypto fraud schemes involving multiple jurisdictions. Europol referrals are coordinated with national law enforcement and can trigger EU-level investigation and joint operation activities. Eurojust Eurojust coordinates criminal prosecution across EU member states facilitating joint investigation teams and cross-border prosecution coordination for organized financial crime. Relevant in multi-victim, multi-jurisdiction fraud cases where criminal prosecution across multiple EU member states is being pursued simultaneously. Interpol For fraud operations with known operators located outside the EU, Interpol notices filed through national law enforcement can trigger international arrest warrants, red notices, and cross-border law enforcement cooperation in non-EU jurisdictions. Relevant where identified beneficial owners have relocated outside Europe in anticipation of legal proceedings.

How Veritas Advisory Group Manages Fraud Reporting to European Authorities

Our authority reporting methodology is built around the principle that every relevant authority in every relevant jurisdiction should receive a tailored, forensically prepared report simultaneously closing every enforcement gap and creating the maximum coordinated pressure from the first day of formal reporting.

Phase 1: Authority Mapping

We map the case to every relevant authority across all three categories financial regulator, FIU, and law enforcement in every jurisdiction where the fraud has regulatory, financial intelligence, or criminal significance. This mapping identifies not just the primary reporting authority but every secondary authority with jurisdiction over any component of the fraud.

Phase 2: Report Preparation by Authority Type

We prepare separate, tailored reports for each authority category regulatory reports structured around specific provision violations, FIU reports structured around suspicious transaction patterns and AML typologies, and criminal complaints structured around the specific offense provisions of the applicable national criminal code. Each report is formatted to the submission standards and language requirements of the receiving authority.

Phase 3: Simultaneous Multi-Authority Filing

We coordinate the simultaneous filing of all prepared reports ensuring that every authority receives its submission at the same time and that each submission references the concurrent filings with other authorities. Cross-referencing creates coordination dynamics between authorities that sequential filings cannot produce.

Phase 4: Follow-Up and Escalation Management

We manage all post-filing engagement responding to information requests, providing supplementary documentation, following up on complaint status, and escalating where required. Simultaneous active engagement across multiple authorities requires coordinated follow-up management that ensures consistency across all submissions.

Phase 5: Enforcement Integration

Enforcement outcomes from each authority track regulatory actions, suspicious activity investigations, criminal proceedings are monitored and integrated into the civil recovery strategy in real time. Criminal asset seizure, regulatory license action, and FIU investigation findings each have direct implications for civil proceedings that require immediate strategic response.

Why Clients Choose Veritas Advisory Group

Fraud victims who report to European authorities without professional preparation consistently experience the same outcome: an acknowledgment that the report has been received, followed by silence. The volume of fraud reports received by European authorities significantly exceeds their enforcement capacity which means that only reports that demonstrate evidentiary completeness, regulatory specificity, and organized presentation receive active enforcement engagement. Veritas Advisory Group prepares reports that receive active engagement because they are built on forensic evidence, mapped to specific legal provisions, formatted to the submission standards of each authority, and filed simultaneously across every relevant body in every relevant jurisdiction.

What Sets Our Fraud Reporting to European Authorities Apart

• Complete authority mapping – Every relevant authority across all three categories regulator, FIU, law enforcement in every relevant jurisdiction is identified and reported to simultaneously
• Authority-specific report preparation – Each authority receives a separately formatted, tailored report not a single generic submission distributed across all bodies
• Forensic evidentiary foundation – Every report is supported by an authenticated, indexed evidence file that eliminates the authority’s need to conduct independent investigation from scratch
• Simultaneous filing with cross-referencing – All reports are filed simultaneously with cross-references to concurrent filings creating coordinated multi-authority enforcement pressure from day one
• Active follow-up management – Every filed report receives active monitoring and follow-up maintaining enforcement momentum across all active reporting tracks
• Multilingual report preparation – Reports are prepared in the language of the receiving authority where required
• GDPR-compliant confidentiality – All case data and reporting strategy are handled under European data protection standards

Submit Your Case for Fraud Reporting to European Authorities

If you suffered financial loss through fraud connected to Europe, formal reporting to the correct European authorities financial regulator, financial intelligence unit, and law enforcement is the step that places your case on the official enforcement record and triggers the investigative and enforcement mechanisms that civil proceedings cannot activate alone. Veritas Advisory Group identifies every relevant authority, prepares every required report, files simultaneously across all jurisdictions, and manages the enforcement engagement through to outcome.

To begin your fraud reporting engagement, provide:

• Your name and country of residence
• The name and registration jurisdiction of the operator involved
• The approximate amount lost and the dates of transactions
• Any regulatory credentials, license numbers, or corporate details associated with the operator
• All documentation currently in your possession

Our team will review your submission and respond with an authority mapping and reporting strategy within 3–5 business days.