In December 2023, the corruption scandal came to light, causing severe damage to the reputation of European democracy. Several Members of the European Parliament had allegedly accepted bribes to influence EU policies in favor of Qatar and Morocco, including Greek MEP Eva Kaili, a Vice President of the European Parliament. At the time, the Belgian government hailed the case as a triumph for its security agencies. However, the case is now increasingly turning into a Belgian tragedy.
It will take months before the report from the parliamentary oversight committee (Comité R) is available. The committee has been shaken by internal scandals, and its leadership was recently replaced. Since May, the investigative proceedings of the Belgian federal prosecutor’s office have been under review by the criminal chamber of the Brussels Court of Appeal—at the request of the defendants. They allege serious violations of the law. The chamber has now made its first decision. The parliamentary oversight body for intelligence services must submit a written report clarifying whether the domestic intelligence service obtained its information in this case lawfully. This decision followed a request from former Italian MEP Andrea Cozzolino. His lawyer, Dimitri de Beco, called it an “unprecedented decision,” acknowledging that doubts about the intelligence service’s role are justified.
The case gained momentum after Belgium’s State Security Service (Sûreté de l’Etat) received tips from several allied intelligence agencies in 2021. In the spring of 2022, agents entered the Brussels apartment of lobbyist Antonio Panzeri and found €700,000 in cash, solidifying suspicions against him. They installed a hidden surveillance camera and monitored all of Panzeri’s contacts for months. In July 2022, the federal prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into the formation of a criminal organization. Five months later, investigators acted, arresting Panzeri, Kaili, her partner Francesco G., Belgian MEP Marc Tarabella, and Cozzolino.
Cozzolino’s lawyer, de Beco, argues that the judiciary was brought in too late and that the intelligence service continued to investigate in parallel. He claims that “90 percent” of the suspicions in the case file came from the intelligence service, whose findings are not legally admissible as evidence. These cannot be verified. For example, lawyers are only allowed to listen to a wiretapped phone conversation if the surveillance was ordered by a court. Additionally, the intelligence service allegedly violated Cozzolino’s parliamentary immunity. If the court agrees with this view, it could remove all evidence from the case that is not indisputably lawful. Whether enough incriminating material would remain for a criminal trial is uncertain.
All suspects are now free. This summer, the remaining restrictions, such as travel bans, were lifted. None of them are part of the new European Parliament. Kaili, for instance, has co-founded a “Center for Artificial Intelligence” in Milan. She is also fighting the investigation, claiming her parliamentary immunity was violated. Police officers entered her apartment after her father had tried to remove a suitcase full of cash. The investigating judge viewed this as an attempt at cover-up, in which Kaili was caught red-handed, and therefore ruled that she had forfeited her immunity. The officers found an additional €150,000 in cash in two safes and bags in the apartment. Kaili claims she had nothing to do with it and that her partner had stored the bags there in case of a “nuclear attack.” Before the review chamber, her lawyer argued that the investigators should have first obtained a decision on lifting her immunity.
Kaili’s partner, Francesco G., contributed to the review by submitting a recording he had secretly made of a conversation with a police officer, which was published by several media outlets. In it, the officer said of key witness Panzeri: “He’s lying to us.” G.’s lawyer thus questions the investigators’ impartiality.
The case took an embarrassing turn when, in the summer of 2023, the first investigating judge, Michel Claise, withdrew from the case, preempting a motion for recusal. His departure inflicted lasting damage on the investigation. Claise was considered a leading expert on corruption cases in Belgium, but he had to step down from the Qatargate investigation due to a potential conflict of interest: His son had business relations with the son of MEP Marie Arena, a close associate of Antonio Panzeri. Despite incriminating evidence, Claise did not order a search of Arena’s home. Investigators only acted months later, after Claise’s departure, raising suspicions of previous oversights. Additionally, the judge’s son ran a joint business venture with the son of another suspect, whose home had not initially been searched. This is also under review by the criminal chamber. Claise’s successor managed to fend off a recusal motion in August. However, the impression remains that investigators acted carelessly—particularly surprising given the gravity of the case. The suspects, meanwhile, are now represented by some of the country’s top criminal defense lawyers, who successfully pushed for the review and now see themselves on the offensive.
A significant portion of the prosecution’s work in this case has already been dropped: the investigation into Morocco. Money is believed to have flowed to Panzeri’s corrupt Brussels circle through two Moroccan intermediaries—Abderrahim Atmoun, currently Morocco’s ambassador to Poland, and Mohamed Belharache, a Moroccan foreign agent. However, the investigation is now entirely in Moroccan hands—under curious circumstances.
As revealed by the Belgian newspaper Le Soir, on April 12 of this year, the Belgian prosecutor’s office handed over the case to Moroccan authorities. Just three days later, on April 15, a large Belgian government delegation led by Prime Minister Alexander De Croo traveled to Rabat to negotiate a comprehensive cooperation agreement with Morocco on migration and security. Morocco agreed to take back its nationals residing illegally in Belgium. The Belgian government insists there is no connection between the political agreement with Morocco and Belgium’s leniency in the corruption case.
