Belgium Justice Council Flags Concerns Over Financial Plan

Belgium’s High Council of Justice (Conseil supérieur de la Justice / CSJ) has issued a formal opinion expressing significant reservations about the government’s proposed national financial prosecutor’s office, warning that the plan as currently designed risks falling short of its ambitions. In an opinion published on June 29, the CSJ — the country’s highest advisory body on judicial matters — raised concerns about the structure, independence, and resources of the proposed institution, which is a flagship initiative of the Arizona coalition government.

Background: A Flagship Reform Born from Budget Negotiations

The proposal to create a “Belgian-style” national financial prosecutor’s office emerged as a surprise announcement during the intense budget negotiations of November 2025. Inspired by France’s Parquet National Financier (PNF), the plan aims to establish a specialized financial crime section within the federal prosecutor’s office, under the authority of Federal Prosecutor Anne Franssen. The government has projected that once fully operational by 2029, the new office could generate €175 million annually for state coffers through recovered assets, fines, and improved tax compliance, as La Libre Belgique reported.

Unlike the French model — which operates as an independent, autonomous prosecution office created in 2014 following the Cahuzac scandal — the Belgian proposal does not create a separate entity. Instead, it establishes a specialized section within the existing federal prosecutor’s office, staffed by 10 specialized magistrates supported by 10 legal experts and 10 tax inspectors. The bill was drafted as a private member’s proposition de loi led by MP Ismaël Nuino (Les Engagés), with cross-party support from the coalition.

The CSJ’s Four Key Concerns

In its detailed opinion, the CSJ identified four main areas of concern. First, it questioned the positioning of the financial section within the federal prosecutor’s office and whether it would have sufficient operational independence. Second, it raised questions about leadership and direction — specifically, who would direct the section and how its independence from political authority would be guaranteed. Third, the Council flagged unclear jurisdictional boundaries, noting potential conflicts with existing local prosecutor’s offices and other federal units. Fourth, it expressed concern that the allocated resources — 10 magistrates, 10 jurists, and 10 tax agents — are insufficient relative to the ambition of tackling complex financial crime at the national level.

According to the CSJ’s official opinion, the proposal represents a “missed opportunity” for comprehensive reform. “The creation of a national financial prosecutor’s office could have been an opportunity to conduct an in-depth reflection on a comprehensive approach to financial, social, and tax crime cases, not only at the federal level but also at the local level, not only at the level of the public prosecutor’s office but also at the level of the entire criminal justice chain,” the opinion states. “In this sense, the proposal is a missed opportunity.”

Resource Allocation vs. Ambition

The CSJ specifically noted that no comparable investment is being made in the rest of the criminal justice chain — including local prosecutor’s offices, courts, and defense services — which could create bottlenecks and imbalances. The financial section alone is projected to cost approximately €6.4 million per year, with the broader package of additional police, social inspectors, and tax investigators bringing the total to around €15 million annually. As 21News.be detailed in its analysis of the proposal, the government expects returns of €20 million by 2027, rising to €95 million by 2028 and the full €175 million from 2029.

Government Defends the Reform

Minister of Justice Annelies Verlinden (CD&V) has argued that the reform is essential to combat organized crime and restore public confidence. “Not only does this crime threaten the legal economy, but also confidence in the State,” she told L’Echo and De Tijd in May. MP Ismaël Nuino has defended the project by citing the French example, where the PNF recovered several billion euros over a decade. “A return of 175 million euros for the new financial prosecutor’s office does not seem at all unrealistic to me,” Nuino told La Libre Belgique in December 2025.

Political and Institutional Dynamics

The proposal enjoys cross-party support within the Arizona coalition — named after the colors of the five parties involved — but has drawn scrutiny from judicial institutions. The CSJ’s opinion, while not binding, carries significant weight in Belgian judicial governance and could influence parliamentary debate. Former magistrate Michel Claise, a long-time advocate for a Belgian financial prosecutor’s office, told Le Vif that “corruption is endemic in Belgium,” underscoring the urgency of reform.

What’s Next

The bill was deposited with the Chamber of Representatives in May 2026 (Doc 56 1536/001), and the CSJ’s opinion was issued on June 29. The coming months of parliamentary debate will determine whether the government addresses the Council’s concerns through amendments or proceeds with the current framework. A mandatory evaluation of the office’s functioning is planned after three years of operation. The outcome of this legislative process will have significant implications for Belgium’s ability to tackle financial crime, tax fraud, and corruption at the national level.

As the CSJ’s opinion makes clear, the question is not whether Belgium needs stronger tools to fight financial crime — on that point, there is broad consensus — but whether the proposed structure is the right one to deliver results.