A session report from the 25th annual IBA/ABA US and Europe Tax Practice Trends Conference in Amsterdam held on 10 April 2025

Session Co-Chairs

Caroline D Ciraolo, Kostelanetz, Washington, DC
Sabine Stetter, Stetter Attorneys at Law, Munich

Panellists

Jeffrey Neiman, Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro, Florida
Silvia Martina, Cagnola & Associati, Milan
Alice Rousseau, Rousseau & Sussmann, Paris
Guido de Bont, De Bont Advocaten, Amsterdam                   

Reporter

George Trantea, Filip & Company, Bucharest

Introduction

The recent panel discussion on ‘Crossing borders – when tax crimes go global’, held on 10 April 2025 as part of the US and Europe Tax Practice Trends Conference, brought together legal experts from various jurisdictions to delve into the complexities of global tax evasion and fraud. The panel, co-chaired by Caroline D Ciraolo from Kostelanetz and Sabine Stetter from Stetter Attorneys at Law, featured insights from Jeffrey Neiman, Silvia Martina, Alice Rousseau and Guido de Bont. The discussion was structured around a detailed hypothetical fact pattern inspired by real-world cases, illustrating the practical challenges and legal strategies in regard to the defence of cross-border tax crimes. This report summarises the key discussions and insights from the panel, focusing on the legal implications and strategies for defending clients alleged to be involved in cross-border tax crimes.

Panel overview

The panel discussion was structured around a hypothetical case involving ABC, Inc, a US corporation, and its cross-border dealings with Telefoni Cellulari (TC) in Italy and Handys in Germany. The fact pattern was based on real-world cases, including the NEMAD case and recent European value-added tax (VAT) fraud prosecutions, as highlighted by the panellists. The case illustrated various tax evasion schemes, such as the manipulation of VAT in Europe and the use of false invoices in Italy and Germany. The discussion covered potential charges, government investigations and defence strategies across different jurisdictions.

The US

Jeffrey Neiman provided an in-depth analysis of the potential charges and sanctions in the US. He highlighted that the US government often brings charges of conspiracy to defraud the US, tax evasion, false returns and wire fraud in cases involving tax crimes. He emphasised the importance of proving an intentional violation of a known legal duty, which is a subjective test through the eyes of the alleged wrongdoer. He also mentioned that in the US, unreported income alone does not equate to money laundering; there must be a specified unlawful activity involved, and the government needs to prove that it occurred. Neiman provided an example of this from his practice, which involved a case where $10m was wired to a lawyer’s trust account to pay the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), but instead the funds were sent to a Swiss bank account. However, the government failed to properly introduce evidence concerning the existence of the Swiss bank account at trial, resulting in the acquittal of the defendant.

In this context, Neiman discussed the implications of failing to report foreign bank accounts and entities, noting that while standalone cases of non-reporting are rare, they often serve as evidence of the intent to defraud. He stressed the importance of timeliness in defending such cases, as delays can often work in favour of the defence by leading to witnesses forgetting details and prosecutors losing interest.

Italy

Silvia Martina provided insights into the Italian perspective, focusing on the charges of VAT fraud and the liability of corporations. She explained that VAT fraud is a serious offence in Italy, resulting in a punishment of between four to eight years of imprisonment. Martina highlighted the practical risks in terms of asset freezing by the relevant authorities and emphasised the importance of early engagement with prosecutors to mitigate these risks. She also discussed the role of whistleblowers in Italian proceedings, referencing the example of Maria, the bookkeeper in the hypothetical scenario, who reported the fraud to the authorities after being dismissed by the company. 

Martina highlighted the role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in investigating and prosecuting large-scale VAT fraud cases, which often involve multiple jurisdictions. An important strategy in Italy is engaging with the prosecutor early in the investigation to demonstrate transparency and mitigate the risk of asset freezing. Reaching a settlement with the tax authorities can be crucial in terms of entering into a plea bargain and reducing potential penalties. Martina provided a practical example of how European investigation orders (EIOs) facilitate evidence gathering across Member States. In her experience, Italian prosecutors have used EIOs to directly request and quickly obtain documents from their counterparts in Germany or France, bypassing traditional diplomatic channels and streamlining cross-border investigations.

Germany

Sabine Stetter provided the German perspective, focusing on the charges of tax evasion and money laundering. She explained that in Germany, tax evasion and money laundering are often prosecuted together, with tax evasion serving as a predicate offence for money laundering. Stetter highlighted the principle of legality in Germany, which requires public prosecutors to investigate any initial suspicion of a crime. She also discussed the importance of conducting internal investigations and considering self-reporting to mitigate criminal liability. Stetter provided a practical example: even when a company or individual self-reports tax evasion in Germany, all of the involved parties become targets of a criminal investigation until the authorities verify the completeness of the disclosure and any relevant payments. She also noted that the German authorities frequently use dawn raids and surprise searches in tax crime cases, and that money laundering charges can arise directly from tax evasion offences.

France

Alice Rousseau provided an overview of the French legal framework, focusing on the charges of money laundering and tax fraud. She explained that in France, tax crimes are taken very seriously, with potential sanctions including both tax penalties and criminal sanctions, such as imprisonment. Rousseau highlighted the importance of understanding the client’s psychology and tailoring the defence strategy accordingly. She provided a practical example: in France, even drug dealers are required to declare their illegal proceeds to the tax authorities and a failure to do so can result in both tax-related and criminal sanctions. Rousseau also described how, in regard to her practice, she negotiates with public prosecutors to obtain favourable conditions in regard to self-incrimination, such as avoiding dawn raids or reducing the severity of hearings. She sometimes arranges off-the-record meetings with prosecutors to discuss possible outcomes and build trust, which is crucial for achieving the best possible result for the client.

The Netherlands

Guido de Bont provided insights into the Dutch perspective, focusing on the charges of false returns, money laundering and forgery. He explained that in the Netherlands, tax fraud cases often involve multiple charges to ensure the development of a stronger case. De Bont highlighted the importance of understanding the nuances of Dutch law, such as the requirement to be invited to submit a tax return in order for non-filing to be considered a crime. He noted that, similar to the US, the strategy of prolonging the investigation to delay proceedings can sometimes work in favour of the defence. However, he warned that this approach can also have downsides, such as banks rejecting clients and accountants refusing to assist the proceedings. De Bont provided a practical example from his experience: in one case, the Dutch authorities bugged a conference room after a dawn raid to listen to management discussions and the privileged review of the seized materials took several years, significantly delaying the proceedings.

Conclusion

The panel discussion on cross-border tax crimes provided valuable insights into the complexities of defending clients facing allegations of global tax evasion and fraud. Each jurisdiction presents unique challenges and opportunities in this particular context and understanding these nuances is crucial for an effective defence. For example:

• in Italy, VAT fraud is treated as a serious criminal offence, with significant penalties, including potential prison time for directors and administrative liability for companies;
• Germany enforces strict liability for tax evasion and money laundering, with mandatory investigations and the possibility of self-reporting to mitigate the potential penalties, although individuals still become targets during the process;
• in France, the authorities pursue both tax and criminal sanctions for unreported income, and money laundering charges can arise from funds transferred to French bank accounts, with increasingly severe penalties, including prison time;
• the US focuses on wire fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy charges, with strong procedural protections, but aggressive prosecution efforts when foreign tax evasion schemes have a US nexus; and 
• in the Netherlands, the authorities prioritise forgery, money laundering and the participation in criminal organisations, using robust information sharing and investigative tools, including cooperation with other jurisdictions through financial intelligence units.

Each country’s approach highlights the complexity and risks faced as a result of participating in cross-border tax crime, underscoring the need for coordinated legal strategies and the awareness of local enforcement practices.

The panel emphasised the increasing cooperation among tax authorities across borders and the growing importance of coordinated, cross-jurisdictional defence strategies to address the evolving risks involving cross-border tax crime.