European Parliament flags crypto assets in call for EU anti-corruption strategy
In brief
- MEPs adopted the non-binding resolution by show of hands during a plenary session.
- The resolution flags crypto assets and opaque ownership as tools to hide or move illicit funds.
- Golden visa schemes should be phased out across the EU, MEPs said.
- Stronger action could save up to €58.5 billion per year, a Parliament study estimated.
What the resolution says about crypto
The resolution explicitly flagged risks linked to crypto assets, opaque ownership structures and digital tools that can be used to hide or move illicit funds. That's the crypto angle in one line.
It isn't a law. It doesn't create new crypto rules either, since resolutions of this kind only signal what lawmakers want the Commission to do.
The Parliament also wants common rules on political financing (with particular attention to political foundations and intermediaries). MEPs called for phasing out golden visas, the investor residence schemes that let wealthy individuals effectively buy residency or citizenship in an EU country.
Separately, Crypto Briefing reported that Aave Labs submitted a response to the Commission's MiCA review consultation, arguing that regulation should target intermediaries rather than software and should protect self-custody rights. Hyperliquid, an onchain trading platform, made similar arguments in its own submission. Neither submission is part of the Parliament's resolution.
The numbers behind the push
Lawmakers have figures to point to. A European Parliament research study estimated that stronger EU action against corruption could save up to 58.5 billion euros per year. A 2025 Eurobarometer survey found that 69% of Europeans believed corruption was widespread in their own country, and Europol estimated that nearly 60% of criminal networks engaged in some form of corruption.
Those are the numbers MEPs are leaning on.
Enforcement, oversight and what's next
The resolution called for tighter cooperation and data sharing among national authorities and EU bodies including Europol, Eurojust, the EPPO and OLAF. It said the EPPO should get more resources, and that the five member states that haven't joined it should do so. MEPs argued that anti-corruption bodies must be independent and properly funded.
There's also a push to scrutinize Brussels itself. The Parliament wants the EU to join GRECO, the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption, so that EU institutions would face the same external scrutiny as national governments. It also argued that EU institutions should be subject to regular anti-corruption reviews by peer institutions.
MEPs sought stronger rule of law conditionality in the next EU long-term budget, under which countries that backslide on anti-corruption norms could have their EU funding cut. The resolution also called for stronger protections for whistleblowers and investigative journalists.
The ball is now in the Commission's court. Because the resolution is non-binding, none of these proposals takes effect unless the Commission and member states turn them into actual legislation.
Frequently asked questions
Does the European Parliament's anti-corruption resolution create new crypto rules?
No. The resolution is non-binding and signals political priorities rather than legislative mandates. It calls on the European Commission to address issues including misuse of crypto assets, but it doesn't impose any rules by itself.
What did the resolution say about crypto assets?
The resolution explicitly flagged risks linked to crypto assets, opaque ownership structures and digital tools that can be used to hide or move illicit funds. It asked the Commission to address the misuse of crypto assets as part of the EU's first comprehensive anti-corruption strategy.
How much could stronger EU anti-corruption action save?
A European Parliament research study estimated that stronger EU action against corruption could save up to 58.5 billion euros per year. Separately, a 2025 Eurobarometer survey found 69% of Europeans believed corruption was widespread in their own country.
