EU Strategic Priorities in Fighting

Cybercrime

Virgil SPIRIDON
ROMANIAN NATIONAL POLICE
Head of National Cybercrime Unit

Cybercrime

Transnational phenomenon
Organized crime
Financial driven
Multidisciplinary approach
Cooperation with the private sector
International cooperation

Priorities-general considerations
Different organizations/institutions involved
Many projects and initiatives (knowledge
of them and overlaps)
EC3
Different approach on what cybercrime is
in the MS
Different priorities in MS
Operational issues

EMPACT project

Initiative under the Belgium Presidency

2011 Europol assessment (OCTA)
First circle 2012-2013 -8 priorities
Next Circle 2014-2017-12 priorities
Areas: Cybercrime (cyber attacks, credit
card fraud and online child exploitation)

EMPACT project

COSI
Priorities from MS and from the EU level
Operational vs strategic activities
Coordination of the projects
Voluntary basis

Areas for cybercrime priority

Legislation
Internet Governance
Capacities to fight against cybercrime
Cooperation with the private sector

EU crime priority H (Empact Cybercrime): Step

up the fight against cybercrime and the criminal
misuse of the internet by organised crime
groups".
Driver: Romania
Member States: BE, BG, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR,
HU,IE, IT, NL,RO,SE,UK
Agencies involved: Europol, Eurojust, Cepol

SG 1: To ensure that all Member States

have a common legal standard to fight
cybercrime
SG 2: To enhance Internet Governance so
that users in cyberspace can be identified by
Member States' authorities for legitimate law
enforcement reasons

SG 3: To enhance Member States' and

Union capacities to detect, investigate and
prosecute cybercrime

SG 4: To establish the European

Cybercrime Centre (ECC) to become the
focal point in the fight against cybercrime in
the Union contributing to faster reactions in
the event of cyber attacks

SG 5: To establish and implement a common Union

approach to disrupt and dismantle the criminal
infrastructure in cyberspace, especially botnets
SG 6: To raise security in cyberspace through a shared
responsibility in preventing and detecting cybercrime via
public-private partnerships by identifying areas of mutual
interest and exchanging information and by introducing
measures to better inform and protect end users
SG 7: To have a reporting system in each Member State
on data breaches/cyber incidents/cybercrimes for legal
entities and citizens

Remarks for OAP

Annual basis
Responsibilities for driver, leaders and
participants
European agencies
Private sector engaged
Third countries
Reporting the results
Continuity

Activities from OAP

Realistic
Achievable
Relevant
Impact
Measurable
MS engagement (leaders and participants)

Operational activities

Botnets
Malware
TOR
Darkweb
E-payment instruments
Mony mles network
Asses recovery
CC forums

Strategic activities

Legislation (Cybercrime Convention)

Reporting system
Internet Governance
Training
Cooperation with the private sector

Achievement
Cybercrime priority
Framework for MS to express the needs
for cooperation
Operational activities
Better coordination of different projects
Coordination of EU agencies
Identification of the general difficulties to
investigate and cooperate in the
cybercrime area

Dificulties
OAP 2012 and OAP 2013 are good learning exercises
The SG were not priorities for each Country in the fight
against cybercrime
Important contributions from EC3 and Cepol
EC3 leader in many activities
Engagement and mandates from members and leaders
No coordination in the MS prior the creation of OAP
Not all the activities were finalized in time
Difficulties to identify operational activities

THANK YOU!