Heidi Kingstone is a journalist and author covering human rights issues, conflict and politics. Her most recent book is “Genocide: Personal Stories, Big Questions.” Slavery is alive and thriving, and it’s wrapped inside shiny chocolate bars that promise to be “fair trade,” “child-labor free” and “sustainable.” In West Africa, which produces more than 60 percent of the world’s cocoa, over 1.5 million children still work under hazardous conditions. Kids, some as young as five, use machetes to crack pods open in their hands, carry loads that weigh more than they do and spray toxic pesticides without protection. Meanwhile, of the roughly 2 million metric tons of cocoa the Ivory Coast produces each year, between 20 percent and 30 percent is grown illegally in protected forests. And satellite data from Global Forest Watch shows an increase in deforestation across key cocoa-growing regions as farmers, desperate for income, push deeper into forest reserves. The bitter truth is that despite decades of pledges, certification schemes and packaging glowing with virtue — of forests saved, farmers empowered and consciences soothed — most chocolate companies have failed to eradicate exploitation from their supply chains. Today, many cocoa farmers in the Ivory Coast and Ghana still earn less than a dollar a day, well below the poverty line. According to a 2024 report by the International Cocoa Initiative, the average farmer earns only 40 percent of a living wage. Put starkly, as the global chocolate market swells close to a $150 billion a year in 2025, the average farmer now receives less than 6 percent of the value of a single chocolate bar, whereas in the 1970s they received more than 50 percent. Then there’s the use of child labor, which is essentially woven into the fabric of this economy, where we have been sold the illusion of progress. From the 2001 Harkin-Engel Protocol — a voluntary agreement to end child labor by the world’s chocolate giants — to today’s glossy environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports, every initiative has promised progress and delivered delay. In 2007, the industry quietly redefined “public certification,” shifting it from a commitment to consumer labeling to a vague pledge to compile statistics on labor conditions. It missed the original 2010 deadline to eliminate child labor, as well as a new target to reduce it by 70 percent by 2020. And that year, a study by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center found that hazardous child labor in cocoa production increased from 2008 to 2019. “We covered a story about a ship carrying trafficked children,” recalled journalist Humphrey Hawksley, who first exposed the issue in the BBC documentary called Slavery: A Global Investigation. “The chocolate companies refused to comment and spoke as one industry. That was their rule. Even now, none of them is slave-free,” he added. As it stands, many of the more than 1.5 million West African children working in cocoa production are trafficked from neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali. Traffickers lure them with false promises or outright abduction, offering children as young as 10 either bicycles or small sums to travel to the Ivory Coast. There, they are sold to farmers for as little as $34 each. And once on these farms, they are trapped. They work up to 14 hours a day, sleep in windowless sheds with no clean water or toilets, and most never see the inside of a classroom. Last but not least, we come to deforestation: Since its independence, more than 90 percent of the Ivory Coast’s forests have disappeared due to cocoa farming. In 2024, deforestation accelerated despite corporate commitments to halt it by 2025, as declining soil fertility and stagnant prices pushed farmers farther into the forest to plant new cocoa trees. But as Reuters Correspondent for West and Central Africa Ange Aboa described them, such labels are “the biggest scam of the century!” | Lena Klimkeit/Picture Alliance via Getty Images Certification labels like “Rainforest Alliance” and “Fairtrade” are supposed to prevent this. But as Reuters Correspondent for West and Central Africa Ange Aboa described them, such labels are “the biggest scam of the century!” Complicit in all of this are the financiers and investors who profit. For example, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is the world’s largest investor, and Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) is a shareholder in 9,000 corporations, including Nestlé, Mondelez, Hershey, Barry Callebaut and Lindt — all part of the direct chocolate cluster. NBIM also has shares in McDonald’s, Starbucks, Unilever, the Dunkin’ parent company and Tim Hortons — the indirect high-volume buyer cluster. “The richest families in cocoa — the Marses, the Ferreros, the Cargills, the Jacobs — are billionaires thanks to the exploitation of the poorest children on earth,” said journalist and human rights campaigner Fernando Morales-de la Cruz, the founder of Cacao for Change. “And countries like Norway, which claim to be ethical, profit from slavery and child labor.” The problem is, few are asking who picks the cocoa. And though the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which was adopted last year, requires large companies to address human rights and environmental abuses in their supply chains, critics say the directive’s weaknesses, loopholes, and delayed enforcement will blunt its impact. However, all of this could still be fixed. Currently, a metric ton of cocoa sells for about $5,000 on world markets, but Morales-de la Cruz estimates that a fair farm-gate price would be around $7,500 per metric ton. To that end, he advocates for binding international trade standards that enforce living incomes and transparent pricing, modeled on the World Trade Organization’s compliance mechanisms. “Human rights should be as binding in trade as tariffs,” he insisted. The solution isn’t to buy more “ethical” bars but to demand accountability and support legislation that makes exploitation unprofitable. “We can’t shop our way to justice,” he said. So, as the trees in the Ivory Coast’s forests fall, the profits in Europe and North America continue to soar. And two decades after the industry vowed to end child labor, the cocoa supply chain remains one of the world’s most exploitative and least accountable. Moreover, the European Parliament’s vote on the Omnibus simplification package last month laid bare the corporate control and moral blindness still present in EU policymaking, all behind talk of “cutting red tape.” “Yet Europe’s media and EU-funded NGOs stay silent, talking of competitiveness and green transitions, while ignoring the children who harvest its cocoa, coffee and cotton,” said Morales-de la Cruz. “Europe cannot claim to defend human rights while profiting from exploitation.” However, until the industry pays a fair price and governments enforce real accountability, every bar of chocolate remains an unpaid moral debt.

BRUSSELS — First it was telecom snooping. Now Europe is growing worried that Huawei could turn the lights off. The Chinese tech giant is at the heart of a brewing storm over the security of Europe’s energy grids. Lawmakers are writing to the European Commission to urge it to “restrict high-risk vendors” from solar energy systems, in a letter seen by POLITICO. Such restrictions would target Huawei first and foremost, as the dominant Chinese supplier of critical parts of these systems. The fears center around solar panel inverters, a piece of technology that turns solar panels’ electricity into current that flows into the grid. China is a dominant supplier of these inverters, and Huawei is its biggest player. Because the inverters are hooked up to the internet, security experts warn the inverters could be tampered with or shut down through remote access, potentially causing dangerous surges or drops in electricity in Europe’s networks. The warnings come as European governments have woken up to the risks of being reliant on other regions for critical services — from Russian gas to Chinese critical raw materials and American digital services. The bloc is in a stand-off with Beijing over trade in raw materials, and has faced months of pressure from Washington on how Brussels regulates U.S. tech giants. Cybersecurity authorities are close to finalizing work on a new “toolbox” to de-risk tech supply chains, with solar panels among its key target sectors, alongside connected cars and smart cameras. Two members of the European Parliament, Dutch liberal Bart Groothuis and Slovak center-right lawmaker Miriam Lexmann, drafted a letter warning the European Commission of the risks. “We urge you to propose immediate and binding measures to restrict high-risk vendors from our critical infrastructure,” the two wrote. The members had gathered the support of a dozen colleagues by Wednesday and are canvassing for more to join the initiative before sending the letter mid next week.   According to research by trade body SolarPower Europe, Chinese firms control approximately 65 percent of the total installed power in the solar sector. The largest company in the European market is Huawei, a tech giant that is considered a high-risk vendor of telecom equipment. The second-largest firm is Sungrow, which is also Chinese, and controls about half the amount of solar power as Huawei. Huawei’s market power recently allowed it to make its way back into SolarPower Europe, the solar sector’s most prominent lobby association in Brussels, despite an ongoing Belgian bribery investigation focused on the firm’s lobbying activities in Brussels that saw it banned from meeting with European Commission and Parliament officials. Security hawks are now upping the ante. Cybersecurity experts and European manufacturers say the Chinese conglomerate and its peers could hack into Europe’s power grid.  “They can disable safety parameters. They can set it on fire,” Erika Langerová, a cybersecurity researcher at the Czech Technical University in Prague, said in a media briefing hosted by the U.S. Mission to the EU in September.  Even switching solar installation off and on again could disrupt energy supply, Langerová said. “When you do it on one installation, it’s not a problem, but then you do it on thousands of installations it becomes a problem because the … compound effect of these sudden changes in the operation of the device can destabilize the power grid.”  Surges in electricity supply can trigger wider blackouts, as seen in Spain and Portugal in April. | Matias Chiofalo/Europa Press via Getty Images Surges in electricity supply can trigger wider blackouts, as seen in Spain and Portugal in April. Some governments have already taken further measures. Last November, Lithuania imposed a ban on remote access by Chinese firms to renewable energy installations above 100 kilowatts, effectively stopping the use of Chinese inverters. In September, the Czech Republic issued a warning on the threat posed by Chinese remote access via components including solar inverters. And in Germany, security officials already in 2023 told lawmakers that an “energy management component” from Huawei had them on alert, leading to a government probe of the firm’s equipment. CHINESE CONTROL, EU RESPONSE  The arguments leveled against Chinese manufacturers of solar inverters echo those heard from security experts in previous years, in debates on whether or not to block companies like video-sharing app TikTok, airport scanner maker Nuctech and — yes — Huawei’s 5G network equipment. Distrust of Chinese technology has skyrocketed. Under President Xi Jinping, the Beijing government has rolled out regulations forcing Chinese companies to cooperate with security services’ requests to share data and flag vulnerabilities in their software. It has led to Western concerns that it opens the door to surveillance and snooping. One of the most direct threats involves remote management from China of products embedded in European critical infrastructure. Manufacturers have remote access to install updates and maintenance. Europe has also grown heavily reliant on Chinese tech suppliers, particularly when it comes to renewable energy, which is powering an increasing proportion of European energy. Domestic manufacturers of solar panels have enough supply to fill the gap that any EU action to restrict Chinese inverters would create, Langerová said. But Europe does not yet have enough battery or wind manufacturers — two clean energy sector China also dominates. China’s dominance also undercuts Europe’s own tech sector and comes with risks of economic coercion. Until only a few years ago, European firms were competitive, before being undercut by heavily subsidized Chinese products, said Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. China on the other hand does not allow foreign firms in its market because of cybersecurity concerns, he said. The European Union previously developed a 5G security toolbox to reduce its dependence on Huawei over these fears. It is also working on a similar initiative, known as the ICT supply chain toolbox, to help national governments scan their wider digital infrastructure for weak points, with a view to blocking or reduce the use of “high-risk suppliers.” According to Groothuis and Lexmann, “binding legislation to restrict risky vendors in our critical infrastructure is urgently required” across the European Union. Until legislation is passed, the EU should put temporary measures in place, they said in their letter.  Huawei did not respond to requests for comment before publication. This article has been updated.

Amid concerns over sustainability fraud, the European biodiesel industry is pushing for regulatory reform. As Europe accelerates efforts to decarbonize transportation, biofuels have emerged as an important solution. These CO2-neutral fuels ― derived from sustainable feedstocks including crops and waste and residues ― are the leading contributor to renewable energy in the transport sector, providing an immediate and cost-effective substitute for conventional fuels. Dickon Posnett, president, EBB  “If Europe is serious about decarbonizing transport, we should be encouraging more biofuel use, not less.” Evidence suggests some importers, particularly from China and Southeast Asia, are circumventing sustainability standards, threatening to undermine both climate progress and fair competition. The European Biodiesel Board, representing EU producers, is raising concerns over these practices. As the European Commission prepares to review rules on biofuels verification, EBB President Dickon Posnett spoke with POLITICO Studio about the critical need for stronger controls and a more level playing field. From expanded audits to harmonized reporting, targeted changes can ensure the system remains effective for legitimate businesses doing their bit to bring down Europe’s transport emissions. POLITICO Studio: Just how bad is the biofuel fraud problem and the impact on European producers? Dickon Posnett: By far, the majority of biofuels on the EU market are legitimate and contribute to emission reduction. However, any level of fraud is a very big concern for the biodiesel industry in Europe. There are two main effects. First, by bringing in fraudulent biodiesel that’s not as sustainable as claimed, they are cheating the EU’s climate ambitions and not achieving the greenhouse gas reductions we should be. That’s unacceptable. But perhaps even more damaging is the longer-term effect of eroding trust and political confidence in our industry. Once that trust is eroded, the regulatory support for decarbonization drops away. That hits everyone, including producers abiding by the rules. Without those regulations, this market wouldn’t exist. Fraud also depresses prices to an unrealistic level that has become unsustainable for some European producers. > Rules applying to domestic producers should be enforced just as strictly > outside the EU. PS: What are the most critical reforms needed to combat fraud and ensure fair competition? DP: The basic principle is that rules applying to domestic producers should be enforced just as strictly outside the EU. For example, on-site audits should be systematic in production facilities abroad, as is common in Europe. Additionally, every producer should report the quantities, capacities and feedstock use of the biofuels they make. There are a lot of rules about what biofuels can count toward EU targets based on feedstock. Biofuels that offer the highest greenhouse gas savings are therefore more susceptible to fraud. Shining a light on how much biofuel you can realistically produce from these premium feedstocks will prevent trickery. Some EU countries already require this. We suggest it should apply to all biofuels on the EU market, regardless of where they’re produced. PS: Is it feasible to require non-EU producers to face the same strict verification rules as European companies? DP: Of course it is. All biofuels imported into the EU must have a Proof of Sustainability. It’s perfectly reasonable to require all fuels used in the EU to comply with EU sustainability rules. There is a verification system in place, but we need to clarify requirements on audits and access to information. This will enable authorities to oversee economic operators, voluntary schemes and certification bodies, both inside and outside EU jurisdiction. In fact, it can be done now. As the Commission reviews verification rules, we’ve already drafted detailed amendments that can be implemented immediately. PS: What key information should be added to the EU biofuels database to enable better fraud detection? DP: The Union Database for Biofuels is a major asset in fighting fraud. EBB has been instrumental in its inception — in fact, it’s something we have been striving for since 2012. It will fundamentally improve prevention once the system is fully functional, hopefully by early 2026. Via iStock Beyond the core data, we’ve suggested including additional information such as customs documents to clarify the origin of both the product and its sustainability documentation, enabling us to match them up. We’re also proposing links to national systems that record production capacities and feedstock use. Having all this data integrated would make anomalies easier to spot and investigate. Overall, a centralized database dramatically improves traceability and transparency. But it needs to be comprehensive and easily cross-referenced to fulfill its potential as a fraud-busting tool. PS: How can the revised rules boost European competitiveness and investment in domestic biofuels? DP: Confidence is key. The fraud issue has dented trust in biofuels and the price effects have made investors wary, at a time when major investment is needed to achieve our climate goals. Stronger verification will provide the credibility and predictability needed to drive long-term growth. The EU verification system relies on voluntary third-party verification based on criteria established by the legislator, and we do not want to change this. We build up on the current system and improve it. European producers are already subject to strict standards. Biofuels produced outside the EU and their supply chain are not subject to the same level of scrutiny. With a more level playing field, the commitment of EU producers to sustainability becomes an asset. Industries thrive when the rules are clear, consistent and rigorously enforced. Having a comprehensive solution in place is critical. A hard-to-navigate patchwork of caps and bans is not a viable solution. We’ve seen some calls to cap or cut biofuel use. A few member countries are looking at restrictions. That’s the opposite of what we need. If Europe is serious about decarbonizing transport, we should be encouraging more biofuel use, not less. Tackling fraud head-on removes a major barrier to doing that. It will take the brakes off investments and innovations that can push this industry forward. > A centralized database dramatically improves traceability and transparency. PS: Beyond verification, what other policy or market measures could help build a more resilient and sustainable European biofuels sector? DP: We need a comprehensive strategy. Of course, verification is the foundation because we have to shore up confidence. But we also need a stable, ambitious policy framework to drive demand. The more certainty there is about the market trajectory, the more investments will flow into expanding domestic production, developing new feedstocks and improving technologies. On the consumer side, education is important. We need people to understand the benefits and safety of biofuels. There’s still work to do in fighting misconceptions. Policymakers also have a role in incentivizing higher blends and ensuring vehicles that are fully compatible are also labeled as such. A renewable fuels infrastructure that’s convenient and accessible will boost uptake.

The European Commission will no longer meet with organizations affiliated with Huawei, following an investigation into alleged corruption at the European Parliament that would have benefited the Chinese technology firm. “The Commission shall not meet with any lobby groups and/or trade associations that represent Huawei’s interests and/or speak on its behalf,” the Commission’s spokesperson service told POLITICO in a statement. The Commission had already banned “contact and meetings” with Huawei officials in March, just days after Belgian investigators launched a corruption probe into the Chinese technology company’s activities in Brussels. Wednesday’s statement added the ban extended to “any intermediaries acting on Huawei’s behalf who would engage in meetings and other contacts with Commission staff to advance the interests of the company.” At least eight people have been charged by the Belgian prosecutor — including one of Huawei’s most senior executives in Europe — with active corruption, money laundering and criminal organization, after a series of police raids of premises in Belgium, France and Portugal. Huawei is listed as a member of 22 associations in the European Union’s transparency register, which tracks corporate lobbying activities. Several of these, like DigitalEurope, BusinessEurope and the European Internet Forum, have already moved to suspend the Chinese company in response to the bribery scandal. Several other organizations told POLITICO at the end of March that they were “closely monitoring the situation.” Some took measures to distance themselves in the past weeks. At least eight people have been charged by the Belgian prosecutor with active corruption, money laundering and criminal organization, after a series of police raids of premises in Belgium, France and Portugal. | Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images At SolarPower Europe, Huawei representatives still hold key roles but the organization has scaled back the company’s “non-membership financial commitments,” a spokesperson for the association previously confirmed. SolarPower Europe did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for an update on its work with Huawei. Think tank CERRE, which has Huawei as a member, previously said it had the situation “under close review.” It declined to comment for this article. The European Cyber Security Organisation (ECSO), where Huawei is still listed as a member, is reviewing the company’s status with results expected on April 29, it said in a comment. Other organizations that list Huawei as a member, including Eurelectric, the European Association for Storage of Energy, Bruegel, FTTH and ECTA, did not immediately respond to a request for comment or an update on previous statements about their work with the Chinese tech firm. Huawei did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It said in a previous statement: “The company maintains a zero-tolerance stance against corruption. As always, we are fully committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations.” This article has been updated to include a response from ECSO.

BRUSSELS — One of Huawei’s most senior executives in Europe is a suspect in the Belgian investigation into alleged corruption at the European Parliament benefitting the Chinese technology company, POLITICO can reveal.  The senior executive was represented in a Belgian court on Tuesday, documents relating to the hearing showed. He is charged with “active corruption of a person holding a public office, criminal organization and money laundering,” said one of the documents, which were disclosed as part of the preparation of a hearing at Brussels’ Chamber of Accusation.  The senior executive is listed as a vice president for the Europe region at Huawei and previously held a position as chief representative to the European Union leading the firm’s public affairs office in Brussels. He can only be identified as Yong J. Tuesday’s hearing, held behind closed doors, was part of proceedings where defense teams engage with senior judges to discuss procedural matters, including potential custody decisions.  The senior executive could not be reached for comment and his lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A Huawei spokesperson also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.  The charges followed a series of police raids of premises in Belgium and Portugal, including Huawei’s Brussels lobbying headquarters and several European Parliament offices. | Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images Belgian investigators are probing whether illegal payments were made to secure political backing for an open letter supporting the Chinese company’s interests and signed off by eight members of the European Parliament, according to an arrest warrant seen by POLITICO.  The Belgian prosecutor said Friday it had charged eight people. The charges followed a series of police raids of premises in Belgium and Portugal, including Huawei’s Brussels lobbying headquarters and several European Parliament offices. Aside from Yong J., three other Huawei employees were among the suspects in the corruption probe who first faced Belgian judges last week as part of procedural hearings, including a lobbyist and a senior executive for the firm, who can only be described as Valerio O. and Han W. They are also facing charges related to corruption, money laundering and participation in a criminal organization.  All suspects are presumed innocent.  Huawei fired two employees and suspended a third for their alleged involvement in the bribery investigation, a spokesperson said Monday. The spokesperson did not disclose the identities or roles of the employees affected. It is unclear whether the employees fired and suspended by Huawei are the same as the Huawei officials who were preliminarily charged. Huawei said in a previous statement: “The company maintains a zero-tolerance stance against corruption. As always, we are fully committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations.”  Mathieu Pollet contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Huawei has fired two employees and suspended a third for their alleged involvement in a bribery investigation surrounding the Chinese technology giant and the European Parliament, POLITICO has learned. The firm “terminated the employment of two individuals” from April 1 and suspended a third from April 2, a spokesperson for Huawei said in a statement. “We take the ongoing investigation seriously,” the spokesperson added. The spokesperson did not disclose the identities or roles of the employees affected by the measures. A lobbyist, a senior executive and a procurement manager with Huawei were among the suspects in the corruption probe who first faced Belgian judges last week as part of procedural hearings. The officials were preliminary charged with corruption, participation in a criminal organization and money laundering. They are presumed innocent. It is unclear if the three employees fired and suspended by Huawei are the same as the Huawei officials who were preliminary charged. “The company maintains a zero-tolerance stance against corruption. As always, we are fully committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations,” the Huawei spokesperson said. The Belgian prosecutor said Friday it charged eight people in total, three weeks after police raided addresses in Belgium and Portugal, including Huawei’s Brussels lobbying office. Investigators are probing whether illegal payments were made to secure political backing for an open letter supporting the Chinese company’s interest and signed off by eight members of the European Parliament. Out of the eight suspects, three are now under electronic surveillance, two were released “under conditions,” and three remain in prison, according to the statement from the prosecutor.

BRUSSELS — Three Huawei employees and a managing director from Brussels conference organizer Forum Europe appeared in court this week for hearings related to the corruption investigation into the Chinese tech giant’s lobbying in Europe. Police raided more than 20 locations in Belgium and Portugal last month within an investigation into alleged illegal payments made by Huawei to secure an open letter signed by eight European lawmakers in support of the company’s interests, according to the Belgian prosecutor and an arrest warrant seen by POLITICO. Five people were charged as part of the investigation, prosecutors said on March 18. In the first session, the parties met for a 15 minutes behind closed doors at Brussels’ Chamber of Accusation, an appeals court where defense teams discuss ongoing investigations with senior Belgian judges regarding procedural decisions such as whether individuals should be released from custody. A second session, on Wednesday, lasted for more than two hours. According to a court timetable available on site at the Brussels Palace of Justice, the suspects include a lobbyist from Huawei as well as a senior executive and a procurement manager of the Chinese tech firm. The higher profile Huawei employees can be named as Han W. and Valerio O. All are suspected of corruption, participation in a criminal organization and money laundering. They are presumed innocent. Two other defendants are contractors, including one from Forum Europe who is charged with “active corruption of a person holding a public office in an organization governed by public international law,” according to the timetable. Forum Europe said in an email: “We do not have any comment at this time.” The arrest warrant, which POLITICO reported on last week, included details from Belgian prosecutors alleging the key suspects may have facilitated the payments for the pro-Huawei letter. “A sum of €15,000 was offered to the writer of the 5G letter, while each co-signatory was offered €1,500,” read the warrant, signed by the investigative judge. “This transaction or proposed transaction is said to have been endorsed by HUAWEI’s Chinese executives, in particular by …. [the] director of the Brussels office,” it also said. The warrant also described how the former adviser allegedly arranged for the payments via invoices that investigators suspect might be for “alleged consultancy services and campaign expenses, in the amounts of  €18,450 and €27,500.” Huawei said in an earlier statement that it “takes these allegations seriously” and “has a zero tolerance policy towards corruption or other wrongdoing.” The Chinese Embassy in Belgium told POLITICO in a statement that “the Chinese side is in communication with relevant authorities of the Belgian government” and that the “Chinese government always requires Chinese companies [to] strictly observe laws and regulations of the host countries.” Two other people — one former and one current parliamentary assistant to conservative Italian lawmaker Fulvio Martusciello — were arrested in France and Italy as part of the probe, bringing the total number of suspects to at least seven. They both denied any involvement and accepted being extradited.

Police authorities searched two offices belonging to several European Parliament political assistants in Strasbourg, two officials with knowledge of the matter told POLITICO. Police had previously sealed the offices on March 13, the same day that authorities raided more than 20 addresses in Belgium and Portugal as part of an investigation into corruption at the Parliament allegedly benefiting Huawei. Those offices have now been searched, the officials confirmed Thursday. One of the officials confirmed the search in Strasbourg was part of the investigation into Huawei’s lobbying practices. Parliament members and their assistants have offices at the institution’s premises in Brussels, where regular parliamentary activity takes place, as well as at the institution’s official seat in Strasbourg, France, where it holds its plenary sessions. Two offices in Brussels were already sealed and searched earlier this month and were handed back to their tenants. Belgian prosecutors are investigating whether Huawei made illegal payments to get an open letter written, signed by eight European parliamentarians, which defended the Chinese tech giant’s interests, according to judicial documents seen by POLITICO. Four people have been charged with corruption and criminal organization and one with money laundering, the Belgian prosecutor’s office said. One parliamentary assistant to Italian center-right MEP Fulvio Martusciello was arrested in Italy on March 20. The assistant in question has been suspended from employment by the Parliament, according to the institution’s press services. Martusciello’s office in 2021 led the effort to promote the letter that is under investigation. A spokesperson for Huawei said in a previous statement that the company “has a zero tolerance policy towards corruption or other wrongdoing, and we are committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations at all times.”

BRUSSELS — Belgian prosecutors are investigating whether Huawei made illegal payments to get an open letter written, signed by eight European parliamentarians, which defended the Chinese tech giant’s interests, according to judicial documents seen by POLITICO. Belgian authorities this month raided 21 homes as part of a spiraling probe into “active corruption in the European Parliament” that “benefitted Huawei.” Investigators are looking into “excessive gifts” or “remuneration for taking political positions” that took place “from 2021 to the present day,” the prosecutors said. In a second major test of accountability for the European Parliament after the Qatargate scandal of 2022, four people have been charged with corruption and criminal organization and one with money laundering, the Belgian prosecutor’s office said last week. According to an arrest warrant seen by POLITICO, first reported on by Italian daily La Repubblica, a key part of the investigation hinges on a letter sent by eight MEPs in February 2021 to three EU commissioners, in which they argue geopolitical tensions should not hinder the development of 5G equipment in Europe. That letter, although it does not mention Huawei by name, is seen as promoting the Chinese company’s interests because it came as several EU governments were rolling out measures that sought to limit telecom operators’ use of Chinese equipment, arguing Beijing posed risks because of espionage, surveillance and potential economic dependency. Conservative Italian lawmaker Fulvio Martusciello, one of the signatories, posted the pro-Huawei letter on X on Feb. 15, 2021, but later deleted it. His former parliamentary adviser and his assistant have now both been arrested in relation to the Huawei probe, according to their lawyers. The assistant’s contract has now been suspended. CASH FOR A LETTER The arrest warrant for Martusciello’s assistant includes details from the Belgian prosecutors laying out the heart of the case, in which both she and his former adviser are alleged to have helped arrange payments for the letter, referred to as the “5G” letter in the judicial documents. The description of the Belgian probe, as provided by the investigative judge in charge of the case, says: “A sum of €15,000 was offered to the writer of the 5G letter, while each co-signatory was offered €1,500.” “This transaction or proposed transaction is said to have been endorsed by HUAWEI’s Chinese executives, in particular by …. [the] director of the Brussels office,” the document also reads. The director can only be identified as Abraham L. Moving on to bank details of what it describes as “suspicious payments,” the document sets out how the former adviser allegedly arranged for the payments via invoices “in consideration of alleged consultancy services and campaign expenses, in the amounts of  €18,450 and €27,500.” “Assuming the facts are established, these amounts would represent the alleged compensation for the above-mentioned letter drafted by eight MEPs for the attention of three European Commissioners in favor of HUAWEI,” the document continues. “The investigation has brought to light the financial circuit of remunerations which would demonstrate the corruptive process.” As part of a series of bank transfers, the former adviser wired €6,700 to Martusciello, €1,000 to his assistant, and €14,800 to another parliamentary assistant, the warrant says. Several account holders that received payments remain unknown. Conservative Italian lawmaker Fulvio Martusciello, one of the signatories, posted the pro-Huawei letter on X on Feb. 15, 2021, but later deleted it. | Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images When contacted by POLITICO, Belgian prosecutors declined to comment on an ongoing investigation. Martusciello did not respond to requests for comment about the bank transfers. Asked about Abraham L.’s alleged involvement in a bribery scheme, Huawei did not respond to a request for comment. A company spokesperson said in an earlier statement: “Huawei takes these allegations seriously and will urgently communicate with the investigation to further understand the situation. Huawei has a zero tolerance policy towards corruption or other wrongdoing, and we are committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations at all times.” ARRESTS AND ALLEGATIONS Martusciello’s current assistant was arrested in Italy last week as part of the Huawei probe. She “was not involved in the political activities of Mr Martusciello, she only dealt with logistics,” her lawyer Antimo Giaccio told POLITICO, adding she “was very rarely at the European Parliament … about 10 times.” Before an Italian judge on Tuesday, she rejected all the preliminary charges against her but said she stood ready to answer “any questions from the Belgian authorities,” her lawyer added. The former parliamentary adviser for Martusciello, who worked for him between 2015 and 2019, was also arrested in Paris last Thursday as part of the Huawei probe, his lawyer Benoît Martinez told POLITICO. “My client intends to fully cooperate with the Belgian authorities. He denies any involvement with the charges he’s suspected of,” he added. He declined to comment further on the charges related to his client. The Belgian secret services, which filed a declassified report that triggered the investigation, found digital evidence that the former adviser could have been involved in the drafting of the 2021 letter with one of Huawei’s lobbyists, who can only be identified as Valerio O., the arrest warrant says. Valerio O.’s lawyer Denis Bosquet declined to comment. The investigators say the transfers can also “be linked to the drafting by MEP Fulvio Martusciello of legislative amendments favorable to Huawei,” and to a communication in which Valerio O. tells an employee of Huawei in Poland “that they [Huawei] ‘often cross the line and even pay for amendments.'” The same month as promoting the letter, February 2021, Martusciello submitted amendments to a European parliamentary report that would favor Huawei’s position in Europe. Martusciello did not reply to multiple requests for comment about the letter, but told POLITICO he didn’t know the charges against his assistant. He told Belgian newspaper Le Soir that he had never received anything from Huawei. “I’ve never been to China, I’ve never been to the stadium, I’ve never received a cell phone or any other gift,” he said. NGO Transparency International received an anonymous tip in connection to the 2021 letter and forwarded the tip to the EU’s OLAF anti-fraud office, it said. The then-director of the civil rights group Michiel van Hulten this month posted on Bluesky that OLAF had dismissed the claims because of “insufficient suspicions” of wrongdoing. A spokesperson for OLAF confirmed it did not investigate the matter.  KEEPING A DISTANCE It remains unclear whether any of the co-signatories of the 2021 letter are being investigated by Belgian authorities as part of the Huawei corruption probe, but several of those current and former members of the European Parliament are now taking pains to distance themselves from it. POLITICO asked all of them about their involvement. Those who responded said they had not been contacted by authorities with regard to the letter. The same month as promoting the letter, February 2021, Martusciello submitted amendments to a European parliamentary report that would favor Huawei’s position in Europe. | Kevin Frayer/Getty Images Italian conservative lawmaker Herbert Dorfmann insisted the text was Martusciello’s idea and said he would not have signed the letter had he known it was related to the Chinese firm. “I have always been politically in favor of keeping Huawei out of the European market,” he told POLITICO. He added neither he nor his team were offered money “or any other form of compensation in exchange for [his] signature.” Former MEP Cristian-Silviu Bușoi, a Romanian conservative, stated he never consented to signing. “I looked through my official email and found no correspondence regarding this letter,” he said in a written statement. “I also do not recall giving verbal consent to Mr Martusciello, as is sometimes customary when colleagues seek support for their initiatives,” he also said, adding that neither he or his staff received any compensation nor were aware of any scheme related to the signature of the letter. Aldo Patriciello, a far-right Italian MEP, said in an email: “I honestly struggle to remember whether the request for my signature came via email, phone call or WhatsApp.” He added that he had no direct or indirect relationship with Huawei or its lobbyists. Romanian conservative Daniel Buda, also a signatory, attributed his involvement to his team, stating he was informed through a briefing prepared by his office staff. “My support was solely driven by concerns about rural digital infrastructure, not influenced by external parties,” he said in an email. He added he had not been contacted by any investigative authority regarding the letter and that neither he or his team received any money in exchange for his signature. “I had no knowledge — neither then nor now — that behind this letter or activity there could be such a scheme,” he told POLITICO in a written statement. Former Italian social-democrat member Giuseppe Ferrandino said: “I am certain I never signed any letters of such kind” and added he had never been contacted by any authorities regarding this topic. “Nobody ever offered me money to influence my parliamentary activity,” he added. Other signatories included hard-right Italian lawmaker Giuseppe Milazzo and former Romanian social-democrat member Tudor Ciuhodaru, neither of whom responded to POLITICO’s requests for comment. Milazzo told Italian news agency ANSA that he had never had meetings related to the investigation into the Huawei case: “I have never been offered and I have never accepted any money, gifts or any kind of favor, directly or indirectly, from [Huawei],” he said. According to conversations with three former Huawei officials, the 2021 letter posted by Martusciello was meant to counter another open letter from October 2020 in which over 40 lawmakers urged the European Commission to impose stricter controls over the use of Chinese equipment in Europe.  In a letter to European Parliament President Roberta Metsola on Wednesday, 28 members of the chamber urged the institution to “temporarily set aside any MEPs, credibly suspected of involvement, from any parliamentary activity relating to Chinese interests.”  Aitor Hernández-Morales and Paula Andrés Richart contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The European Union’s lobbying scene is rushing to review its ties with Chinese tech company Huawei in the wake of a corruption scandal.  European technology association DigitalEurope on Thursday suspended Huawei from its work after Belgian prosecutors last week launched an investigation into “active corruption” at the European Parliament benefitting the Chinese tech giant. The powerful industry group BusinessEurope also removed Huawei from its list of partner companies. Other EU lobby groups and think tanks that have Huawei as a member or received contributions from the company are considering steps too, they told POLITICO. The European Parliament and European Commission already blacklisted Huawei lobbyists last week, shutting off their access to EU premises, and commissioner cabinets and officials working at the EU executive’s directorates general were instructed “to immediately suspend contacts and meetings” with Huawei “until further notice.” It’s a sign of how Huawei — which is among the top spenders of lobbying money in Brussels according to the EU’s transparency register — is suffering major blows after Belgian police raided its main lobbying office in Brussels as part of a larger investigation into corruption, criminal organization and money laundering at the European Parliament.  DigitalEurope is one of Brussels’ most powerful technology lobbying voices. It gathers tech companies and national industry associations to influence European Union decision making. The lobby group said in a statement it was aware of the “serious allegations” against Huawei. “We take ethical business conduct and compliance with the law very seriously. As a precautionary measure, Huawei’s membership has been suspended until further notice,” the statement read.  BusinessEurope is a lobbying heavyweight in Brussels, with a membership composed of national trade associations and representing the interests of industrial heavyweights across all sectors. It has a group of “partner companies” that includes the world’s largest companies. The Internet Archive search tool showed Huawei was still listed as a partner on March 1 but had been removed by March 18, days after the corruption scandal broke. Huawei is also a member of, or has contributed to, several other lobby groups, trade associations and think tanks, according to the EU’s transparency register that lists declarations from organizations looking to lobby the EU’s work. Those groups and associations are now all closely monitoring how the case unfolds or gearing up to take action.  The European Internet Forum, a non-profit led by European Parliament members, lists Huawei as a business member. Communications Manager Eusebiu Croitoru said the organization has scheduled a discussion about the investigation and “potential implications for Huawei’s membership,” which will take place April 9. The financial and ethical committee of the European Cyber Security Organization (ECSO) will “soon analyze the situation and possible next steps.” Think tank Bruegel said it is “closely monitoring the situation.” And the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) has kept the situation “under close review.” Several of the lobby groups or think tanks contacted by POLITICO said Huawei’s input to their organization or involvement in policy activities was small.  Huawei’s access to sensitive working groups at DigitalEurope was already limited following the security concerns raised over the Chinese tech giant in past years. The company’s contribution to CERRE was “clearly below” 10 percent of the think tank’s budget, it said.  Telecoms lobby group ECTA said that Huawei paid a discounted membership fee and assessed the involvement of Huawei in its activities as “limited,” but added it is “closely monitoring the situation.”  ECSO also said that Huawei had “limited rights” as an associate member. Eurelectric said Huawei is a “business associate,” which means the company is not involved in any policy work, but it added that it is following the reports “closely.” Elisa Braun and Mathieu Pollet contributed reporting.