STRASBOURG — The Belgian prosecutor’s office has acknowledged that an EU lawmaker was incorrectly implicated in a bribery investigation involving the Chinese technology company Huawei. This error stemmed from a case of mistaken identity with a businessman sharing the same name.
Authorities mistakenly accused Maltese MEP Daniel Attard of receiving “suspicious” payments from accounts in China and Hong Kong. This information was revealed by two sources familiar with a letter from the Belgian prosecutor, which was sent to the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee earlier this month.
According to the letter, the Belgian financial transactions watchdog admitted to an “error” in identifying the owner of the bank account in question. In fact, the account belonged to a Maltese businessman who shares the same name as Attard. The allegations concerning the lawmaker were part of a file submitted to the Parliament’s legal affairs committee, which is responsible for determining the potential lifting of his parliamentary immunity.
Confusion over identity raises concerns
This confirmation of the mix-up followed requests from lawmakers urging the Belgian prosecutor to verify the identity of the accused party. Businessman Daniel Attard expressed his frustration, stating,
“My practice includes advising international clients on residency related matters under Maltese law, which includes professional fees from clients in various jurisdictions. Those activities are entirely separate from the Huawei investigation and have no connection to the MEP Daniel Attard.”
He lamented,
“It is unfortunate that I am being drawn into a matter that has nothing to do with me simply because another person shares the same name.”
The businessman has previously served as a mayor for the Maltese Labour Party, which is the same political party as the lawmaker Attard.
Daniel Attard, the lawyer, has been involved in facilitating the sale of so-called golden passports, as reported by Follow the Money. This scheme allowed foreign nationals to gain residency rights in Malta through property purchases or investments, but it was ruled illegal by the EU’s top court in April 2025.
Ongoing investigation into EU political corruption
MEP Attard commented on the situation, noting,
“Such situations can unfortunately occur and have indeed done so; including in Court proceedings in Malta where I have on several occasions been confused with another individual who bears the same name and who is also a warranted lawyer.”
He emphasized the necessity of ensuring thorough verification processes to protect individuals’ reputations, asserting his commitment to cooperating fully with the European Parliament and relevant authorities to resolve the matter swiftly.
This incident is the latest twist in an ongoing investigation that has raised alarm about the potential influence of China within European politics and the susceptibility of EU lawmakers to bribery and covert lobbying. The Belgian federal prosecutor’s office revealed in March 2025 that they were investigating allegations of “active corruption within the European Parliament,” suggesting that the alleged bribery may have benefited Huawei.
The investigation has faced significant scrutiny, including reports of wiretapping a VIP box at the RSC Anderlecht stadium. Huawei has publicly stated its firm stance against corruption, maintaining compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
The case has been marred by controversy from the start. In the wake of the scandal, Belgian prosecutors sought to lift the immunity of five lawmakers, including Attard. However, they quickly withdrew their request regarding Italian MEP Giusi Princi upon realizing she was not serving at the time of the alleged infractions.
Parliament President Roberta Metsola expressed her discontent with the situation, stating,
“I will not accept the targeting and tarnishing of MEPs without a solid basis.”
Concerns have arisen among lawmakers regarding the integrity of the Belgian prosecution, with some asserting that publicly implicating MEPs before gathering sufficient evidence could irreparably damage their reputations. A source familiar with the matter indicated that there is “general dissatisfaction about the quality of the work of the Belgian prosecution.”
Moreover, Belgian federal justice workers have reported that the system is severely underfunded and nearing a “breaking point,” as highlighted by the Brussels Times.
The European Parliament’s press service has refrained from commenting on the ongoing immunity procedures, and the Belgian prosecutor’s office did not respond to requests for further comments by the time of publication.