in 2012, the long term trend for detections of facilitators of irregular migration has been falling. In 2008 and 2009, there were more than 9 000 detections.
According to some reports, this long-term decline may in part be due to a widespread shift towards the abuse of legal channels and document fraud to mimic legal entry to the EU, which results in facilitators being able to operate remotely and inconspicuously rather than accompanying migrants during high-risk activities such as border-crossing.
The total EU-level detections of facilitators of irregular migration tend to be made up of several disparate trends involving unrelated nationalities detected in different Member States. For example, despite a decline in de- tections compared to the year previously, France reported the most detections of fa- cilitators, whereas Spain ranked second at EU level. Hungary reported a large increase, mostly of Serbs and Hungarians detected inland and at the border with Serbia. This increase is most probably connected to facil- itation of secondary movements of migrants, after they have entered Greece illegally from Turkey.
Member States tend to detect more domes- tic facilitators than any other nationality; in 2012, all of the top three reporting countries for this indicator reported their own citizens
* Center for the Study of Democracy, Better Management of EU borders through Cooperation, 2011
as facilitators more frequently than any other single nationality. Among the countries re- porting the most facilitators this propensity was strongest in Italy and Spain, where about a third of all detected facilitators were of their own nationals. In France, this proportion is about a fifth of all detections.
In 2012, there were several investigations that led to a number of important arrests. In many cases, the investigations revealed that facil- itators, not only provide assistance to cross the border illegally, but also facilitate the stay of irregular migrants in Member States by providing fraudulent documents.
In Spain, an investigation launched in March resulted in the arrest of ten facilitators who had been smuggling migrants from Turkey to Greece. Once inside the Schengen area, mi- grants were supplied with residence permits through marriage or domestic partnership with citizens. Apparently, this organisation was also actively engaged in narcotics trafficking. In Italy, there were several developments in relation to migrant smuggling from Egypt and through the Western Balkans. For ex- ample, the police dismantled a criminal or- ganisation that operated for years between Egypt and the Sicilian coastline. Also, a well branched criminal organisation which oper- ated between Turkey and Italy was disman- tled during the reporting period. This group used the Western Balkan route, aimed at the illegal entry of Turkish citizens who crossed the land border between Italy and Slovenia hidden aboard vehicles and/or using false documents.
A Chinese people-smuggling network, op- erating European-wide, was dismantled by the French Police (OCRIEST) in June 2012, with Europol’s support. Eleven suspects were arrested. Another facilitator had previously been arrested in the UK. The network smug- gled Chinese irregular migrants from France,
Spain and Portugal to Ireland and the UK us- ing forged passports from different Asian countries. After several intercepted smug- gling attempts, and the arrest of some of the organisers, the network changed their modus
operandi and started smuggling the migrants
hidden in the trunks of cars loaded on lorries. As is true for other serious organised crimes, facilitators of irregular migration make an extensive use of the internet according to Europol reports. It allows OCGs to get in- formation about legislation, procedures, etc., and can be used for recruitment of migrants, to transfer money and to engage in anony- mous communication. In China, for example, agencies use Chinese websites and news- papers to market immigration to specific Member States as a way of gaining social ben- efits or the possibility to move freely within Schengen. Diaspora communities in desti- nation countries can be a facilitator for re- cruitment. In addition, some asylum centres function as recruitment hubs, where OCGs find a large potential customer base for the onward smuggling route.
According to Europol, facilitation of irregu- lar immigration is usually nationality- or eth- nicity-based and the OCGs are hierarchically structured. The leader is responsible for the coordination of the smuggling throughout a certain territory, and has international con- tacts with other networks doing other parts of the smuggling action, and with coordina- tors in other countries. The leader coordinates drivers, guides, providers of accommodation often assisted by ‘local agents’.
Local persons of the nationality of the transit country retain their importance on the exec- utive level of the facilitation network. They are local guides to illegally cross the green borders. For example on the Balkan routes, the use of Serbian and Hungarian guides was reported. They can be drivers for local dis- tances or for transportation into the destina-
tion country, for example Afghan organisers recruiting Romanian lorry drivers.
Leadership can also be based on family rela- tionships. In some cases opportunistic indi- viduals can also be involved in facilitation of irregular migration.
Europol also indicates that there is no specific link between the modus operandi and the na- tionality of the facilitator. For example, one Albanian-speaking OCG may be involved in clandestine entry, while another organise marriages of convenience.