And this is directly from Euroclear own press release

www.euroclear.com/newsandinsig...

I fully agree about the interest (6.9 billion in 2024), being used for Ukraine. I am however referring to the tax levied on that interest (1.7 billion), which goes to Belgium.

I did not, I said they use it for their budget. Which contains the money earmarked for Ukraine as well.

Maybe you're right, maybe this money is fully used for Ukraine. That also means almost all their donations to Ukraine are coming out of this pocket, and they barely do anything themselves

Now, if you can point out that these funds were not counted as a donation from Belgium, than I apologize and will happily admit I was wrong.

Until then, my original point still is valid, Belgium is right to want extra safeguards, but it is also beneficial for Belgium to have the money frozen.

This is true, doesn't change the fact it went to the Belgian tax department first. I'm fairly confident any usage for Ukraine is labelled as a Belgian donation to. You can't simultaneously claim it's a Belgian donation, and say the money isn't Belgian.

How is reporting literally based on the companies own annual statement speculation?

The frozen money makes a profit (yes, you get interest on a frozen account), this is taxed, taxes go to the Belgian government.

but maybe you rather believe their own reporting:
www.euroclear.com/newsandinsig...

Belgium has a valid point, but it is also an *extremely* convenient valid point

if you want, I can post this 1.700.000.000 times, once for each euro they make in a single year.

www.politico.eu/article/bart...

But they do, 1.7 billion last year alone.
www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/20...

would be nice if they then also, quite rightly, share the collective benefits of the money being parked in Belgium. Instead of using it for their own budget