Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-03-Speech-1-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000703.7.1-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lehne, and the four committees involved in this matter, for this report and for the valuable support they have provided in the course of our dealings with this important dossier.
Furthermore, experience had taught us that a number of technical aspects also needed to be dealt with or clarified. The pressure on the European Union to step up its fight against money laundering culminated in the Action Plan to Combat Organised Crime, which was endorsed at the Amsterdam Summit in 1997, and the report and resolution approved by Parliament in March 1999.
The most difficult and sensitive aspect of the proposal is without doubt the extension of the obligations laid down by the directive, one being the obligation to report suspicions of money laundering and the extension thereof to non-financial professions and, above all, legal professions. As sensitive as this may be, the Commission firmly believes that when these occupational groups act as intermediaries in the provision of financial or business services, they should be subject to the same obligations as other financial intermediaries.
The Commission is grateful to the rapporteur and to the four committees involved in the compilation of this report for helping to have the professions included in the scope of application of the directive.
With your permission, I would now like to move on to a discussion of the individual amendments. The Commission will adopt Amendments Nos 1, 5, 25, 30, 33 and 37 in their unamended form. The Commission is largely well-disposed towards the underlying idea or the intention behind the lion’s share of the proposed amendments, but would prefer at this stage not to go for a technical solution. It would much rather work towards a compromise that accommodates both the demands of Parliament and the wishes expressed by the Member States in the Council. This applies to Amendments Nos 4 and 12. The Commission would concur that there is a need for an adequate definition of the term ‘organised crime’. But given the choice, it would use the definition of organised crime arrived at through concerted efforts on 21 December 1998 as a point of departure.
Turning to Amendments Nos 6, 15 and 26, the Commission appreciates being able to rely on Parliament’s support for including a wide range of professions in the directive’s scope of application. As far as tax consultants and accountants are concerned, at this stage the Commission has not yet taken a definitive stance on whether the same conditions should be applied to these professions as are applied to lawyers, and hence whether a limited number of their transactions should fall within the scope of the directive, or whether the directive should apply more widely to these professions.
Moving on to Amendments Nos 17, 18 and 19, the Commission proposal sparked an interesting discussion on whether it would be appropriate to involve certain types of dealers in high-value goods, such as jewellers, art dealers etc., in the fight against money laundering. But the problem there is that more often than not, this type of dealer is not regulated at all and that it can therefore seem difficult, not to say impossible, to establish whether they have fulfilled their obligations.
The Commission will continue its search for a suitable way of bringing these dealers within the directive’s scope of application. But it would not wish this aspect of the discussion to lead to the adoption of the proposal being unduly delayed.
Amendments Nos 21 and 22. The Commission recognises that differentiated identification requirements may be justified in specific cases. It will continue to work on this aspect of the proposal.
Amendments Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14. These four amendments concern definitions, and the Commission agrees with the reference to electronic money. In fact someone made a comment about this just before. I refer to Amendment No 9. The Commission is prepared to look into the extent to which UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) and collecting societies should fall within the scope of the directive. Amendment No 10 makes reference to this. The Commission views favourably the amendments concerning fraud in the Community, Amendment No 13, and the concept of ‘competent authorities’, as referred to in Amendment No 14.
Amendment No 11. The Commission is prepared to work with the Member States to establish what the role of the market supervisory authorities should be.
Amendment No 23. As far as the identification of customers is concerned, the Commission would point out that it thinks it is right to drop the Annex. However, it is still debating what would be the most suitable text to include in the main text of the proposal.
The fight against money laundering is a top political priority. The fact that efforts have been stepped up to tackle the problem of proceeds from criminal activity is mentioned on a regular basis in the closing statements of summit meetings. Both at the Tampere Summit and the Feira Summit, the European Council asked the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to approve this proposal, which provides for the scope of application of the 1991 money laundering directive to be updated and extended, as soon as they possibly could.
Amendment No 24. The Commission is prepared to consult with the Member States on any adjustments that need to be made to the amounts relating to insurance policies.
Amendments Nos 31, 32, 41 en 43. The Commission welcomes the fact that there is support for the role of OLAF within the context of the proposal.
Amendment No 34. The Commission would agree that the concept of ‘independent practitioners’ of legal professions must be defined by each Member State. There is nothing in the proposal to stop the Member States from going further than the requirements laid down in the directive.
Amendment No 38. The Commission is open to the idea of covering the gambling sector more broadly if it is practicable to apply the same supervisory requirements.
I now come to the amendments that the Commission is unable to accept, starting with Amendments Nos 2 and 3. These amendments seem to deny OLAF any authority whatsoever within the scope of this directive.
Amendments Nos 7, 8, 16 and 45. The Commission takes the view that these amendments could place too many restrictions on the application of this directive to the legal professions.
Parliament and the rapporteur have shown themselves willing to do their best to see that the proposal is adopted at first reading. With this aim in mind, a number of meetings have been held between the rapporteur, the president of the working group of the Council and the offices of the Commission. It pains me to have to tell you that the work has not come on as quickly in the Council as it has in Parliament and the discussions within the Council have as yet been unable to shed enough light on certain aspects of this proposal. That is why the dossier is now being submitted to this plenary sitting for an opinion at first reading as per the normal procedure.
Amendment No 20. The proposal cannot treat customs and tax officials in the same way as it does financial institutions or professions falling within the scope of the directive. This aspect must be left to the Member States.
Amendments Nos 27, 28 and 29. These amendments raise aspects of the 1991 directive that need no alteration as far as the Commission is concerned.
Amendment No 35. One of the options available to the Member States is an appeal to the bar or an equivalent self-regulating body, and the relationship between the Member States and the bar or another similar body is an internal affair.
Amendment No 36. The Commission feels that each Member State must decide for itself as to whether there is a role for registers of mortgages in the fight against money laundering.
Amendment No 39. The obligations contained in the directive cannot be extended to beyond the territory of the European Union. The Financial Action Task Force is currently looking at the issue of off shore centres.
Amendment No 40. The Commission cannot agree to this item being dropped because it would mean a cooperation obligation being imposed on the bar when this obligation can only properly be fulfilled by the normal anti-money laundering authorities.
Finally, Amendment No 42. The Commission does not think it appropriate to place a restriction on the use of cash in this proposal.
There you have my response to the House, Mr President. I am sorry to have spoken for longer than originally intended but I wanted to comment on all the amendments since it is such an important subject and since all amendments deserve to be gone into briefly from time to time.
Almost everyone agrees that the directive of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering has worked well. Although it is not easy to calculate a preventive effect, it has undeniably become rather more difficult for ill-gotten gains to find their way into the financial system in general and the banking system in particular in the Member States of the Union.
Having said that, it was clear from the very outset that the 1991 directive would have to be updated at some point. After all, the money laundering ban in the directive only applies to the proceeds of drugs dealing, which is now out of step with common practice at international level. In addition, Article 12 of the text of 1991 foresaw the difficulty of extending the obligations laid down in the directive to vulnerable professions and activities outside the financial sector. That is what we are discussing this evening."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples