Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.4.3-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We have abstained from voting on Amendments 8, 16, 26 and 45, as we do not think that these amendments sufficiently reflect a good balance between, on the one hand, an effective reporting obligation to combat money laundering and, on the other hand, an advocate’s/lawyer's duty of confidentiality to his/her client and the obligations that this entails.
It is important that an advocate/lawyer should not be covered by the reporting obligation when he/she represents a client in a case. However, it is more difficult to determine in which situations a lawyer/advocate shall be subject to the reporting obligation when he/she has access to relevant information in relation to so-called legal advice. We think that lawyers/advocates should, to a certain extent, be exempt from the reporting obligation, but the proposals from both the Commission and Parliament are not sufficiently balanced or precise in this respect for us to be able to support them.
Finally, we would like to point out that the proposal has certain deficiencies with respect to definitions that could lead to confusion. In the proposal, the words advocate, independent lawyer and lawyer are used without it being clear what the distinction between these terms is intended to be. It is important to emphasise that lawyers must be considered equal to advocates in those countries that do not have the compulsory employment of counsel."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples