Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-13-Speech-1-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001113.5.1-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as various speakers have emphasised, we are today looking at three legal instruments dealing with an activity that lies at the very heart of organised crime – money laundering. At the same time, this is the most vulnerable area in such organised crime because money-laundering activity is the point at which it is attempted to filter the proceeds of illegal activities into the lawful economic system. This is where Member States, through police and judicial cooperation, can act most effectively to combat organised crime. This was the political will expressed by the Heads of State and Government at the Tampere European Council, in October 1999, when they called for specific action to fight money laundering. This was also the subject of the joint Justice and Internal Affairs/Ecofin Council meeting held on 17 October.
The Commission welcomes the fact that this meeting took place and supports the French initiative to adopt a Council Framework Decision on money laundering, on the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of the instrumentalities and the proceeds from crime. We are convinced that this framework decision will constitute a significant advance in enabling common sanctions to be established for all the countries in the European Union. This means that, with this framework decision, we will have two legal instruments establishing, not just common incriminations, but also common sanctions for two types of offences. I am referring here to the Framework Decision on the protection of the euro and now the Framework Decision on money laundering as well.
I therefore wish to congratulate Mr Marinho on his excellent report and to say that I share his concerns that we are moving closer and closer towards a definition of money-laundering offences that must lead to the adoption of common sanctions at European level. It is my view that, specifically where Mr Marinho suggests that common offences should be defined for those cases that are punished less severely or for other illegal acts provided for in Article 6 of the European Council Convention on money laundering, we ought not to consider this approach straightaway, but base our concern on an assessment of the specific results that are obtained following the implementation of the joint action that was agreed on in December 1998 and which has not yet shown all that it can do. Similarly, I would ask the House to reconsider its position, if possible, with regard to the amendments that have been proposed for the dates that have been stipulated for the adoption of national legislation on the transposal of this framework decision. I repeat, I should like to ask Parliament to revise the date of 31 December 2002, so that the Commission can present an assessment report on the transposal of the framework decision into national law. I make this request because the new dates proposed by the rapporteur would mean that 31 December 2002 would be the deadline for the Member States to transpose this framework decision into their own national legislation.
Lastly, with regard to the issue of reasons for refusing criminal judicial cooperation that are laid down in Article 18 of the 1990 Convention, we agree that they should be revised in order to limit even further the conditions in which Member States can refuse to provide judicial cooperation, as referred to in the report by Mrs Roure, but I shall go into this issue in a few minutes’ time. Similarly, I wish to thank Mrs Roure for her report on the French Presidency’s initiative for a Convention on improving mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, specifically in the fight against organised crime. I also wish to remind you that this Convention must be linked, by means of close coordination, with the draft Directive that is currently under discussion in the Economy and Finance Council, revising the Directive of 10 June 1991 on money laundering. The Convention must also be linked with the discussion already started by the Justice and Home Affairs Council, with a view to removing the right not to breach tax and banking confidentiality in criminal cases to prevent judicial cooperation in the fight against money laundering.
For the Commission’s part, and we await Parliament’s opinion on this, we feel that the decisions not to allow tax and banking confidentiality to be invoked if this impedes the prosecution of money-laundering crimes are essential instruments to guaranteeing the success of this legislation at European level. With regard to Mrs Roure’s proposal, I would ask her to consider this point: I think it would be more effective to say that any refusal to cooperate in judicial matters by the Member State which has been asked to do so must be communicated to the petitioning State immediately, rather than imposing a deadline of two months. As I understand it, ‘immediately’ makes the requirement more pressing than setting a deadline of two months for a refusal to cooperate.
By the same token, I wish to say that I am aware of the sensitiveness of the issue raised by various Members about the conditions in which the confidentiality of the legal professions may constitute a justified refusal to cooperate in the fight against money laundering. As you know, this issue does not fall within the competence of the Justice and Home Affairs Council but within that of the Economy and Finance Council. I must add that I am still waiting for the European Parliament’s opinion on this matter.
What I would like to stress here today, from my own point of view, is that this opinion must not only enshrine clear, unambiguous legislation on guarantees to protect defendants and on the conditions in which the confidentiality of the legal professions – and of lawyers in particular– may be legitimately exercised. Above all, what needs to be stressed is the fact that the same definition should apply to all judicial instruments. In other words, the definition that has just been adopted by this Parliament in its opinion on the Directive on money laundering should encompass the same judicial solution that has just been adopted here with regard to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. I say this because having different formulas in the two instruments would only lead to greater confusion in their interpretation and difficulties in their practical application.
Lastly, the Commission is also pleased to note the support Parliament has given to extending Europol’s competences to cover all forms of money laundering. The Karamanou report, on which I should also like to congratulate the rapporteur, proposes various amendments with regard to improving the democratic and judicial control of Europol. You all know how important I consider the issue of such control to be. To be frank, however, I do not think that this initiative is the appropriate occasion to be adopting decisions in this field. In fact, the Commission, in the course of the work laid down in the assessment panel for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, known as the ‘scoreboard’, is currently studying the best way to adopt a judicial instrument that will facilitate the communitisation of Europol and not just the adoption of piecemeal measures under the Europol Convention. The best way of strengthening Parliamentary control of Europol is to fully integrate the Europol Convention into the European Union’s’ judicial framework. In the same way, I doubt that it is good policy to resort to the mechanism referred to in Article 34(2)(d) of the Treaty for the entry into force of this amendment on the Europol Convention. We feel that extending Europol’s competences should be carried out at the same time in all Member States and not in a staggered way, which could lead to greater confusion.
Mr President, the Commission welcomes the fact that Parliament feels able to support these three initiatives, which, in fact, all have an important role in strengthening an action plan for combating money laundering. We also hope that the Member States will match these initiatives by adopting them rapidly in the Council, but, above all, by ratifying the conventions in question with all speed so that they can enter into force in their respective national legal systems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples