Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-287"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.11.3-287"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this subject rightly commands a lot of attention, both in this Parliament and elsewhere. I should like to assure Members that these proceedings attract a lot of attention in institutions outside this Parliament which are engaged in fighting money laundering. Perhaps the money launderers themselves are also following these proceedings with a great deal of interest since it would be a happy outcome of our discussions if their life were to be made more difficult.
Amendments Nos 7 and 11 relate to the role of the competent authorities. The Commission believes that the text of the common position is clear and satisfactory and so, cannot accept those two amendments. Amendment No 9 would extend the definition of financial institutions to include certain market authorities. The Commission does not believe that such an inclusion would be appropriate. Amendment No 14 would change the coverage of non-financial activities in a way that is unacceptable to the Commission.
Amendments Nos 15 and 16 deal with client identification. Some remarks were made earlier this evening to the effect that client identification might be unduly cumbersome and bureaucratic. I should like to read out Article 3 of the proposal where it says that: "Member States shall ensure that the institutions and persons subject to this directive require identification of their customers by means of supporting evidence when entering into business relations". This is not about a client ringing up for a prospectus or something like that: this is entering into business relations.
Can anyone here imagine that a bank or some other financial institution would enter into business relations without ascertaining the identity of his client? I cannot. If I were to enter into business relations I would want to make very certain that I knew who I was dealing with, where they lived, their nationality and so on. I cannot see at all why that is unduly bureaucratic or cumbersome. The Commission therefore believes that the common position in this regard provides the necessary scope for flexibility.
Amendments Nos 17 and 28 – the latter of which reached us today – are concerned with identification where there is no face-to-face contact. The Commission is afraid that Amendment No 17 would make the text too inflexible with possible negative repercussions for e-commerce. Amendment No 28 retains the flexibility sought by the Commission, but the precise wording still poses certain problems. Therefore the amendment, as it has now been put forward, is regrettably unacceptable.
Amendment No 18 seeks to amend the exemptions from client identification for certain insurance contracts. In the Commission's view, a detailed technical examination of this question would be necessary before these amounts could be revised. Amendments Nos 19 and 20 deal with identification requirements for casino customers. The Commission considers that these amendments do not improve the common position.
In the Commission's view, Amendments Nos 21 and 24 breach the basic anti-money laundering rule that the customer about whom a report is made should not be warned. The Commission could not accept this breach. Amendments Nos 23 and 25 amend the provisions of the 1991 Directive on suspicious transaction reporting, which have not given rise to any problems in the past and, in the Commission's view, do not need to be changed.
Finally, Amendments Nos 26 and 27 refer to OLAF. In deleting all reference to OLAF in the common position, the Council invited the Commission to make a separate proposal under Article 280. The Commission is currently preparing this proposal. The Commission considers, therefore, these amendments unnecessary.
Apart from that, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lehne, and also the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, for their sustained efforts to achieve a rapid adoption of this important but highly sensitive proposal. The fight against money laundering, as several Members have stressed, is a top political priority and is now an integral part of the campaign against serious and organised crime.
International pressure is increasing on third countries and on offshore financial centres considered insufficiently cooperative in this area. At the same time, the European Union, which has always been at the forefront of international efforts to fight criminal money, must continue to show the way by developing and refining its internal anti-money laundering defences.
That was the reasoning behind the clear calls from this Parliament and the Member States for a proposal to update and extend the 1991 anti-money laundering directive. The Commission believes that the common position adopted unanimously last November represents a reasonable compromise on the question of the criminal activity covered – the matter of the so-called predicate offences – and also on the safeguards for the inclusion of the profession, in particular lawyers, within the scope of the directive.
In response to concerns in Parliament about cases where the lawyer is defending or representing a client in legal proceedings or helping the client to determine his legal position, I should like to stress that there is no question of any obligation to report suspicions of money laundering. It seems to me that the fundamental human rights mentioned are protected. They will not come into play when this proposal becomes reality. I agree with Baroness Ludford when she says that in this respect the proposal is a good compromise between protecting fundamental rights when lawyers defend their clients in court or help the clients to determine their legal position, but not when they are participating in preparations leading up to an activity covered by this directive. I would also like to recall that our work is the subject of considerable international attention, for example within G7 or the Financial Action Taskforce (FATF). The international community is looking to the European Union to find solutions to those difficult questions.
I would now like to turn to the individual amendments in the draft second reading recommendation. Amendments Nos 1 and 10 deal with predicate offences and would mark a major step back from the ambitious common position. The decision was made to move gradually to the coverage of all serious crime. Having agreed on this wide coverage, the Commission cannot accept these amendments. Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 22 deal essentially with the treatment of the professions. The Commission is regrettably unable to accept the amendments as worded. In its view, the legal profession constitutes a special case and requires special treatment.
The Commission, therefore, does not accept the principle of giving all the professions exactly the same treatment as that envisaged for the lawyers and notaries. This relates, for example, to the activities which bring the professions within the scope of this directive.
The Commission is also reluctant to envisage a Member State option to allow all the professions the possibility of reporting their suspicions to a professional body, but it firmly backs this possibility for the legal professions. On the difficult question of advice, the Commission continues to believe that financial investment and corporate advice should fall within the scope of the directive as long as it is unrelated to current or potential legal proceedings or to the wish of the client to establish his position under the law.
Of course, the Commission concedes that drawing this line may not always be easy. Nevertheless it also insists on this point. I ask Members of this Parliament what they would think if a lawyer had a suspicion that his client was preparing some money laundering activity? What would Members think if that lawyer decided not to report his suspicions, for example, to the bar association of his country? That has nothing to do with human rights; it has everything to do with an efficient campaign against money laundering activities, which is a serious matter. I would like Members to keep that in mind."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples