Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-05-Speech-4-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010405.6.4-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The directive on combating money laundering is a step in the right direction and responds, at least in part, to the aspirations of citizens’ movements and the proposals made by the judges most concerned about the issue. Unfortunately, apart from one amendment, Amendment No 2, which extends the obligations of the directive to chartered accountants, and one other, Amendment No 27, which mentions OLAF and a possible European public prosecutor, Mr Lehne’s report does its best to reduce the scope of the directive. As he, himself, puts it: ‘the right of clients to confidentiality must not be undermined, even when the aim is to fight money laundering’. Absurd pretexts are then added to that argument (complicated and completely useless obligations), and escape clauses which allow the professional associations to establish the necessary rules themselves.
For our part, we are in favour of total transparency in capital operations. We recognise the absolute need to maintain the right to be defended but in no case should this mean impunity for anyone committing a crime. So we are voting against certain utterly deplorable amendments, which represent so many obstacles to a vigorous fight against money laundering."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples