Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.7.2-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The directive on the fight against money laundering is a step in the right direction and is a response, at least in part, to the aspirations of the citizens’ movements and to the proposals made by the judges who are the most involved in this issue. The events of 11 September should, in fact, give us more reason to intensify the fight against money laundering. The Lehne report does the opposite, however. It welcomes a new paragraph, which is drafted in an absurd manner, since it states that ‘Member States are not forced to impose the obligations, stipulated in the directive, on the professions concerned (members of the legal professions, independent or otherwise)’. The sacrosanct professional secrecy is preserved, unless the legal advisor is himself involved in financial misdealing. It is not enough for him to have ‘specific reasons for believing’ that ‘his client wishes to obtain legal advice for the purpose of money laundering’. It is only if the lawyer ‘knows’ that this is the situation that professional secrecy can be lifted.
These delicate points clash horribly with recent, brutal decisions made by this very Parliament, which follows the example of the CIA and does not hesitate in wanting to make any individual demonstrating against financial crimes into a criminal.
In spite of these shortcomings, we did not vote against the Lehne report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples