Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-18-Speech-1-143"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-11-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Confiscation of crime-related proceeds/Confiscation orders2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021118.8.1-143"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-11-18-Speech-1-1442
lpv:speaker	lp:Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partito della rifondazione comunista (1999-07-20--2004-04-28)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, Commissioner, in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of the committee, I would imagine, the two related reports before us this evening have been prepared with undue haste. Their quality is certainly not in keeping with the legal traditions of Europe and its Member States. The two reports focus in particular on the approximation of laws on the confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property. They specifically concern the possibility of extensive powers of confiscation, in other words the confiscation not so much and not only of the proceeds of the crime itself but also of all the other property in the possession of a person sentenced to a very long prison sentence who cannot prove that the property is of lawful origin. This part of the report, Commissioner Vitorino, was deleted by the committee, and what remains is therefore the possibility of confiscating crime-related proceeds. However, a framework decision is not necessary to achieve this result in the European Community, for the legislation of almost all the European countries provides for the compulsory confiscation of crime-related proceeds or, at least, makes this possible. Precisely in order to overcome the committee’s difficulties in accepting the inversion of the onus of proof – Amendment No 11, amending Article 3(1) – I suggested, by means of an amendment which is very reminiscent of the Italian legislation on the subject, the possibility of confiscating additional property – the property subject precisely to extended powers of confiscation – only where the prosecution has proved that the property possessed is disproportionate to the activity pursued or, in any case, exceeds the person’s income as declared for tax purposes. The person convicted would then have the chance to prove the lawful origin of the property. The provisions were therefore toned down but the onus of proof not actually inverted. The committee was disconcerted, surprised, confused by this, and therefore rejected my amendment. I therefore call upon the House to adopt this amendment, for this is the only way to include in the legislation extensive powers of confiscation, which is one of the goals of the proposal and, in my opinion, also a useful tool for combating organised crime. It is based on a dual principle. The prosecution has to prove that the person’s property is disproportionate: in other words, it has to prove that the value of the property exceeds the person’s real activities and their income as declared for tax purposes, while the person convicted has the option to prove that this property is of lawful origin. If, however, the report remains in the form adopted by the committee, it will be absolutely useless, for – I stress – the European countries already have similar legislation in place and do not need a European Parliament framework decision."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph