Úplné znenie 
Utorok, 12. marca 2019 - Štrasburg Revidované vydanie

24. Naliehavosť vypracovania čiernej listiny EÚ tretích krajín v súlade so smernicou o boji proti praniu špinavých peňazí (rozprava)
Videozáznamy z vystúpení

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sull'urgenza di una lista nera di paesi terzi adottata dall'UE in linea con la direttiva antiriciclaggio (2019/2612(RSP)).


  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank President Tajani for his letter and for inviting the Presidency to contribute to this debate. Let me start by very clearly stating that the Council is strongly committed to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. There can be no doubt about that.

The Presidency and the Council as a whole fully share the sense of urgency and the commitment of the Parliament and the Commission in addressing this issue. Together we – the Parliament, Council and Commission – have worked closely over recent years in our common endeavour to establish an effective regime to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

We have in particular strengthened EU rules with the adoption in 2019 of the latest amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which stands as a very good example of this good cooperation. Of course, further progress is needed in our joint fight.

So, coming straight to the issue at hand, the Council has objected to the Commission’s delegated act identifying high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies. This decision to object does not mean that the listing is not an important element of the ongoing work. On the contrary.

But to achieve the full impact of this instrument and to ensure its quality, we need to introduce the list in an orderly process. This is effectively what we wrote in our Council statement.

We believe that in order to establish a strong and effective instrument, the Commission proposal needs to be established in a transparent manner and one that incentivises affected countries to take decisive action.

This is why the Council calls for an EU listing in line, of course, with the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which will effectively strengthen anti-money laundering and combat terrorist financing.

We are united and fully committed to maintaining and promoting the existing cooperation between the institutions. We are in fact advancing on other fronts as well in this fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Hopefully, we will be finalising negotiations in the coming days on an important piece of legislation on anti-money laundering, which is contained in the European System of Financial Supervision package.

Member States, but also the European Parliament, attribute a huge importance to this file. The Council also agreed last December on a dedicated anti-money laundering action plan with a view to further improving the current system, and we are monitoring developments on that front.

I look forward to hearing your views and the views of the Commissioner and to continue working closely with you on the new listing.




  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for organising today’s debate on this important matter and I want to thank the Council for expressing the same sense of urgency on this issue.

After each terrorist attack, we hear passionate speeches about how we have to efficiently fight against terrorists. After each banking scandal, we hear a lot of other speeches about how we have to make our financial sector more healthy. This is what we try to do, including by means of high—risk third countries, and this is what we did. We did it according to the methodology on which consultations were held and which was adopted in a transparent manner. That’s why I have to start by expressing my deep regret that the Council rejected this list – because being equipped with such a list, we would be able to start with this efficient fight immediately.

As you know, the Juncker Commission and I personally have made the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing a top priority during this mandate, and I always felt very strong support from this House, from the Members of Parliament who are also sitting here today.

In recent years, we have witnessed a series of terrorist attacks in Europe and we have seen major money laundering scandals that unveil how organised criminals misuse our financial system. Together with you, we have worked relentlessly to make our rules and systems stronger against financial crime that causes harm to our society and our citizens. We have twice updated the Anti-Money Laundering Directive. You have adopted a new directive on criminalisation of money laundering and we have provisionally agreed on a new directive on the use of financial information by law enforcement authorities. This week, we are in the final stage of negotiating a reform of the European Banking Authority that would give it a stronger role in anti—money laundering supervision of the financial sector, thereby helping to ensure that our strong rules are properly enforced across Europe.

The delegated regulation the Commission adopted on 13 February to identify third countries with strategic deficiencies in their anti—money laundering and counter—terrorist—financing frameworks is part of all these efforts to better protect the EU financial system from the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Unfortunately, this measure will not enter into force for the reason I mentioned at the beginning: using its scrutiny rights, the Council objected on 7 March to this delegated act. As I said, I am disappointed by the decision of the Council and I regret that this issue has not been discussed at political level in the Council. Neither by the Justice and Interior Ministers last week, nor by the Finance Ministers meeting at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) in Brussels today.

In the fifth Anti—Money Laundering Directive, this Parliament and the Council decided together to strengthen the rules with regard to third countries, complementing the legal criteria of the Financial Action Task Force. The Commission attaches great importance to multilateralism and the work the Financial Action Task Force is doing. We are an active founding member of this task force and we must take its important work into full account.

At the same time, it is necessary that we take further steps to protect the integrity of the EU financial system on the basis of the criteria set out in our anti—money laundering rules so that due diligence measures are applied.

In light of experience, including the lessons from the Panama Papers scandal, we, the European Parliament and the Council decided together to add transparency rules on beneficial ownership structures. This goes beyond the Financial Action Task Force rules. We, therefore, can no longer simply replicate this Action Task Force list. We have a legal obligation under the current anti—money laundering rules to carry out our own autonomous assessment.

In order to prepare our first autonomous list, the Commission carried out a careful assessment, based on a solid methodology, together with Member States’ experts. Member States were also consulted on the methodology itself, which follows the criteria set out in the directive. The Commission also engaged with the third countries concerned immediately after the College of Commissioners endorsed the preliminary findings on 23 January 2019 in full of respect of the third countries’ right to be heard. The Commission stands by its assessment. Therefore, we will continue to engage with the third countries concerned and encourage them to address their deficiencies in the areas of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.

We do not list third countries for the sake of listing them, but in order to address the risks to the EU financial system. In terms of the next steps, I stand ready to engage with you and with the Council at political level to discuss the way forward. Our aim remains to fulfil our legal obligation under the Anti—Money Laundering Directive. It is a joint responsibility of the EU institutions to protect citizens and the EU financial system against threats of money laundering and terrorist financing. As for the timing, I asked the College to give me a chance to finalise the next list still in this mandate. I want to finish my mandate with a clean table and to do that, I also have to stress once again that I count on your support.


  Markus Ferber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Vertretung der Ratspräsidentschaft! Ich glaube, wir sind uns alle darin einig, dass wir im Kampf gegen die Geldwäsche eine schwarze Liste brauchen, die Biss hat, die Drittstaaten zum Einlenken bewegt und die glaubwürdig ist. Weil wir Zweifel hatten, dass das bei früheren Entwürfen der schwarzen Liste der Fall war, haben wir ja auch als Europäisches Parlament selbst schon delegierte Rechtsakte zurückgewiesen. Ich habe jetzt fast schon Mitleid mit der Kommission, weil wir immer gesagt haben: Es reicht nicht, nur die Liste der Financial Action Task Force zu kopieren, sondern wir müssen eigene Analysen anstellen. Das war genau das, was wir immer gefordert haben.

Die Liste ist sicherlich nicht perfekt. Man kann sich auch die Frage stellen, warum ein Land wie Russland noch nicht auf dieser Liste steht. Und natürlich hat der Rat auch ein paar prozedurale Punkte genannt – wie kommt man drauf, wie kommt man wieder runter –, über die wir miteinander reden können. Aber ich habe trotzdem das Gefühl, dass der Grund für die Zurückweisung der Liste durch den Rat nicht ein formaler war, sondern dass hier auch eine Reihe von sachfremden Erwägungen eine Rolle gespielt hat. Man hat in den letzten Wochen öfter das Argument gehört, man dürfe diesen oder jenen Drittstaat nicht auf die Liste setzen, weil es sich um wichtige Verbündete handelt. Wenn wir uns auf diese Argumentation einlassen, verliert die Liste jegliche Glaubwürdigkeit. Denn dann ist klar, dass ein Drittstaat nur intensiv Lobbyarbeit bei den Mitgliedstaaten betreiben muss, dann ist er wieder weg von der Liste. Und wenn sich das erstmal herumgesprochen hat, dann ist diese Liste ein zahnloser Tiger. Das können wir nicht wollen, denn am Ende geht es darum, auch sicherzustellen, dass der europäische Finanzsektor nicht für Geldwäsche, Terrorismusfinanzierung oder für Zwecke der organisierten Kriminalität missbraucht wird.

Es passt nicht zusammen, auf der einen Seite die europäische Bankenaufsicht mit neuen Geldwäschebekämpfungsbefugnissen auszustatten, aber auf der anderen Seite ein Einfallstor offen zu lassen, weil wir uns nicht auf eine Liste einigen können. Ich kann die Kommission nur ermuntern, möglichst schnell wieder einen Vorschlag zu machen. Und ich kann nur an den Rat appellieren, dieser Liste dann auch zuzustimmen.


  Ana Gomes, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, a Comissão Europeia elaborou a lista de países terceiros com falhas estratégicas no combate ao branqueamento de capitais, financiamento de terrorismo e evasão fiscal, na base de uma avaliação autónoma e independente, levando em conta também a avaliação do GAFI, como insistiu o Parlamento e como dita a 5.ª diretiva contra o branqueamento de capitais e o financiamento do terrorismo e outras conexas, como dita a necessidade de dar combate eficaz à criminalidade financeira e fiscal que vive dos off-shores dentro e fora da União Europeia.

A Comissão cumpriu, o Parlamento aplaudiu, o Conselho destruiu. Mais uma vez, esforços pela transparência, justiça fiscal contra a criminalidade organizada, incluindo o terrorismo, são bloqueados pelos governos dos Estados-Membros contra a segurança coletiva. Não venham os governos da União Europeia alegar agora que é Bruxelas que tem culpa. Quem trava soluções, quem assim instiga os populismos, quem falha aos cidadãos, incluindo no combate ao terrorismo, é o Conselho, todos e cada um dos 28 governos dos Estados-Membros que se deixam capturar por interesses perversos, sucumbindo a pressões seja do regime esquartejador saudita, seja da sua protetora, a Administração Trump.

O meu tributo, Senhora Comissária Jourová, pela sua determinação e pela sua persistência. Tem todo o nosso apoio.


  Ralph Packet, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, Europa komt weer met een nieuwe lijst van belastingparadijzen. Gelukkig heeft de Commissie deze keer haar werk wél gedaan. Het kan altijd beter - het moet ook beter - maar het Parlement heeft hier twee weken geleden óók een lijst van belastingparadijzen opgesteld en daar hadden ze zonder enige methodologie België op gesmeten. Dus ik denk dat de Commissie het hier al bij al naar behoren heeft gedaan.

Er is nu dus een nieuwe lijst en de landen hierop, Panama, Iran, enzovoort krijgen geen sanctie, maar Europese banken moeten transacties waar klanten of banken uit die landen bij betrokken zijn wel extra controleren. Dat is volgens mij zeer belangrijk in de strijd tegen financiële fraude. Wij ondersteunen die strijd. Het is iets waar mijn partij zich de voorbije jaren hard voor heeft ingezet en we zullen die strijd dan ook voortzetten.


  Nils Torvalds, för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Det var med ett visst intresse jag läste igenom listan på de svartlistade. Intresset berodde på att vi har hållit på med den här saken ganska länge. Bredvid mig här i salen har jag Sargentini, och det är ungefär sex år sedan vi försökte få ordning på de här listorna, utan att riktigt få ordning på dem.

När jag läser igenom argumenteringen kring vilka länder som har satts in på den här listan blir jag ännu mer förvånad av den enkla orsaken att det i alla de bankskandaler vi har sett under den senaste tiden finns ett återkommande mönster. Det mönstret heter Ryssland. Det kan hända att de som skriver den här listan har ganska liten erfarenhet av hur det ryska systemet fungerar. Jag har faktiskt bott i landet i sex år. Jag måste säga att jag är djupt förvånad över att man inte tar det här mer på allvar. Vi har sedan Sovjetunionens sammanbrott sett ett systematiskt stjälande av statlig och annan egendom, som sedan via diverse kanaler förvandlas till egendom ute i Europa eller i skatteparadis. Det är ju det som har varit den genomgående egenskapen i alla de bankskandaler vi har sett.

Att inte sätta in Ryssland på den här listan antyder för oss att man inte riktigt allvarligt överväger hur det här ska handskas med, och det här kommer tillbaks till oss i form av ett minskat förtroende för de europeiska institutionerna. Vår uppgift är att slå vakt om förtroendet och se till att det vi gör på den internationella arenan också är av den kvaliteten, av den kalibern, att våra medborgare tror på att vi faktiskt är ute och försöker få ordning på penningtvätt, på terrorismfinansiering och på skatteparadis.


  Sven Giegold, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Was hier in den letzten Tagen passiert ist, ist ein Stück aus dem Tollhaus. An den Rat muss man ganz klar sagen: Wir haben eine Methodik gemeinsam abgestimmt. Die Kommission hat darauf hingewiesen. Über Monate hat es keine methodischen Einwände gegeben. Dann, als die Liste langsam bekannt wird, gibt es massive Interventionen aus Panama, aus den entsprechenden amerikanischen Jurisdiktionen und ebenso aus Saudi-Arabien. Und plötzlich entwickelt sich eine Methodenkritik. Diese Methodenkritik ist überhaupt nicht glaubwürdig. Es ist auch bis heute nicht eine einzige der Länderbewertungen der Kommission in der Substanz von den Mitgliedsländern kritisiert worden. Stattdessen streichen Sie dieses wichtige Instrument gegen die Geldwäsche. Und daher ist jetzt die Frage: Wie gehen wir jetzt weiter? Da kann ich nur sagen: Lassen Sie uns jetzt nicht nachlassen, sondern – die Kommission hat darauf hingewiesen – für wichtige Länder ist die Prüfung nicht abgeschlossen: für Russland, für Aserbaidschan, für die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate, für Länder, wo wir hier gesehen haben, dass es große Probleme gibt.

Also ganz klar: Wir dürfen jetzt nicht nachlassen, sondern die Prüfungen müssen fortgesetzt werden. Und wir brauchen nicht eine kürzere Liste, die um problematische Staaten bereinigt ist, sondern eine anspruchsvollere Liste. Und die Kommission sollte alle Länderevaluierungen endlich veröffentlichen, damit wir die transparente Debatte bekommen, die die Bürger zu diesem Thema auch verdienen.


  Matt Carthy, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, we have before us one of the starkest examples that we’ve seen of the impact of lobbying on the Council that is harming the people of the EU. The new process for compiling the anti-money laundering blacklist is far from perfect. It ignores the fact that the majority of international money laundering scandals in recent years have actually involved European banks. Nevertheless, we welcome the increased autonomy in the process. The Council’s objections are politically motivated interference in a process that’s supposed to be independent. I’m particularly concerned that the defence of Saudi Arabia and the US by EU governments is a direct result of their close financial and trading ties and of lobbying by the US and Saudi Arabia. We don’t just urgently need an anti-money laundering blacklist; we urgently need mechanisms to prevent the lobbying by corporations and countries from harming the public interest and to ensure that we have full transparency over the lobbying process.


  David Coburn, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, EU Socialists have an obsession about money laundering; a total fear that some poor over-taxed soul might make an extra centime or an extra penny. This taxes your every waking moment, if you’ll pardon the pun! Some clever creature will always find a way around taxes, that’s just the way it is. We look to minimise it in the UK and move on.

This is better than crucifying every job-creating, hard-working businessman or businesswoman, disrupting their business with pointless money-laundering bureaucracy and seizures of money until they can prove what they’ve done with it or where they got it.

Business people need to get on with creating wealth and jobs. The UK is less neurotic about money laundering and we have lower unemployment. Youth unemployment in Spain stands at 34%, in Italy 30%, in France 21%, – surely wealth and job creation through the cutting, not the increasing, of red tape is more useful to the citizens of Europe than any sort of European socialistic avarice and jealousy of hard-working, successful businessmen and women who want to keep the fruits of their labour and employ their fellow citizens.

The EU wants to turn all of us into a spy state. Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank bankers will have immunity in the UK, even after Brexit. Even after Brexit! This is appalling. This is hypocrisy of immunity. One rule for the EU, one rule for the rest of us.


  Mario Borghezio, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, stiamo assistendo a uno spettacolo veramente impressionante, cioè questo gioco dei paesi che come in un gioco di carte entrano ed escono dalle liste, che rappresenta plasticamente la scarsa volontà, l'opacità dell'intervento delle istituzioni europee su un tema così delicato e così importante e grave. Basterebbe ricordare l'allarme lanciato anche nelle nostre commissioni da una personalità importante come l'allora direttore dell'antidroga di Ginevra, che disse che tutto il traffico internazionale della droga passa attraverso il riciclaggio, il sistema bancario, alcuni settori del sistema finanziario e bancario.

Ma finché dura la pacchia fiscale delle piazze offshore, come potrà l'Unione europea aggredire con misure chiare e risolutive tutta l'enorme ragnatela di paesi che consentono il riciclaggio e sono quindi un paradiso per terroristi, criminali, trafficanti di droga e di armi? Questo è il punto.

Io vorrei indicare alla cortese rappresentante della Commissione che la quinta direttiva introduce come elemento qualificativo la disponibilità dei titolari effettivi di società e istituti giuridici. Lei è sicura che per esempio in Lussemburgo sia così agevole risalire ai veri proprietari delle società offshore? È così sicura che nei nostri paesi sia possibile, nei paesi dell'Unione europea...

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)


  Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Commissioner Jourová for providing EU citizens with what we have asked for for a long time: a real EU list of third countries that are too lax on money laundering. The list we received is based on the Commission’s new methodology and its own assessment of various third countries and I would like to commend you, Commissioner, for this initiative.

At the same time, I would like to tell colleagues that, together with my group, I very much regret that the Council officially objected to the delegated acts proposed by the Commission last Thursday. This is very unfortunate, I must say, because the blacklist – the identification of non—cooperative jurisdictions – is an important component of our fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Frankly, it is difficult to understand this obstruction on the part of the Council.

Still, while I welcome the new methodology, I expect the Commission to include in the further assessment the findings of the TAX3 Committee of this House, especially findings on Russia and its deficiencies in fighting money laundering. Let me underline that virtually all major money-laundering scandals uncovered during this legislative term were connected to Russian money or Russian individuals. EU citizens expect us to act and be ambitious in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. That’s why I encourage you, Commissioner, to continue your work and to come up with a new delegated act on this matter.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Jourová, a lo largo de esta legislatura nos hemos tenido que lamentar muchas veces de la falta de resultados y del bloqueo sistemático por parte del Consejo a piezas de legislación extremadamente importantes para este Parlamento Europeo. Pero el balance de resultados en materia de lucha contra el blanqueo de capitales y contra la financiación del terrorismo no es negligible, no es un balance que pueda ser subestimado.

Ahí tenemos la quinta Directiva contra el blanqueo de capitales, adoptada, que empieza a desplegar sus efectos en toda la Unión Europea y la Directiva en materia de Derecho penal europeo, que es una herramienta extremadamente importante para aproximar las normas penales y para llenar de sentido el trabajo legislativo de este Parlamento como legislador penal europeo.

El Grupo socialista ha apoyado todas y cada una de estas iniciativas, fuertemente. Lo ha hecho en la Comisión que trató los papeles de Panamá, en la Comisión TAX3 —de la que he tenido el honor de ser parte—. Ahora es el momento de decirle a la Comisión que tiene que resistir las presiones del Consejo para intentar decolorar o degradar la lista de países que sospechosamente contribuyen a estas prácticas inadmisibles.

Y pedimos a la Comisión que se mantenga firme, particularmente en todo lo que respecta a la lucha contra el blanqueo y la financiación del terrorismo en una fecha como la de hoy, en la que hace quince años que España sufrió el peor atentado terrorista con el mayor número de víctimas de toda la historia de la Unión Europea. Es el momento de ser firmes, comisaria Jourová.


  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, of minister Siod spreekt werkelijk alle talen, of zij luistert niet naar het Parlement. Ik had verwacht dat u bij uw introductie ons zou uitleggen waarom 28 lidstaten zich verzetten tegen de Europese Commissie die de wet uitvoert. Dit Europees Parlement heeft met de Raad twee keer onderhandeld - en ik was de rapporteur - over het herzien van de witwasrichtlijn tegen crimineel geld en tegen terrorismefinanciering.

Dit Parlement heeft ook van de Raad de wind van voren gekregen toen wij niet snel genoeg waren met regels om terrorisme te bestrijden na de aanslagen op Charlie Hebdo en de Bataclan. Dit Parlement is daarom ook reuze verbaasd dat nu de Europese Commissie dat doet wat moet, namelijk ons beschermen tegen terroristen door de financiering ervan aan te pakken, u met een argument komt dat bestaat uit: we snappen de procedure niet. Misschien kan ik u uitnodigen als u zo direct aan het eind van het debat spreekt, om ons uit te leggen wat het probleem is met Saoedi-Arabië, Panama en de Maagdeneilanden op de lijst.


  Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, durante esta legislatura la Comisión ha presentado dos listas de países. Ambas han sido rechazadas por este Parlamento a iniciativa, entre otros, de mi grupo político, por omitir, principalmente, las guaridas del entorno de la Unión Europea.

Celebramos que la Comisión haya decidido, ahora, incluir a Panamá y a Arabia Saudí. Sin embargo, una vez más, para analizar la lista tenemos que fijarnos sobre todo en los países que no están en ella. Sobre todo, en esos; en los que no están. En los que no se señalan.

¿Qué ocurre, por ejemplo, con Suiza, que viola de manera flagrante varios artículos del código del Grupo de Acción Financiera Internacional sobre el Blanqueo de Capitales?

Señorías, si queremos afrontar seriamente el terrorismo internacional y el blanqueo de capitales, tenemos que cortar sus vías de financiación. Y eso, les guste o no, implicará acabar, también, con los paraísos fiscales en donde las grandes fortunas y las multinacionales europeas esconden su dinero.


  Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo lieti di vedere finalmente che la Commissione europea ha pubblicato una blacklist dei paesi a rischio riciclaggio degna di questo nome. Troviamo però assurdo che questo Parlamento abbia dovuto più volte denunciare la mancanza di un processo davvero indipendente ed autonomo per giudicare gli Stati che presentavano una minaccia di criminalità finanziaria.

Dopo varie bocciature, la Commissione europea è riuscita finalmente a formulare una lista più esaustiva, anche se non completa, e con una metodologia più indipendente. La pubblicazione della nuova blacklist è un passo nella giusta direzione ma va considerato solo come un primo passo.

Va innanzitutto chiarito che è necessario assicurare che le persone fisiche e giuridiche provenienti dai paesi in questa lista siano soggette a controlli più rigidi nel momento in cui svolgono attività all'interno dell'Unione, date le carenze strategiche su antiriciclaggio e contrasto al finanziamento del terrorismo presenti in tali paesi.

Inoltre c'è ancora molto da fare per assicurare che tutte le attività di pressione esercitate dalle lobby di alcuni paesi non annacquino la capacità delle istituzioni europee di agire in maniera autonoma e indipendente.

Da ultimo, è necessario che il processo diventi ancora più trasparente. Per questo chiediamo alla Commissione di pubblicare le sue valutazioni sui paesi in lista per assicurare lo scrutinio pubblico.

Sono felice che prima della conclusione di questa legislatura sia stato fatto un altro importante passo avanti nella lotta contro il riciclaggio di denaro, crimine odioso che arricchisce i criminali e mette fuori mercato coloro che agiscono nella legalità. È un crimine che va represso e al quale ho dedicato molti sforzi nel corso di questo mandato, tra l'altro licenziando una direttiva – quella sulla lotta al riciclaggio attraverso norme penali – che permetterà alle autorità di contrasto di tutta Europa di investigare e perseguire in maniera più efficace il reato stesso.

Colgo questa occasione per rinnovare il mio invito agli Stati membri affinché procedano ad una rapida e corretta trasposizione del testo nei propri ordinamenti nazionali.


  Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, уважаема г-жо Комисар, дами и господа, член 9 от Четвъртата и Петата директива за борба срещу изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма съдържа ясно задължение за Европейската комисия да извърши анализ на правната и институционална рамка на страните извън Европейския съюз, правомощията на компетентните им власти и ефективността на системите им, за да определи къде съществуват проблеми с борбата срещу изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма. Тези изисквания са договорени съвместно от Европейския парламент и Съвета и в нито един момент по време на преговорите никоя държава членка не се противопостави на тези правомощия на Комисията.

Нека бъда ясен – и преди Европейската комисия е публикувала списъци на високо рискови държави, реално идентични с тези на FATF. Но за първи път тя е натоварена със задача да извършва анализ, вземащ под внимание, но не и идентичен с този на FATF.

Европейският съюз е огромен единен пазар и основната задача на Комисията е да защити функционирането му от всички видове заплахи, вкл. от такива, идващи от трети държави. Задължените субекти в Европейския съюз трябва да са наясно, че финансовите потоци от определени райони по света могат да бъдат със съмнителен произход. Но това в никакъв случай не означава, че всички финансови потоци са съмнителни или че бизнесът с тези държави ще спре. Повишеното внимание вследствие на списъка е предупреждение за задължените субекти да внимават, защото в противен случай ще носят отговорност за подпомагане изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма.


  Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Mr President, like my colleagues, I also want to commend the work the Commission is doing on listing third countries as high risk for money laundering and terrorist financing. We all know how huge a threat to our security in Europe is posed by financial crimes, terrorist financing and terrorism, as well as the threat that these countries that are acting as safe havens for this pose to Europe. So it’s a very serious threat to us and I commend the Commission for working seriously and objectively on this, along with the directives on anti—money laundering. In a way, I just want to say that it’s a little bit ironic. We are a Union based on the rule of law and objective criteria, and yet we see that the Council, one of our institutions, undermines that principle when we apply the objective criteria and methodology that we have agreed upon in this case. I think it is a disaster and a scandal.

I want say one more thing. I think what we see in the Council is a black box. We don’t see what Member States’ representatives are doing in the secret working groups and I think we could at least demand from their side that they are accountable and transparent so that citizens, the media and others – we in Parliament – can see what is happening. Why are countries taking items off the list in the Council? Why are they blocking items? What is the reason? We need to get that out in the open to get a real debate going because, if we don’t do this, we will never have an efficient list and I do not think we will fulfil the principle of the rule of law that we should all support.


  Martin Schirdewan (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich würde die Debatte gern mit einem praktischen Beispiel bereichern: Jedes Jahr fließen nachweislich – das haben etliche Studien mittlerweile belegt – Milliarden an kriminellen Geldern aus kriminellen Geschäften allein in den deutschen Immobilienmarkt, und da wird dann das schmutzige Geld gewaschen. Das treibt natürlich die Preise auf dem Immobilienmarkt in die Höhe, und das wiederum treibt die Mieten in die Höhe. Die Mieterinnen und Mieter, die dann immer mehr Miete zahlen müssen und sich teilweise ihre Wohnung nicht mehr leisten können, sind dann im Endeffekt diejenigen, die die Zeche an dieser Stelle für die politische Untätigkeit des Rates zahlen müssen. Und allein vor diesem Hintergrund ist die Ablehnung der überarbeiteten Geldwäscheliste durch den Rat ein Skandal. Und klar, die von der Kommission vorgelegte Liste ist durchaus mangelhaft, aber sie ist doch ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Mit Halbherzigkeit gewinnt man den Kampf gegen schmutziges Geld jedenfalls nicht. Den gewinnt man mit Entschlossenheit und politischem Willen. Und daran mangelt es einigen europäischen Regierungen ganz offenkundig.


  Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for being here. Anti-money laundering, the fight against financial crime and tax fraud are among the key priorities of civilised countries in the 21st century, despite the fact that maybe Mr Coburn would not agree. I believe that we are civilised countries, so I believe that this is our priority, but instead of that, maybe I should say I wish it were our priority. Today I feel great frustration, maybe the most frustration I have ever experienced here for some time, and this is really something. A clear majority of the Member States in the Council have rejected the methodology-based, relatively transparent and evidence-based list proposed by the Commission and Commissioner Jourová, and this is really frustrating. Obviously, nothing is perfect. The list was not perfect, but this could have been a good start to a good process in which we expressed our view on this very important matter.

This is a really shocking result and this is putting into doubt our dedication, our principles and our self-confidence, so that’s why I kindly ask the Commission to continue and I ask the Council to reconsider this position and not put us into such a shameful position.


  Emmanuel Maurel (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, la Commission propose une liste noire anti-blanchiment et anti-financement du terrorisme, et c’est une bonne initiative. Mais qu’apprenons-nous aujourd’hui, et nous l’apprenons avec consternation? C’est que le Conseil s’est empressé de détricoter cette liste, de refuser qu’y figurent des pays qui, pourtant, de notoriété publique, sont des champions de l’opacité, voire pire!

Je prends deux exemples: comment peut-on nier aujourd’hui l’implication de pays comme le Panama ou l’Arabie Saoudite – implication délictueuse, voire carrément criminelle – au moment où les peuples européens demandent plus de transparence? Je rappelle que les Panama Papers ont fait l’objet de perquisitions qui ont conclu à la participation à un blanchiment. Quant à l’Arabie saoudite, on sait très bien que des particuliers ont participé au financement de Daech et que le royaume ne pouvait l’ignorer. Donc, ce que je constate, c’est qu’entre les chèques de M. Ben Salman et l’intérêt des citoyens européens, le Conseil a tranché. Il faut que le Parlement refuse, et refuse clairement, ce scandale démocratique.


  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – Señor presidente, el Consejo rechaza la lista. Mal. Evitar que se utilice el sistema financiero para el blanqueo de capitales o de financiación del terrorismo es parte de cualquier estrategia para hacer frente a la amenaza. Para ello, se aprobó la Directiva contra el blanqueo de capitales que entró en vigor el pasado julio.

El artículo 9, apartado 2, faculta a la Comisión para adoptar actos delegados a fin de identificar los terceros países de alto riesgo, teniendo en cuenta sus deficiencias estratégicas. Si bien esta lista no es perfecta, sí que resulta necesario que las entidades financieras refuercen sus controles. Sin embargo, es necesario conceder a los países concernidos el tiempo suficiente para que se puedan acometer las reformas necesarias en sus sistemas y no incluir a aquellos que ya están en proceso avanzado de reformas.

La Unión tiene que realizar el seguimiento y la evolución de veintitrés Estados y otros y dotar de medios suficientes a las unidades de la Comisión para que tengan la operatividad e independencia necesarias para modificar la lista, cuando proceda, con la mayor eficacia posible. En el mismo sentido, la Unión tiene que encontrar mecanismos reforzados para hacer frente a las presiones legítimas de los terceros países que no quieren ser asociados con el blanqueo de capitales o la financiación del terrorismo, pero a los que, al mismo tiempo, una regulación laxa les reporta importantes beneficios.

Y luego está el tema de Rusia. Las Comisiones LIBE, ECON y TAX3 en reiteradas ocasiones han señalado la no adecuación de Rusia al marco financiero. En este sentido, señor presidente, la Comisión debe tener en cuenta la opinión reiterada del Parlamento.


  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, a segurança dos cidadãos e do sistema financeiro da União Europeia tem de estar protegida dos instrumentos ilegais que permitem o financiamento do terrorismo e o branqueamento de capitais. A União tem a capacidade de elaborar uma lista de países terceiros com base no risco identificado através de fluxos de capitais suspeitos que circulam entre empresas fictícias e estruturas opacas usadas para ocultar os verdadeiros beneficiários de uma transação, incluindo para os efeitos de evasão fiscal.

Com base em inteligência fornecida pela Europol e pelo Grupo de Ação Financeira, conseguimos apertar a malha de avaliação e aumentar a lista de países suspeitos. É preciso que se perceba que, com esta lista, não estamos a aplicar nenhuma sanção económica nem a fazer nenhum boicote diplomático. Antes pelo contrário. Não se compreende, por isso, a recusa do Conselho em aceitar a lista de países de risco proposta pela Comissão.

A União tem de manter o seu compromisso de intervir junto dos países com deficiências estratégicas para evitar que o dinheiro sujo sirva para financiar a corrupção, o crime organizado e o terrorismo. Claro que nenhum país fica contente por estar nesta lista negra, e tenta, por todas as vias, incluindo através de conversações bilaterais, juntar argumentos que justifiquem a sua exclusão.

Meus caros Colegas, convenhamos: sabemos como pode ser insidiosa para a nossa União a penetração da corrupção, do crime organizado e do terrorismo no seio do território europeu. Há assuntos em que a Europa tem de cerrar fileiras e atuar com uma só voz e, neste caso, é do mais puro bom senso que mais vale prevenir do que remediar.


Διαδικασία «Catch-the-Eye»


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το ξέπλυμα του μαύρου χρήματος, η νομιμοποίηση των εσόδων από παράνομες δραστηριότητες, η φοροδιαφυγή και η φοροαποφυγή πρέπει να χτυπηθούν. Και αφού πείστηκε η Επιτροπή, επιτέλους, να διαμορφώσει τη μαύρη λίστα των χωρών που φοροδιαφεύγουν, βλέπουμε ότι το Συμβούλιο αρνείται να προχωρήσει σε αυτή τη διαδικασία. Μπλοκάρει πραγματικά την έκδοση της μαύρης λίστας των χωρών της φοροδιαφυγής. Γιατί; Επειδή εκεί είναι ο Παναμάς; Επειδή είναι η Σαουδική Αραβία; Από εκεί και πέρα, υπάρχει ένα άλλο ζήτημα: ζήτημα διαφάνειας. Όταν λέμε το Συμβούλιο, ποιες χώρες εννοούμε; Όλες οι χώρες στο Συμβούλιο ήταν αυτές που αρνήθηκαν να επικυρώσουν τον κατάλογο της Επιτροπής; Αν όχι, θέλω να μας πείτε ποιες ήταν οι συγκεκριμένες χώρες οι οποίες έφεραν τα εμπόδια. Διότι πίσω από τη λέξη Συμβούλιο υπάρχει μια πλήρης αδιαφάνεια και καλύπτονται συγκεκριμένες χώρες και πολιτικές. Θέλουμε μια απάντηση, κυρία Ciot, στο θέμα αυτό, πολύ συγκεκριμένη.


  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor presidente, en esta lista no están todos los que son, pero son todos los que están. No me gusta la actitud del Consejo ante las propuestas que hace la Comisión. Felicito a la comisaria por defender sus valoraciones. Tiene todo nuestro apoyo.

La actitud del Consejo en este asunto es mala por dos razones. Primero, porque erosiona la confianza y credibilidad de las instituciones europeas. Y, segundo, porque alienta comportamientos que nos perjudican a todos.

Tenemos que creernos que lo que es bueno para la Unión es bueno para todos sus miembros. Y lo que no es transparente, lo que desgraciadamente es repetido, es ver a los Estados miembros hacer cambalaches entre ellos para proteger intereses particulares, Estado a Estado, cambiar cromos entre ellos y que no defienden a la Unión.

Estamos ante un asunto que habla de nuestra ética colectiva. Estamos ante unas prácticas que perjudican globalmente el volumen de recursos disponibles que manejan las Haciendas europeas. Y este es uno de esos temas en los que los Estados son los que toman las decisiones injustificables y es la Unión la que paga, en términos de prestigio, una gran factura. Esta es la gasolina del populismo.

Por eso me gustaría preguntarle a la representante del Consejo cuáles son esos motivos por los cuales han rechazado la lista. Díganos, al menos, dos de ellos.


  Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, indeed, combating terrorism sounds like a great idea. Nobody – nobody – is more in favour of combating terrorism than I am. Absolutely. Let’s get to grips with it, let’s stop them getting their dirty money, let’s stop this money laundering. But hang on. Then something occurred to me. In all of the debates that I sit through here, and I’ve sat through a lot today, often one of the things that gets mentioned is that you’re really quite frustrated that you can’t get to grips with banks and bankers and finances and that you can’t really peek into bank accounts as much as you’d like. I’ve heard this for five years now. Isn’t it really convenient to put up Russia, terrorists and all sorts of baddies and say ‘Oh, we must get to them. I know: we need to be able to see into people’s bank accounts, we need more power for the financial authorities, and we need to be able to blacklist people if they don’t play along’. Strongman arguments. I’m a little concerned, a little suspicious. Yes, combat terrorism, but I think – I detect – a little bit more about this: I think you’d like to have a peek into someone’s bank account.


(Λήξη της διαδικασίας «Catch-the-Eye»)


  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, yes, this is the first time we are working on this autonomous EU list of high—risk third countries. We knew when we were planning this and discussing the methodology, the rationale and the criteria which will be used for the assessment that it would be difficult, that it would demand expertise and that it would be sensitive – because we work in the context of the geopolitical and external ties and contacts of each Member State – and that it might be unpopular, but we knew absolutely, clearly and for sure that it was necessary. These high-risk third countries are a very important element of everything we do against money laundering and terrorist financing. This is the most important element of the whole system. I will repeat again that this is what we do in the field of the fight against organised crime, where we need to be much better on the side of systematic prevention.

This is about prevention. We must be aware of how the financial sector is interconnected and that, if we want to have a safe financial sector, we must not leave any weak points or easy entry points into the system from outside. Whenever I discuss these matters with law enforcement authorities, with practitioners and experts, they always have a very clear goal for us: cut the influx of illicit money into Europe because this is the money which is financing organised crime and terrorism. So this is what we are doing, and I remain convinced that the countries we listed belong to the list.

At the same time, we see that we have to work with the Member States on procedural matters because they were at the centre of the criticism which we heard from the Member States. So I agree that maybe we need more transparency. I also heard in this House and in the two days of debate that you would like to see a more detailed assessment. We need more clarity and we need stronger – I would even say full – ownership from the side of the Member States. We need to check again whether the Member States are ready to cooperate and whether that readiness is driven by a genuine interest from the side of the Member States to fight against organised crime and terrorism. I hope – and I do believe – that we will find this readiness from the side of the Member States because the Member States must be aware that in a system where the financial institutions and the whole financial system has no borders in the EU, individual Member States cannot efficiently fight against these dangerous phenomena. It has to be a common task and this is what we are doing.

The Commission is going to work on two parallel strands. On one side, we will work with the Member States and with Parliament on procedural matters. We will look into the methodology and the criteria we use. I am convinced the criteria are pretty precise and we use them in full. It was a very objective assessment, based on the criteria known, but we will work on this with the stakeholders. The second strand will be our parallel work with the listed countries, with those who are willing to eliminate the risks on their side. I have had discussions with several of those listed and who don’t want to be listed, so this is the invitation: let’s work on the elimination of risks on your side. We need to see the partners where there are no deficiencies anymore. I think that we are very clear about this. This will be one strand of work with the listed countries. The second strand will be working on the assessment of the countries which are in group two, where indeed we also have Russia and other countries which you mentioned in this debate.

My message is also for the Member States. I am not giving up. The machine is working. We are working on it. We are continuing to fulfil our obligations, which we have in legislation. We are doing what’s necessary and we will be back with the new list later this year.


  President. – You had a lot of criticism from almost all the political groups and a lot of questions. We are very interested to hear your answers.


  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I have followed your contributions and heard the intervention by the Commissioner. I take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance which the Presidency attaches to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

As mentioned, the Council felt that there were problems with the process as it was conducted by the Commission. I am encouraged by the fact that Commissioner Jourová already said that the Commission was aware that many considered that the time for consultation was too short, as well as by her recognition that the process could be improved in the future. We stand ready to continue engaging with the Commission in this respect.

The Council has no position on the listing of any particular country on the list. The reasons for the Council’s objection to the list are very well known and were the ones presented in my initial intervention. They relate to the process employed by the Commission to arrive at the list and are clarified in the Council statement. The Presidency will remain available for exchanges on the subject as needed.


  Πρόεδρος. – Οι προτάσεις ψηφίσματος που θα κατατεθούν σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 123 παράγραφος 2 του Κανονισμού θα ανακοινωθούν αργότερα.

Η συζήτηση περατώνεται.

Ψηφοφορία: 14 Μαρτίου 2019.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 162 του Κανονισμού)


  Eva Joly (Verts/ALE), par écrit. – L’Europe qui protège, c’est une Europe qui agit de manière impartiale et déterminée contre l'argent sale et le financement du terrorisme, quels que soient les pays concernés. N'acceptons pas l'Europe du double standard et des privilèges défendue par Emmanuel Macron! Une liste noire est une liste noire : si un pays représente une menace, il doit y figurer. Quelles que soient sa taille, son influence, ou les armes qu’il nous achète! Car c’est bien pour rassurer l'Arabie Saoudite, entre autres, que le gouvernement français et les autres États membres ont rejeté la liste noire anti-blanchiment. Ils ont cédé au lobby de pays tiers mécontents d’être sur la liste. Ce petit jeu est insupportable. Il est temps que les gouvernements cessent leur double discours: on ne peut en même temps vouloir combattre l'argent sale et s’opposer à une liste noire plus complète. Le Conseil doit revoir sa position. La mise à jour de la liste proposée par la Commission doit être adoptée au plus vite. Ne laissons pas nos portes ouvertes à l’argent sale. Soyons cohérents dans nos combats.

Posledná úprava: 8. júla 2019Právne upozornenie - Politika ochrany súkromia