Πληρη πρακτικα των συζητησεων

Τετάρτη 18 Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 - Στρασβούργο

19. Κατάσταση της εφαρμογής της νομοθεσίας για την καταπολέμηση της νομιμοποίησης εσόδων από εγκληματικές δραστηριότητες (συζήτηση)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana neuvoston ja komission julkilausuma rahanpesun vastaisen lainsäädännön täytäntöönpanon tilanteesta (2019/2820(RSP)).

Nyt pyydän, että kuuntelette tarkkaan. Ennen keskustelun avaamista nimittäin voin ilmoittaa, että tällä istuntojaksolla testataan uutta järjestelmää, jonka avulla jäsenet voivat rekisteröidä sähköisesti pyynnöstä myönnettäviä puheenvuoroja ja sinisen kortin kysymyksiä koskevat pyynnöt.

Teille on toimitettu sähköpostilla tietoa siitä, miten tämä järjestelmä toimii ja teille on jaettu pöydillenne käyttöohjeet. Jäsenet voivat siten esittää puheenvuoropyynnön käyttämällä äänestyskoneensa painikkeita annetun ohjeen mukaisesti.

Äänestyskoneella esitettävien pyyntöjen lisäksi puheenvuoroa voi pyytää myös perinteisellä tavalla. Pyynnöstä myönnettävää puheenvuoroa voi pyytää nostamalla valkoisen paperin tai ilmoittautumalla henkilökohtaisesti keskustelun alussa täysistuntoyksikön kollegoille täällä ja sinisen kortin kysymystä voi pyytää edelleen nostamalla sinisen kortin.

Tätä sähköistä järjestelmää testataan useiden keskustelujen ajan ja haluankin muistuttaa teille, että pitäkää äänestyskorttinne mukana, koska se on edellytys sille, että voimme testata tätä järjestelmää. Toivon, että myös käytätte sitä.

  Tytti Tuppurainen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, honourable Members, thank you for inviting the Presidency to contribute to this debate. The fight against money laundering and terrorist financing is a key topic during the Finnish Presidency and is an area to which the Council is strongly committed.

Over the last years, we have – the Parliament, the Council and the Commission – worked closely with the aim of establishing an effective regime to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism. We particularly strengthened the EU rules in 2019 with the adoption of the latest amendments to the Anti—Money Laundering Directive. The Member States are due to transpose it into national law by January 2020. Once in effect, the fifth Anti—Money Laundering Directive will improve the powers of financial intelligence units, increase the transparency around beneficial ownership information, and regulate virtual currencies and prepaid cards to better prevent terrorism financing.

As you know, on the previous fourth Anti—Money Laundering Directive, the Member States transposition is facing some delays. On this, the Commission will be better placed to update you, but I understand that some of the infringement procedures have already been closed. Through the review of the European System of Financial Supervision, on which we agreed just before the parliamentary recess, we progressed further and reinforced the role of the European Banking Authority as regards risks posed to the financial sector by money laundering. Lawyer linguists are now finalising the legal texts in order for it to enter into force in January. They have also included strengthened rules on anti—money laundering in the banking package, namely with the revision of the Capital Requirements Directive.

With the fifth Anti—Money Laundering Directive, we streamlined the cooperation between prudential supervisors and anti—money laundering authorities. The prudential supervisors should now have better abilities to intervene in cases where activities endanger financial stability. These rules already entered into force, and Member States are currently transposing them into national law. This is due to be completed by December 2020.

On anti—money laundering, we also have the EU list of high—risk third countries, with strategic deficiencies. As you know, in March the Council objected to the Commission’s related delegated act. This decision does not mean that the listing is not an important element of the ongoing work – on the contrary – but in order to achieve the full impact of this instrument and to ensure its quality, we need to introduce the list in an orderly process. We believe that in order to establish a strong and effective instrument, the Commission proposal needs to be established in a transparent manner and needs to incentivise affected countries to take action. I know the Commission has been working intensively on the new methodology, which it will present to ministers in October.

The criminal law framework in the area of money laundering has also recently been strengthened through the adoption of a directive on combating money laundering by criminal law. This directive is currently being implemented in Member States, and the transposition deadline is December 2020.

Honourable Members, the Council is advancing on other fronts as well. It agreed, in December 2018, on a dedicated anti—money laundering action plan to further improve the current system, and the Council is regularly monitoring the delivery of the various actions. We have also asked the Commission to deliver a post—mortem review of recent alleged money laundering cases involving EU banks, with a view to better informing possible additional actions in the medium to long term. The Commission published its report in July and will present it to the Council in October.

On the basis of this important input and other recent reports we are inviting the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) to adopt the Council conclusions by December on an anti—money laundering strategic agenda that will guide the Commission going forward.

Ladies and gentlemen, much is being done to tackle this important problem and, overall, our joint work in the area of anti—money laundering stands as a very good example of good cooperation. It is our priority as the Presidency to fight tax fraud, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. I look forward to hearing your views on the matter. Thank you very much for your attention.

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, money laundering hit the headlines in recent years and is at the centre of several key challenges Europe is facing today.

The Commission is fully committed to safeguarding the EU financial system and its citizens from the harmful effects of the laundering of proceeds from criminal activities. Protecting citizens from terrorism also requires a robust system to counter the financing of terrorism. It is vital that our anti-money laundering policy retains the trust of citizens and also the trust of our international partners.

In the past five years, together with the European Parliament, we worked hard to strengthen EU rules in this area. The revision of the anti-money laundering rules, the directive on criminal sanctions for money laundering, the directive on cooperation between financial intelligence units and law-enforcement authorities, as well as the strengthening of the role of the European Banking Authority, are all very important steps.

But what matters now is the effective implementation of these rules, and Parliament is right to highlight this subject at the beginning of this term. I would insist on the importance of Member States’ implementing both the Fourth and Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directives. The latter will become applicable as of January 2020. And the Commission has watched Member States closely on effective implementation of the rules. Infringement proceedings have been opened against Member States for incomplete transposition of the Fourth Directive and some of them are still ongoing.

We are closely checking both the conformity of the legislation and the way these rules are implemented in practice. While many shortcomings could be remedied through the implementation of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, it seems that some structural issues will remain. We addressed some of them in the report that the Commission adopted on 24 July on the state of implementation of the EU’s anti-money laundering framework.

I believe these reports are a good basis for assessing what needs to be done in the future. The way in which anti-money laundering rules are applied in practice by all economic operators is of critical importance to the good functioning of the whole system. For instance, national banking supervisors must act decisively. Weak supervision was an issue in some of the large-scale money-laundering scandals we saw. Here a harmonised, directly applicable Union regulatory anti-money laundering framework could help. In addition, we could consider conferring specific anti-money laundering supervisory tasks on a Union body.

We also found cases where supervisors were critically understaffed, failing to carry out on-site inspections as frequently as they should have done, or not taking appropriate measures when they found violations. Group supervision was also largely deficient. Prudential supervisors did not sufficiently take into account money-laundering concerns in their supervision of banks or in their suitability assessment of managers.

We are aware that such programme problems are not limited to the banking sector only. They exist also in other parts of the financial sector, as well as the non-financial sector. This is another area that should not be overlooked.

With regard to the report on financial intelligence units, the assessment confirmed that cooperation between financial intelligence units needs to be improved further, including through a stronger mechanism at EU level, to coordinate and support national financial intelligence units.

It will be for the next Commission to decide on the next steps, but the policy guidelines of the President-designate are clear on this matter. We have to strengthen supervision and close loopholes.

Finally, allow me to update you on the list of high-risk third countries.

The Commission remains committed to delivering an updated list, in line with the requirement of the directive. Following the rejection of the delegated regulation by the Council, and the Parliament resolution in March, we have made strong efforts to take into account the views expressed by both Parliament and the Council. Our aim is to ensure consensus between all institutions on the process in order to avoid either Parliament or the Council rejecting the list.

I would like to reiterate that the Commission will continue to carry out an autonomous assessment. We will, in principle, list countries which are listed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). At the same time, the listing criteria of the directive also go beyond the FATF criteria, in particular on transparency of beneficial ownership. This means that we will also list third countries with strategic deficiencies, even if they are not on the FATF list.

Within this framework, we are working to refine the methodology of June 2018. Firstly, we aim at clarifying the interaction between the EU list and the one at international level by the FATF. Secondly, we proposed to detail further the engagement with third countries prior to a listing. Here we proposed to engage with third countries on the basis of our preliminary assessments and to seek commitments from third countries to implement mitigating measures within one year. This will help ensure that deficiencies are effectively addressed. We will also consider listing immediately those countries which present an overriding level of risks.

We hope that this new approach will allow both co-legislators to reach a common understanding with a view to adopting the EU list on high-risk third countries.

The Commission will maintain a regular political dialogue with Parliament and the Council in implementing the methodology. I intend to address the matter with finance ministers at the October ECOFIN Council. I would like to assure you that we will continue sharing the same goal of protecting the EU financial system from risks of money laundering posed by third countries.

I also want to thank the European Parliament for its continued support for this challenging but necessary process in the interest of our citizens.

  Markus Ferber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Ratspräsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Wenn man Ihnen so zuhört, dann hat man wirklich den Eindruck, es ist alles wunderbar. Alles im Griff; der Rat verpflichtet sich und kämpft Tag für Tag, Stunde um Stunde gegen Geldwäsche, die Kommission prüft alle Länder – alles wunderbar.

Die Wahrheit ist: Nichts ist wunderbar. Wenn wir uns den Prüfbericht der Kommission genau anschauen, dann sind zwei Dinge offensichtlich geworden. Erstens: In 28 Mitgliedstaaten wird die Geldwäscherichtlinie 28 mal unterschiedlich umgesetzt. Wir haben keine einheitliche Umsetzung in Europa. Und zweitens: Schon bei den nationalen Behörden klappt die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Justizbehörden und der Finanzaufsicht nicht, bei grenzüberschreitenden Fällen funktioniert überhaupt nichts mehr.

Wenn ich mir diese zwei Probleme anschaue, dann gibt es eigentlich auch zwei Lösungen. Die Lösung Nummer eins heißt, keine Richtlinie mehr, sondern eine Verordnung. Wenn wir einheitliches Recht in Europa wollen, dann müssen wir den Weg der Verordnung gehen. Und zweitens: Wenn die Zusammenarbeit nicht funktioniert und – seien Sie mir nicht böse – auch wenn wir jetzt gerade erst verhandelt haben, dass die Europäische Bankenaufsicht als Aufsicht der Aufsicht zu prüfen hat, ob alles richtig gemacht wird: Damit bekämpfen Sie nicht Geldwäsche, sondern damit schaffen Sie nur Formulare zwischen Aufsichtsbehörden.

Wir brauchen eine Struktur, die durchgreifen kann. Wir haben OLAF bei der Kommission, wir haben den Europäischen Staatsanwalt bei Fällen gegen die finanziellen Interessen der Europäischen Union, und wir sollten uns wirklich Gedanken machen, Frau Justizkommissarin, ob man nicht einen Vorschlag macht, dass wir auch den Europäischen Staatsanwalt oder eine ähnliche Struktur mit Durchgriffsrechten ausstatten, damit hier auch strafrechtlich schnell reagiert werden kann und es nicht in den Händen der Mitgliedstaaten bleibt.

Wir müssen hier dringend handeln – die Zahlen sind genannt worden. Wir dürfen uns nicht selber die Welt schönreden, sondern wir müssen Lösungen erarbeiten. Dieses Parlament ist bereit dazu, deswegen diese klare Botschaft heute in der Debatte, morgen in der Abstimmung – bitte liefern Sie entsprechend.

  Evelyn Regner, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Ich knüpfe gleich bei meinem Vorredner an. Wir haben in der Europäischen Union strenge Bestimmungen gegen Geldwäsche. Doch was bringen die schärfsten Gesetze, wenn diese nicht umgesetzt werden, wenn sie nicht ordentlich umgesetzt werden, wenn sie nicht einer strengen Aufsicht unterliegen? Die Aufsicht der Geldwäscherichtlinie ist stark national ausgerichtet. Damit muss Schluss sein! Da sind wir uns einig. Wir müssen auch einsehen, dass das Problem langfristig gesehen mit einer europäischen Antigeldwäsche-Behörde gelöst werden kann. Bis dahin muss eine europäische Anti-Geldwäscheeinheit diese Aufgabe übernehmen. Jeder neue Geldwäscheskandal ist größer als der vorherige. Wir dürfen nicht warten, bis der nächste Skandal platzt.

Und der zweite Punkt, das ist das Problem der golden visa – eine lukrative Einnahmequelle für manche Staaten. Reiche können sich wie eine Luxusware, wie einen Wagen, wie eine Villa, wie eine Yacht, wie eine teure Handtasche die Staatsbürgerschaft oder eine Aufenthaltsgenehmigung kaufen, ohne dass die Herkunft der Gelder hinterfragt wird. Das ist skandalös! Denn wir wissen, Geldwäsche geht Hand in Hand mit Korruption, mit Steuerhinterziehung, mit kriminellen Aktivitäten. Das Problem muss ganzheitlich angepackt werden. Und als solches muss die Kommission auch bei den golden visa ansetzen und praktikable Vorschläge machen, wie wir das Problem in Zukunft lösen.

  Luis Garicano, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, I want to say to the Commissioner and the Council representative: let’s be honest, the reason we are here is because the anti-money laundering system is not fit for purpose. It just doesn’t work.

We hear about a lack of resources. We had a hearing with the Commission and with the European Banking Authority and we hear about a lack of resources, legislation that cannot be implemented, legislation that is different in every country, lack of personnel, three to eight people. It is really, really not fit for purpose and we all agree, and citizens have to agree. They are worried because combating money laundering is basic to fighting against every possible crime, from drug trafficking to people trafficking. Fighting against money laundering is fighting those terrible crimes.

Why does the system not work? The system doesn’t work because states don’t have the incentive to have a system that works: states have an incentive to get capital when they need capital. So, at the end of the day, if the capital includes proceeds from places which are not very clear, we turn a blind eye. And the problem is that the system is as strong as the weakest link. If only one state has a bad system, we’re going to have a problem in all the other states.

We heard about the Danske Bank scandal – EUR 200 billion of money laundering! What is really scandalous about this problem is not just that no action was taken, and not just that the Estonian and Danish regulators let it happen, because for each it was the problem of the other: it is that, when it came to the EBA, the states said that, because there was no European legislation involved, there was nothing to be done.

We believe that this Parliament is united. I’m proud to have worked with my colleagues to have a resolution together. Parliament believes that the Commission needs to do its work, the Council needs to do its work and Parliament needs to do its work so that these agencies are well resourced, so that we have the resources to fight against money laundering, so that we have legislation that can be applicable everywhere in the European Union, and so that we have a system that is European and that works for all.

  Sven Giegold, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es gibt in Europa ein Sicherheitsrisiko, das von den Regierungen notorisch vernachlässigt wird, und das ist das Thema Geldwäsche. Wir haben milliardenschwere Geldwäsche jedes Jahr. Kriminelle verdienen mit den übelsten Formen der Wirtschaftlichkeit sozusagen Milliarden und Abermilliarden. Dieses Geld wird gewaschen und dann wieder in kriminelle Ökonomie investiert – in Terrorismus, aber zunehmend werden damit auch Häuser gekauft, und in den Immobilienzentren werden die Preise entsprechend hochgetrieben.

Und während wir darüber reden, sehen wir, dass wir eigentlich die rechtlichen Möglichkeiten haben. Europa bietet die rechtlichen Möglichkeiten für die Mitgliedstaaten, dagegen vorzugehen. Wir haben aber trotzdem ein weitverbreitetes Versagen der Mitgliedstaaten bei der Verfolgung der Geldwäsche. Die zehn größten Geldwäscheskandale, die die Europäische Kommission aufgearbeitet hat, zeigen dieses Versagen in aller Klarheit. Dabei muss man nicht in einige notorische Steueroasen wie Zypern, Malta und so weiter gehen, sondern fangen wir mal in Deutschland an, beim größten Mitgliedstaat.

Zirka 100 Milliarden Euro werden pro Jahr an Geldwäsche in Deutschland gemacht. Dabei liegen bei der Financial Intelligence Unit 20 000 Geldwäscheverdachtsanzeigen weitgehend unbearbeitet. Die Behörde funktioniert nicht, obwohl es schon seit der dritten Geldwäscherichtlinie, die schon seit über zehn Jahren umsetzungspflichtig ist, eine europäische Vorgabe ist, sie richtig auszustatten.

Seit Monaten streite ich mit den Dienststellen der Europäischen Kommission, ob hier jetzt endlich ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren eingeleitet wird. Und genau solche Vertragsverletzungsverfahren wären nicht nur angemessen für Deutschland, sondern für eine ganze Reihe von Mitgliedstaaten, die einfach nicht nur den Gesetzentwurf entsprechend umsetzen müssen, sondern diesen Gesetzentwurf auch endlich in der Realität umsetzen müssen.

Deshalb fordere ich Sie in der Europäischen Kommission auf: Schlagen Sie hier ein neues Kapitel auf! Gucken Sie nicht vor allem, ob die Buchstaben des Gesetzes übereinstimmen, sondern ob das europäische Geldwäscherecht tatsächlich vollzogen wird! Und bei allen, die das nicht machen, leiten Sie endlich Vertragsverletzungsverfahren ein, die sich wirklich auf die Implementierung beziehen! Lösen müssen wir das letztlich durch europäische gemeinsame Institutionen – das haben hier mehrere Redner gesagt –, die tatsächlich entsprechend europaweit handeln und durchgreifen können. Und Sie im Rat können vieles dafür tun, damit die Umsetzung endlich funktioniert, und uns unterstützen, solche europäischen Institutionen zu schaffen.

  Gunnar Beck, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Mit der fünften Geldwäscherichtlinie verpflichtet die EU die Mitgliedstaaten, in vielen Bereichen persönliche Daten an die Europäische Bankenaufsicht weiterzuleiten – Entscheidungen, gegen die die Anleger und Sparer kaum rechtliche Handhabe haben. Der Bürger wird gläsern. Die Rolle von NGOs hingegen hat die EU bislang vom Kampf gegen die Geldwäscher ausgenommen.

Im letzten Jahr warnte der maltesische NGO-Kommissar Professor Kenneth Wain vor einer Anfälligkeit der NGOs für Geldwäschedelikte und die Finanzierung von terroristischen Vereinigungen. Professor Wain forderte deshalb die Ausweitung der EU—Geldwäschegesetzgebung auf NGOs. Aufgrund massiven politischen Drucks musste er zurücktreten.

MONEYVAL, die Anti-Geldwäsche-Behörde des Europarats, teilt die Besorgnis von Professor Wain, da eindeutige Beweise vorlägen, dass NGOs als Geldwäschevehikel genutzt werden.

Im Ausschuss stellte ich deswegen die Frage, wieso die Kommission NGOs außer Acht lasse. Die lapidare Antwort war: Weil die Kommission nicht wünsche, dass NGOs als kriminell betrachtet würden. Wir verlangen, NGOs nicht länger vom Gesetz auszunehmen.

  Emmanuel Maurel, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Madame la Présidente, il est vrai que c’est un sujet d’apparence complexe, technique, mais je crois qu’il est très important pour la crédibilité de l’Union européenne.

Lors du précédent mandat, nous avions beaucoup discuté déjà de ces textes sur le blanchiment. Je rappelle quand même que notre émotion était due à un certain nombre de scandales, notamment celui des Panama Papers. Et nous parlons tout de même d’activités de blanchiment liées à la corruption, au trafic d’armes, à la traite des êtres humains, au trafic de drogue et à la fraude fiscale. Cela concerne des centaines de milliards d’euros, c’est donc vraiment un sujet très important.

Que nous montrent le texte dont nous discutons aujourd’hui et les évaluations de la Commission? C’est qu’aujourd’hui, il y a des insuffisances, des manquements insupportables. D’abord, la transposition des directives n’a pas été réellement suivie d’effets, et c’est le cas au sein de la majorité des États membres. Donc, à un moment, il va quand même falloir constater les infractions. D’autre part, nous n’en avons pas parlé depuis le début, mais la capacité d’impulsion et de décision de l’Autorité bancaire européenne semble avoir atteint certaines limites – limites d’ailleurs énoncées par le président lui-même.

Enfin nous gardons en mémoire, nous parlementaires, le refus du Conseil d’approuver la liste des 23 pays dont l’action est notoirement défaillante en matière de lutte contre le blanchiment et le financement du terrorisme. Vous vous souvenez du débat et de la décision funeste d’absoudre les complices avérés du terrorisme, comme l’Arabie saoudite, ou des paradis fiscaux, comme les Îles Vierges ou le Panama.

Donc là, il est vraiment temps d’agir. Et, en effet, le problème qui se pose aujourd’hui à nous, la question qui se pose, c’est est-ce qu’il n’est pas temps de passer au règlement? Parce qu’on a vraiment une impuissance qui est très préoccupante, pour nous, parlementaires, mais surtout pour les citoyens européens.

  Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'immissione di proventi di attività illecite nell'economia legale è un crimine dall'alta pericolosità sociale, assume caratteri transfrontalieri, crea effetti distorsivi nell'ambito del mercato interno e della concorrenza, finendo con il danneggiare le imprese rispettose delle regole. Inoltre consente ad individui e organizzazioni criminali, anche di tipo terroristico, di procurarsi fonti di finanziamento per alimentare ulteriormente le proprie attività.

Come delegazione del Movimento 5 Stelle abbiamo considerato il contrasto a questo fenomeno una priorità nel nostro programma nazionale ed europeo. Abbiamo dato un importante contributo in questa direzione con la direttiva sulla lotta al riciclaggio mediante il diritto penale, prevedendo ad esempio per i condannati di tale crimine il divieto di concludere contratti con la pubblica amministrazione, accedere a finanziamenti pubblici o candidarsi a cariche elettive.

Inoltre, nella relazione di iniziativa legislativa sulla lotta alla corruzione e alla criminalità organizzata, di cui sono stata relatrice, è stato compiuto un altro passo verso l'estensione a livello europeo di una efficace legislazione antimafia attraverso norme minime comuni, una più forte cooperazione giudiziaria e di polizia e un migliore scambio di informazioni.

I soggetti coinvolti nel riciclaggio di denaro sfruttano tutte le lacune legislative per garantirsi l'impunità ed è quindi indispensabile avere un quadro normativo europeo di contrasto che richiede non solo aggiornamenti continui, per tenere il passo dei nuovi sviluppi del fenomeno, ma anche il recepimento e un'attuazione rapida, coordinata ed uniforme tra gli Stati membri, tuttora carente.

  David Casa (PPE). – Sinjura President, il-ħasil ta’ flus, kif nafu, huwa konsegwenza ta’ atti kriminali – għandna diversi eżempji ta’ politiċi, negozjanti, frodisti, li kollha jaraw kif jagħmlu biex jaħbu dawn il-flejjes illi jkunu ġabu b’mod illegali. Il-verità hi li mhux faċli tinduna b’dan kollu – strutturi kumplessi f’diversi ġurisdizzjonijiet u ħafna drabi jkun hemm ukoll l-involviment ta’ numru kbir ta’ entitajiet finanzjarji.

Ħafna mill-istituzzjonijiet jagħmlu l-investigazzjonijiet tagħhom imma ħafna jfallu wkoll, u meta dawn ifallu u ma jinvestigawx, jew ma jipproċedux, fuq każijiet ta’ ħasil ta’ flus, ikollhom ikunu l-whistleblowers u l-ġurnalisti investigattivi li jirriskjaw ħajjithom biex jikxfu dan kollu. Kollha nafu x’ġara mill-ġurnalisti bħal Daphne Caruana Galizia u bħal Jan Kuciak! Ix-xahar li ġej, irrid infakkar hawn, illi huwa t-tieni anniversarju mill-qtil brutali ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia. Illi jiena nemmen, illi kieku l-istituzzjonijiet kienu aktar effettivi fil-ġlieda kontra l-ħasil ta’ flus, kieku forsi Daphne Caruana Galizia, illum, għadha magħna.

U allura naqbel illi l-affarijiet hemm bżonn li jinbidlu. Ma jistax ikun illi negozjanti tajbin u onesti li huma fil-maġġoranza jimxu skont ir-regoli waqt li dawk li huma fil-poter u korrotti jibqgħu jagħmlu li jridu b’detriment għaċ-ċittadini Ewropej.

  Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la lotta al riciclaggio costituisce una priorità per contrastare le più gravi forme di criminalità transnazionale e per proteggere l'economia europea da pericolose distorsioni, che possono minare la fiducia dei cittadini nei confronti delle istituzioni bancarie e finanziarie.

I più recenti scandali di riciclaggio nel sistema bancario tuttora evidenziano la necessità di un sistema di supervisione ed enforcement effettivo per prevenire, identificare e sanzionare le violazioni da parte degli operatori economici. Un sistema che richiede uno scambio informativo, una stretta cooperazione interdisciplinare tra le autorità di regolamentazione del sistema bancario e le autorità di polizia e giudiziarie e, ancora, il coordinamento transnazionale fra tutti gli attori di contrasto.

L'Unione europea ha di recente adottato importanti strumenti legislativi: la quinta direttiva antiriciclaggio; la direttiva sullo scambio di informazioni tra le FIU e le autorità di law enforcement per la prevenzione di gravi reati; la direttiva, particolarmente significativa, che armonizza la definizione penale di riciclaggio; nonché il regolamento che rafforza la competenza dell'Autorità bancaria europea nella supervisione antiriciclaggio.

Occorre però vigilare sulla corretta e tempestiva attuazione di tali strumenti e occorre continuare a lavorare per promuovere una più stretta cooperazione tra le autorità di regolamentazione del settore bancario, a livello europeo e nazionale, e le autorità giudiziarie degli Stati membri.

  Ramona Strugariu (Renew). – Doamna președintă, aproximativ 188 de miliarde de euro, însemnând 1 % din produsul intern brut al Uniunii Europene sunt bani implicați în activități financiare suspecte în fiecare an. Directiva a patra privind combaterea spălării banilor trebuia implementată până în iunie 2017. Creativitatea unor state membre în transpunerea acestei directive a depășit orice așteptări: de la măsuri excesive impuse organizațiilor nonguvernamentale și până la tabele de transpunere celebre precum al fostului ministru Toader, care aveau pe o coloană paragrafe întregi din directivă și pe cealaltă coloană sintagma „Nu se aplică”. Realitatea este că niciunul dintre cele 28 de state membre nu a transpus complet și corect directiva a patra.

Directiva a cincea trebuie transpusă până în ianuarie 2020. Doar opt state membre au transpus până în acest moment această directivă. Cred că răspunsul este simplu. Avem nevoie de regulamente. Dacă nu funcționează transpunerea directivelor, avem nevoie de regulamente și nu mai avem niciun moment de pierdut. Avem nevoie atât de regulamente în acest domeniu, care este esențial pentru funcționarea Uniunii și pentru combaterea marii criminalități, cât și de sancțiuni ferme pentru acele state membre care nu respectă și nu implementează regulamentele.

  Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, señores del Consejo, tenemos un problema gravísimo sin resolver, de miles y miles de millones de euros que circulan por el sistema financiero europeo, blanqueados, provenientes de actividades criminales, y los escándalos en los últimos años creo que son palpables. Desde el banco letón ABLV, el Danske Bank, el Deutsche Bank, el Pilatus Bank, podríamos hacer una lista muy muy larga de los escándalos que ustedes bien conocen.

Y, en las evaluaciones que ustedes mismos han hecho, encontramos fallos de todo tipo: desde la falta, por ejemplo, de las obligaciones de lucha contra el blanqueo dentro de los bancos, la falta de personal en los organismos de supervisión, la falta de inspecciones, una nula cooperación entre países. Esto es un problema muy muy serio y, por lo tanto, debemos tener más acción, ser mucho más valientes en la aplicación —de entrada— de la legislación europea. No puede ser que vayamos con tanto retraso en la aplicación de la cuarta Directiva. Tenemos que ser muy diligentes con la aplicación de la quinta.

Como le hemos pedido a este Parlamento y le vamos a pedir en esta Resolución, con el monitoreo de los terceros países que son un auténtico problema, con esa lista gris que hace tiempo que proponemos que ustedes establezcan, así como también, cuando estas Directivas no se aplican correctamente, que sean mucho más diligentes con la apertura de procedimientos de infracción. Tenemos auténticos Estados que no cumplen de ninguna de las maneras la legislación que nosotros hemos adoptado en esta casa. Y, por lo tanto, ustedes deben ser mucho más diligentes.

Y, finalmente, como también les hemos pedido durante repetidas ocasiones, debemos avanzar progresivamente hacia la creación de una auténtica autoridad europea, para poder atajar este fenómeno. Así que esa debe ser una prioridad absoluta de este mandato.

  Herve Juvin (ID). – Madame la Présidente, à des entreprises confrontées quasi quotidiennement au côté pointilliste formaliste et quelquefois excessif de la lutte contre le blanchiment, il est difficile de refuser un sentiment d'hypocrisie.

Pour nous, la véritable cause de cette lèpre qu'est le blanchiment de capitaux vient tout simplement du principe de la libre circulation des capitaux dans le monde. Il est difficile de concevoir des opérations de blanchiment à grande échelle sans des réseaux bancaires complices, sans des plateformes électroniques de financement complices, sans la facilité que les trusts et la fiducie, qui dissimulent l'identité des bénéficiaires finaux des opérations financières, assurent à des opérations de blanchiment.

Il est également difficile de nier le rôle que des ONG, des fondations qui cachent quelquefois des opérations d'optimisation fiscale et d'évasion fiscale, financent des opérations de corruption et se livrent à grande échelle à des opérations de blanchiment jouent dans ce paysage dramatique.

À cet égard, nous ne pouvons qu'inciter la Commission à évaluer son action, le formalisme par rapport aux résultats réels de la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et à mettre fin à une hypocrisie qui veut qu'un certain nombre de paradis fiscaux, domiciliation d'entreprise sans activité réelle, se situent au coeur même de l'Union.

  Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, korupcija i pranje novca su dva izuzetno povezana pojma.

U današnje doba, najveća korupcija i najveći nestanak novca kojeg je poslije potrebno oprati nije od trgovine i šverca cigareta, nije od ucjena, nego on dolazi iz postupaka javnih nabava i stečajnih postupaka. I ono što je još gore, što se dogodilo u Republici Hrvatskoj, moguće je tu korupciju legalizirati novodonešenim zakonima. U Hrvatskoj je donesen Zakon o predstečajnim nagodbama i o izvanrednoj upravi koji su bili teški 10 milijardi eura. A sudovi, koji su trebali nadzirati zakonitost tih postupaka i spriječiti korupciju i pranje novca bili su pretvoreni u najobičnije notare.

Ogroman novac je nestao na na taj način. Mnogi su postali vlasnici velikih trgovačkih društava u Republici Hrvatskoj, a da mi ne znamo tko su oni. Sve se to odvija preko fondova koji imaju sjedište u trećim zemljama.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Die Debatte und vor allem die Wortmeldungen zeigen parteiübergreifend eines: Wie wichtig und richtig es ist, dass wir als europäische Bürgerkammer erneut unsere Stimme im Kampf gegen Geldwäsche und Terrorismusbekämpfung erheben.

Warum? Noch immer werden pro Jahr in der EU 110 Milliarden EUR Schwarzgeld gewaschen; noch immer sind zehn große europäische Banken weitreichend von Geldwäscheskandalen betroffen; noch immer gibt es einen klaren Widerspruch zwischen den Verpflichtungen, die wir vereinbart haben, und der Umsetzung; noch immer gibt es einen Mangel an Kontrolle, einen Mangel an Sanktionen, einen Mangel an Personal für die Aufsicht, einen Mangel an Geld für die Europäische Bankenaufsicht bei der Umsetzung der Geldwäscherichtlinie.

Noch immer ist die vierte Geldwäscherichtlinie nicht umgesetzt, obwohl die fünfte bereits bis Jänner 2020 umzusetzen wäre, und noch immer haben wir die Situation, dass es durch diesen Mangel zu einem Fleckerlteppich der Umsetzung und damit zu neuen Schlupflöchern kommt, die den Binnenmarkt schwächen, die Bankenunion und unsere gemeinsame Regulierung und Aufsicht behindern.

Daher ist das Gebot der Stunde, dass wir alles zu tun haben, dass wir von der Richtlinie zur verpflichtenden Verordnung kommen; dass wir Europa stärken; dass kontrolliert und sanktioniert wird; dass wir die gemeinsamen Verpflichtungen in die Tat umsetzen, und dass wir kooperieren, statt uns voneinander abzuschotten. Nur dann sind wir glaubwürdig. Wir werden den Finger nicht von dieser Wunde wegnehmen, bis alles das getan wurde, wozu wir uns gemeinsam verpflichtet haben.

  Neena Gill (S&D). – Madam President, the scandals that have been exposed in recent years – and we’ve heard about them, we’ve seen millions and in some cases billions of euros being laundered – have left the people we represent fed up. They are fed up with always being the ones to bear the burden of the consequences when there are economic downturns, and fed up that the richest in our society and criminals are able to find ways to stash their cash away from regulatory oversight and tax collection.

Just one example: as we heard earlier, Danske Bank facilitated EUR 200 billion of suspicious transactions over eight years in Estonia. Despite executives facing criminal prosecution in several countries, the European Banking Authority this year rejected proposals that there had been breaches of Union law. Are they serious?

The Commission is still prevaricating. A few weeks ago it said it was still examining the matter. There are many, many more examples. We cannot simply wait for another big scandal. There are too many loopholes in our legislation that give opportunities to criminals and those who want to bend the rules.

If we don’t fight this kind of cross-border criminality here, where will it be done? How is the Commission going to ensure we get tougher on this issue? We have to go further with the tools available to us, and the legislation has to be implemented with vigour in all 28 Member States.

Just one quick question to the Commission: what are we doing to investigate the thousands of shell companies registered in offshore tax havens, who else is linked to them and what are their purposes?

  Antony Hook (Renew). – Madam President, it was my honour to come to this Parliament after 16 years as an advocate in criminal law, including some time as a Crown prosecutor in the UK. And what I saw in my work was that money laundering is to crime what the circulation of blood is to our bodies. Money can be obtained in a fraud, then reinvested, say, in a drugs factory, reinvested in human trafficking, and then maybe reinvested in weapons – and someone loses their life. Each time, it can move between different countries. Or it can be used to buy luxury cars, luxury houses, private education, anything of high value – lifestyles which motivate more crime.

In my country, the police estimate money laundering at GBP 100 billion every year and we have 25 different organisations meant to have some responsibility in addressing it. It is too divided.

It’s outrageous and unacceptable that some Member States have not implemented this legislation, though we also need partnership that goes beyond the European Union. Money laundering can go into Africa, into America, into Asia, and we need a framework for partnerships that trace money and trace the criminals. We need to change a culture where some law-enforcement officers, be they police or prosecutors or something else, think that money laundering is second-division crime and not important.

Brexit, of course, puts my country at much greater risk.

I hope very much the new Commission will attack this issue with vigour.

  Mikuláš Peksa (Verts/ALE). – Paní předsedající, zabránit praní špinavých peněz je klíčová otázka boje s organizovaným zločinem. Je to ale také otázka udržení důvěry občanů a prosazování principu transparentnosti. Já oceňuji posun, který přináší čtvrtá i pátá směrnice proti praní špinavých peněz. Problém ale je, že řada zemí nedokázala ani čtvrtou směrnici dostatečně implementovat.

Takže jak bude vypadat další postup? Občané věří Evropské komisi a spoléhají, že dokáže vymáhat právo. Není možné jejich důvěru zahodit, paní komisařko Jourová. Veřejné rejstříky konečných vlastníků firem jsou zásadním posunem. Pokud ale chceme efektivní veřejnou kontrolu, je nutné, aby s těmito daty šlo efektivně pracovat, musí být strojově čitelná. Jak jsme se sami přesvědčili v České republice, transparenci je nutné zavést i do svěřenských fondů. Registr skutečných majitelů svěřenských fondů je zatím dobrý krok vpřed. Už teď ale musí Komise zajistit, že členské státy nebudou omezovat přístup do těchto rejstříků např. novinářům nebo neziskovým organizacím. Neměli bychom opakovat chyby, které se staly v minulosti.

  Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, с тази резолюция ние призоваваме държавите членки да прилагат ефективно европейското законодателство, прието в областта на борбата с прането на пари в Европейския съюз, а именно Четвъртата и Петата директива за борба с прането на пари.

Критиките ни са основателни, имайки предвид, че голяма част от държавите членки все още не са транспонирали правилно правилата на Четвъртата директива, а до няколко месеца трябва да въведат разпоредбите и на Петата директива. Това е изключително важно, имайки предвид, че прекъсването на финансовите източници на тероризма цели да предотврати атаки на територията на Европейския съюз.

Факт е, че настоящата рамка на Европейския съюз в областта на борбата с прането на пари страда от недостатъци в прилагането. Ето защо е важно да се изгради един всеобхватен европейски подход, който максимално ефикасно да противодейства на прането на пари и финансирането на тероризма. Европейският съюз трябва да е способен да се справя с изпирането на пари и да се бори с финансирането на тероризма по начин, който е ефективен и автономен, особено що се отнася до включването на трети страни в черния списък на ЕС.

  Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Madam President, in the years 2007 to 2015 the Danish bank, Danske Bank, had a department in Estonia that worked as a money-laundering central with suspicious transactions for up to EUR 200 billion. The Estonian authorities warned the Danish authorities several times but the Danish authorities did nothing. As was mentioned in April, however, the European Banking Authority came with a report saying that there was no breach in Union law and that the Danish authorities had done nothing wrong.

For me, this shows that there’s something wrong, completely wrong, with the system and that we need to change. The main problem seems to be that the national authorities, which the European Banking Authority scrutinises, sit on the very board that can accept or reject the report that is critical of the Member States. It is an obvious conflict of interest. I think something should be done, and I hope the Commissioner agrees and I would like to know what the Commission proposes and how to reform the governance of the European Banking Authority.

  Ondřej Kovařík (Renew). – Madam President, it is clear that tackling money laundering is a major policy issue and cross—border challenge. Fragmentation in national implementation and supervisory practices in relation to anti—money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism is aggravating the problems we face. We must find a way for better enforcement of EU rules.

In the framework of the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Directive, a number of corrective measures have been taken to address the existing shortcomings. It is important that, in transposing the directive into national legislation, Member States work together on critical points which have been identified, including poor information sharing at both supervisory level and the level of financial institutions themselves. Information sharing is key and we should make better use of new technologies in this regard, with the aim of improving the interconnectivity of relevant databases so as to increase access to data and facilitate cross—border cooperation.

Also, as new challenges arise, such as broader use of crypto-assets, we need to adapt our approach to make sure these are covered by our AML framework. Time is of the essence, so we all need to take responsibility and act together swiftly to stem the flow of illegal money in Europe.

  Romana Tomc (PPE). – Spoštovana predsednica, hvala lepa za besedo. Dobro je, da imamo čim boljšo zakonodajo, ampak nič ne pomaga, če imamo ljudi, ki imajo namen to zakonodajo zlorabiti. Taki imajo denar in imajo odvetnike, ki jim svetujejo, kako se izogniti pravilom. Po svoje si pišejo zakone in celo vplivajo na postopke pred sodišči. Celo tu, v tem Parlamentu, smo pred preiskovalnim odborom PANA obravnavali pranje iranskega denarja v slovenski Novi Ljubljanski banki. 30 000 transakcij, milijarda eurov opranega denarja, ki je bil zelo verjetno porabljen tudi v teroristične namene. In kaj se je zgodilo? Nič.

Ravnokar v Sloveniji odmeva tudi primer, ko je bilo podjetjem, ki so v tesni povezavi z županom Ljubljane, glavnim mestom Slovenije, odpisano 29 milijonov eurov na škodo upnikov. Kot poročajo mediji, so dolžniki pred tem premoženje varno skrili na Malto, poslovanje pa poteka prek nabiralnikov in skladov neznanega porekla. Kaj nam koristi zakonodaja v preprečevanju denarja in pravila o dejanskih lastnikih. Pravne podlage imamo, kar rabimo, je pošten sistem in pošteni ljudje, ki bodo sposobni preiskati in obsoditi take zlorabe.

Spoštovana komisarka, kaj lahko storite vi oziroma institucije Evropske unije, ko gre za takšne anomalije? Imeti bi morali moč, da ukrepajo v primerih, ko nacionalni organi odpovedo.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisaria Jourová, señora representante de la Presidencia finlandesa, la lucha contra la corrupción y la criminalidad organizada importa muchísimo a la Unión Europea, y no solo en lo económico, porque es un atentado a sus valores.

Por eso, ha hecho falta el instrumento del Derecho penal contra el blanqueo de dinero y la financiación del terrorismo. Por eso, la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior se empleó a fondo y algunos de sus miembros, yo particularmente, participamos en los trabajos de la comisión de investigación sobre los papeles de Panamá. Y las lecciones fueron claras.

Ahí está la quinta Directiva para mejorar la transparencia, el intercambio de información, las unidades de inteligencia financiera, la prevención del nivel de implicación de determinados terceros países y la prevención del uso de instrumentos de prepago al servicio de la corrupción, el blanqueo de dinero y la financiación del terrorismo. Pero tan importante como este compromiso legislativo es velar por su correcta aplicación e implementación en los Estados miembros.

Por eso, urgimos a la Comisión, y este es el sentido de este debate, a que se emplee también a fondo en incoar la correcta implementación, la aseguración del cumplimiento del objetivo en los tiempos señalados por la Comisión y, en su caso, expedientes de infracción contra los países incumplidores.

  Marek Belka (S&D). – Madam President, various money laundering scandals in the banking sector, be it Danske Bank, Deutsche Bank, ING, Pilatus or ABLV, have shocked Europeans and provided proof of many weaknesses in EU cooperation. Let me remind you – let me remind ourselves – that we even needed the US authorities to shore up our own weaknesses.

I see the following main problems: national Financial Intelligence Units do not exchange the information needed, Member States do not fully implement the necessary legislation and undermine the cooperation required, while many banks do not equally apply EU rules. The problem is real. As was already mentioned, according to Europol about one percent of the EU’s GDP is detected as being involved in suspect financial activities. The lack of coordinated actions on anti-money laundering (AML) legislation deepens the already fragmented capital markets, which we want to integrate. Let me add one more thing: the ball is on the Council’s side. Any new legislative proposals are meaningless without the will for greater cooperation by the countries.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the debate clearly shows that this will remain the priority for this term of office, and I heard the contribution by those of you who went through the saga of all the action against money laundering in the term that is now finishing.

We did a lot of useful things both in legislation and in supervision and we pushed on implementation, but I would never say that the situation is ideal, or that there is nothing to improve. It will be a priority in this term of office for this Commission and this Parliament to take further action, and I agree that it should be, or could be, the regulation so that Member States will not be able to deviate from the purpose of why we are doing all this legislation against money laundering.

We are not talking here about money, we are talking about serious organised crime. We are talking about the money which enables the serious organised crime, and we are also talking about people’s trust – trust that we will do something together which will change the situation and which will finally be efficient.

We want to have a healthy financial system in Europe, which is the important element of European prosperity, so we have to filter out the risks and address them through properly functioning rules to be implemented by all. And to those of you who said that our system is only as strong as the weakest element of the system – exactly! This system must be taken seriously by all the Member States.

I heard here that the Member States should be motivated. Well, the motivation should be the same everywhere – that the laws must be implemented – and that is the crucial task of the Member States. But we have negative motivation, we have infringements.

I can give you a picture of what we are doing to enforce the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Directive. The process of supervision led to the opening of infringement proceedings against all – all – Member States, and at this moment the proceedings have been closed for five Member States only. For all the other Member States, the Commission has issued letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions and the procedure is ongoing.

On the Fifth AML Directive, to be transposed in January next year, up to now we have received the following notifications: three Member States notified complete transposition, and another five notified transposition measures. For the rest, we are monitoring the situation, and we will act very soon after the implementation date.

I shared with you my view that the regulation will be needed: it will be the right step forward. Of course, I am leaving this sector, so it is just my personal view after working on this topic.

As to why we adopted the Fourth and Fifth AML Directives: well, the Fifth Directive, which was adopted in my term of office, was a clear and very quick reaction to the Panama Papers scandal and to terrorist attacks, which it was not easy to predict or uncover early enough because there were anonymous payments involved. We had to react to that.

We also had to react to a very clear request for full transparency of beneficial ownership, and here I want to respond to Mr Kolakušić, or Mr Peksa. It was my personal very strong desire to make the beneficial ownership register fully open, fully transparent for the public, without differentiation between who has a legally proven interest and who does not, including journalists. And that will be the case. We will have fully public registers. For trust funds, the situation was more difficult, because some trust funds have a purely private foundation. So we are addressing, especially, commercial trusts, but for other trusts too there will be the possibility of getting information about the owners.

Other steps forward could include full implementation of the regulation on financial intelligence units’ cooperation. Mr Radev has left, and I had wanted to thank him for his efforts because he was the rapporteur on this piece of legislation. He could give me his confirmation that it was a very tough exercise to convince the Member States to take the necessary measures so that financial intelligence units cooperate and share information with the law-enforcement authorities within their country, and even more difficult to convince them that there should be an exchange of information cross-border.

So, to those who mentioned cross-border cooperation: it’s very weak, you are right, and we tried to improve it through this new piece of legislation, but it was not tough enough and we had to make compromises. Here too I expect some progress in this parliamentary term.

On the question of having one Union body for better supervision, while we have taken the first step, the European Banking Authority should have strengthened competences, and it is in the legislation that there should be better data collection and the possibility to act when a Member State seems to be failing to act – which was, by the way, the case of the Danske Estonian bank. I still cannot imagine how it is possible, over five or seven years, for the laundering of up to EUR 200 billion to go unnoticed. Who failed?

The investigations are still ongoing and we will know for sure who is failing, or who was the failure in the system. Denmark, in the meantime, has changed its legislation. So there are reactions, but I certainly agree that there should be one strong Union body which should supervise this.

There was also a question from Ms Tomc: who will act at European level when the Member States fail in the field of criminal law? Well, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) will start functioning from November next year, and this will be the body having specialised prosecutors on financial crime. It would be worth considering whether the EPPO could not be the body which takes cases over if Member States fail.

I know I am speaking for too long, but there were many questions. Just to conclude, Mr Casa mentioned the Whistle-blowers Directive, and this might also bring some benefits.

Thank you very much for your patience. I felt the need and obligation to react to your comments and questions because this is a priority topic, which needs to be well mastered on a political level, at European Union level, in the next term of office.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner. It is very good to see that you always respond and answer the questions from MEPs. Not every Commissioner does the same, so thank you very much for your engagement and involvement in this very important topic.

  Tytti Tuppurainen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, thank you very much for this debate. I have followed your valuable contributions with great interest. I’ve also heard the input from the Commission, which I highly value. I hope also that the Commission-to-come is aiming high here.

I was asked in particular asked about the actions taken by the Council with regard to money laundering and the recent scandals in our banks, and I agree that this is a problem. We need to get to the bottom of the issue and address it further if we conclude that the measures taken recently are not enough. We are starting to analyse the Commission’s post-mortem review of the recent alleged money laundering cases involving EU banks, and the Council will discuss this in October, that is, next month. We plan to arrive at conclusions by December this year, so actions will follow.

I also take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance which the Presidency attaches to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and I look forward to working together on these matters. The message from this discussion has been very clear: there needs to be more done for anti-money laundering and the subject was widely supported by all the different political groups. I personally can promise you that I will convey your message to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, as your contribution on this very important issue. The Presidency will remain available for exchanges on the subject as needed, so I would like to thank you all very much again for your commitment to this issue.

  President. – I have received two motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 132(2).

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 September 2019.

Written statements (Rule 171)

  Pedro Marques (S&D), por escrito. – Dados da Europol: cerca de um por cento do PIB anual da Europa está envolvido em lavagem de dinheiro. Para a Europol, corrupção, tráfico de armas e de seres humanos, crimes fiscais e terrorismo têm acesso a este dinheiro. Práticas cada vez mais elaboradas, sofisticadas. E transfronteiriças.

A UE, o Conselho, a Comissão e o PE têm, em conjunto, uma força que separados não teriam. É justo reconhecer as tentativas da Comissão para implementar as regras que existem. O S&D, com propostas concretas, tem-se batido por uma supervisão mais forte, por sanções mais duras a bancos e empresas suspeitos, em Estados-Membros que não aplicam, ou aplicam mal, as regras da UE.

É fundamental legislação que dê instrumentos de intercâmbio, de troca de informações e de inteligência financeira que nos coloquem no mesmo patamar de sofisticação dos criminosos, indo além dos padrões mínimos atuais. Apoiamos a criação de um mecanismo de apoio e de coordenação e uma análise contínua do fluxo de informações entre as unidades de inteligência financeira, adotando padrões legais comuns, sem descurar a proteção e a segurança dos dados pessoais. Combater a lavagem de dinheiro e o branqueamento de capitais é combater o terrorismo, é defender os cidadãos. É uma batalha para travarmos. Em conjunto.