|
The elimination of borders in the European Union has boosted trade, industry and the free movement of people. However, the EU is doing its utmost to put up barriers to organised crime, whose perpetrators would dearly love to take advantage of the EU's open doors in their own way. Criminals have in fact already discovered new ways of operating - new methods of money laundering, organ trafficking and even evading punishment. This is where the EU has decided that freedom can go too far.
There are two EU legislative acts which are vital instruments in the fight against money laundering. The first, which has already been enacted in national law, aims to prevent abuses in the financial sector, while the second seeks to promote cooperation between customs authorities in order to prevent illegal financial transactions.
To protect the financial system from illegal transactions, the EU has tightened up various parts of an anti-money laundering directive dating back to 1991. The new law targets money laundering not only of the proceeds from drug trafficking but any other kind, for example in connection with the funding of terrorism. Compared to the old directive, the new one makes a much broader group of people accountable for their actions, such as estate agents, notaries and dealers in high-value goods, if they have grounds for suspicion that their clients may be attempting to launder illegally earned money. It is up to the professionals in question to decide whether or not to inform their clients that their personal data has been forwarded to the authorities. Agreement was reached on the latter point during the conciliation procedure.
MEPs also welcomed the agreement reached in conciliation on the much-debated issue of preserving client confidentiality for lawyers. This practice will continue to be allowed, unless the lawyers in question are knowingly allowing their advice to be used to support money laundering operations.
Using customs controls to intercept dirty money
Another draft anti-money-laundering law closely related to the above directive (which has already entered into force) has been drawn up to strengthen cooperation between the customs authorities of external EU borders. Creating greater transparency in the financial system is not sufficient to prevent daily inflows and outflows across Community borders of considerable sums of money and goods of dubious origin. The draft law proposed by the Commission would require anyone carrying over EUR 15,000 in cash when entering or leaving the EU customs area to declare it in writing.
This is not enough for MEPs, however, who believe that a requirement to make a declaration is not enough, as people would still have the options of not submitting a declaration at all, of issuing a false declaration or of importing or exporting the entire sum of money in several instalments. MEPs therefore want to give the EU Member States, as an alternative to a system of declarations, the option of introducing a procedure whereby a traveller carrying more than EUR 15,000 in cash would be obliged, at the request of an official, to disclose details of the money and of its provenance and intended use. For this procedure to be allowed, the new law will have to take the form of a directive rather than a regulation.
In addition, MEPs are advocating that the sums of money confiscated should, as a rule, be kept only for a maximum of three working days. However, where national law permits, EU countries should be able to extend this deadline to up to a month, although only once. The findings of the customs authorities should be stored in a data base at the European Police Office (Europol), so that they can be used in the fight against money laundering - but only for this purpose.
Through a Council Decision, the EU has also called on the Member States to improve the flow of information between financial intelligence units in their countries for the purpose of monitoring suspicious or conspicuous financial transactions. Where there are strong suspicions that money from criminal undertakings is about to be laundered, the financial intelligence units should be able to intervene more swiftly.
Ending the trade in organs and tissues
Trafficking in human tissues and organs is a form of trafficking in human beings, and for criminal organisations it is a lucrative cross-border business. The EU has announced that it will firmly combat this serious violation of human rights and human dignity. A proposed framework decision would require the Member States to make offences relating to organ and tissue trafficking punishable by law. These offences would include not only the actual removal and sale of body parts, but also any assistance in the form of transport, import, export and storage.
It will be illegal for professional traffickers to urge or force people to undergo on-the-spot organ or tissue transplants, such as the donation of a kidney, by taking advantage, for example, of the financial hardship of their victims and offering a good price for the organ, or by blackmailing them, or to remove body parts from a dead person who had not agreed to donate them during his or her lifetime.
The EP strongly backed the framework decision but MEPs nevertheless called for a number of amendments. They want to include an explicit reference to the risk that organ trafficking poses to public health. They argue that anyone who has their organs or tissues removed under psychological or financial pressure, let alone violently, will not provide truthful information about any possible diseases they might have. For the recipient of such body parts, there is thus a huge risk to their health and even the danger of death.
In order to avoid stigmatising organ and tissue transplants as such, MEPs are insisting that this law should always refer to 'illegal' trafficking in organs and tissues, as it must be clear that this has nothing to do with the legal transplant system. However, they believe that illegal trafficking will only become unprofitable for criminal organisations when sufficient organs and tissues are made available legally. MEPs would therefore like to increase public willingness to donate organs after death. To achieve this, they are calling for information campaigns to be conducted on this topic throughout the EU. They are also keen for the Member States to enact the national legislation needed to comply with the EU decision - on which, incidentally, the Council will have the final say - by the end of 2004.
European arrest warrant: quicker and easier
Whether one is dealing with money launderers, traffickers in human beings, organ traffickers or terrorists, the European arrest warrant, which came into existence in January 2004, should simplify and speed up the extradition of suspects or offenders from one EU Member State to another. In the past delays could drag on for years: individual EU countries rarely recognised each other's court rulings and extradition procedures were lengthy and complicated. But now policy has been harmonised across the EU.
The European arrest warrant applies to offenders convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of at least four months, or individuals suspected of an offence punishable by a prison term of more than a year. It covers thirty-two offences, including terrorism and trafficking in human beings, hostage-taking, armed robbery, rape and xenophobia. The judicial authorities of all the Member States must recognise a European arrest warrant issued by another Member State, with only a minimum of formalities, and extradite the wanted person after his or her arrest within a maximum of 90 days.
On 1 January 2004 Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Portugal, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom had incorporated this framework decision into national law, and of the new Member States only Hungary had done so. The deadline for the new Member States was Accession Day - 1 May 2004.
|
