Activities of Sergey LAGODINSKY related to 2022/0167(COD)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation
Opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (126)
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The main motive for cross-border organised crime, includingfinancial and economic crime including corruption, fraud, tax fraud and money laundering, as well as crime against the financial interest of the EU, and circumvention of EU-imposed trade and economic sanctions including when committed by high-risk criminal networks, is financial gain. Therefore, to tackle the serious threat posed by organised crime and other forms of serious crime with a cross-border dimension aimed at generating substantial economic benefits, competent authorities should be given the means to effectively trace and identify, freeze, confiscate and manage the instrumentalities and proceeds of crime and property that stems from criminal activities.
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) An effective asset recovery system requires the swift tracing and identification of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime, and property suspected to be of criminal origin. Such proceeds, instrumentalities, and property should be frozen in order to prevent its disappearance, following which it should be confiscated upon conclusion of criminal proceedings in criminal matters. An effective asset recovery system further requires the effective management of frozen and confiscated property to maintain its value for the State or, for the restitution for victims or for social reuse.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Therefore, the existing legal framework should be updated, so as to facilitate and ensure effective asset recovery and confiscation efforts across the Union. To that end, the Directive should lay down minimum rules on tracing and identification, freezing, confiscation and management of property within the framework of proceedings in criminal matters. In this context, proceedings in criminal matters is an autonomous concept of Union law interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, notwithstanding the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The term covers all types of freezing and confiscation orders issued following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence. It also covers other types of orders issued without a final conviction. Proceedings in criminal matters could also encompass criminal investigations by the police and other law enforcement authorities. It is necessary to reinforce the capacity of competent authorities to deprive criminals of the proceeds from criminal activities. For this purpose, rules should be laid down to strengthen asset tracing and identification, as well as freezing capabilities, to improve management of frozen and confiscated property, to strengthen the instruments to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds of crime and property derived from criminal activities of criminal organisations, and to improve the overall efficiency of the asset recovery system.
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Due to the poly-criminal nature of and the systemic and profit-oriented cooperation of criminal organisations involved in a wide range of illicit activities in different markets, an effective fight against organised crime requires that freezing and confiscation measures are available to cover the profits from all offences where organised crime groups are active in. These crimes include the areas of crime listed in Article 83(1), including the illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives as defined in the Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime, to which the Union is partyAn effective fight against organised crime requires that freezing and confiscation measures are available to cover the profits from all offences in the areas of crime listed in Article 83(1). In addition to the crimes listed in Article 83(1), the scope of the Directive should also cover all crimes that are harmonised at EU level, including frauds against the financial interests of the European Union in light of the increasing involvement of organised criminal groups in such crime area. The scope of the Directive should further include environmental crimes, which are a core business for organised criminal groups and are often connected to money laundering or concern waste and residues produced in the context of drug production and trafficking. The facilitation of unauthorized entry and residence constitute a core business for organised criminal groups and is typically connected to the trafficking in human beings.
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) OtherFinancial and economic crimes, environmental crime and crimes committed within the framework of a criminal organisation play a pivotal role in generating revenues and in enabling further crimes, including serious crimes with a cross-border nature. Such crimes should be included in the scope of the Directive to the extent to which they are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation. The counterfeiting and piracy of products is linked to money laundering and the forgery of documents, and threatens the functioning of the single market and fair competition. The illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art, is often intertwined with money laundering and constitutes an important source of financing for organised criminal groups. Forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein, including bank documents or identification documents, is a key enabling tool for money laundering, trafficking in human beings, or migrant smuggling, and should as such be covered in the scope of this Directive. Other crimes which are often carried out within the framework of an organised crime group include murder or grievous bodily harm, as well as the illicit trade in human organs and tissue, which are a source of revenue for organised crime groups in the context of contract killings, intimidation and trafficking in human beings. Similarly kidnapping, illegal restraint or hostage taking, as well as racketeering and extortion, are utilized either as source of revenue through the collection of ransom money or as intimidation tactics against adversaries. The crime of organised or armed robbery is one of the most common forms to generate profits for organised criminal groups, and it is often committed in conjunction with other crimes, in particular the trafficking in firearms. Similarly, the trafficking in stolen vehicles cannot only generate profits but also represents an enabling crime to provide for the necessary instrumentalities to carry out further offences. In addition, it is key to include tax crimes to the extent it is committed as part of a criminal organisation in the scope of the Directive, as this specific crime is an enabling source of profits, especially when operating in a cross-border context. Typical techniques employed to commit tax fraud or evasion consist of making use of cross-border corporate structures or similar arrangements to fraudulently obtain tax benefits and refunds, hide assets or profits, merge legal with illicit profits and assets or to transfer them to other entities abroad to disguise their origins or (beneficial) ownership.
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) This Directive should also apply to crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 has been ratified by all Member States of the European Union. It affirms that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, in particular genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, including the crime of aggression, must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at national level and by enhancing international cooperation. In Council Common Position 2001/443/CFSP of 11 June 2001 on the International Criminal Court, Member States declared their determination to cooperate for the prevention of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and for putting an end to the impunity of the perpetrators thereof. On 13 June 2002, the Council adopted Decision 2002/ 494/JHA setting up a European network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The EU Council Decision 2003/335/JHA applies to the investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 provides that Eurojust is competent with respect to the forms of serious crime listed in Annex I to that Regulation, which include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Pursuant to Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, Eurojust’s competence also covers criminal offences related to the criminal offences listed in Annex I to that Regulation. Furthermore, the scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/1805, relating to mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders, also includes the crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which covers war crimes. The inclusion of war crimes within the scope of this Directive is therefore essential to ensure the effective implementation of EU policies in this area, and to ensure effectiveness of Member States cooperation with EU agencies and third countries.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to perform effective asset tracing investigations, and to swiftly respond to cross-border requests, asset recovery offices should have access to the information that allows them to establish the existence, ownership or control of property that may become object of a freezing or a confiscation order. Therefore, asset recovery offices should have access to the relevant data such as fiscal data, national citizenship and population registries, commercial databases and social security information. This should include law enforcement information in so far as data such as criminal records, vehicles stops, property searches and previous legal actions such as freezing and confiscation orders or seizures of cash can be of value to identify relevant property. Access to information should be subject to specific safeguards that prevent the misuse of the access rights and undue interferences with fundamental rights of concerned individuals. These safeguards should be without prejudice to Article 25 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council23. The direct and immediate access to this information does not prevent Member States from by assets recovery offices should remaking access subject to procedural safeguards as established under national law while taking due account of the need for asset recovery offices to be able to swiftly reply to cross- border requests. The implementation of the procedural safeguards for access to databases should not affect the ability of asset recovery offices to respond to requests from other Member States, especially in case of urgent requests, provided that such requests comply with fundamental rights. Access to relevant databases and registries under this Directive should complement access to bank account information pursuant to Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council24and to beneficial ownership information pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council25, as well as access to the list of persons, groups and entities subject to EU restrictive measures. _________________ 23 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89). 24 Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 122). 25 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 (OJ L 141 5.6.2015, p. 73).
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Confiscation leads to the final deprivation of property. However, preservation of property can be a prerequisite to confiscation and is often essential for the proper tracing of proceeds and other property directly or indirectly derived from criminal conduct, and for the effective enforcement of a confiscation order. Property is preserved by means of freezing. In order to prevent the dissipation of property before a freezing order can be issued, the competent authorities in the Member States, including asset recovery offices, should be empowered to take immediate action in order to secure such property. In order to take such action with due diligence and without undue delay, those competent authorities should be sufficiently staffed and trained.
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Given the limitation on the right to property imposed by freezing orders, such provisional measures should not be maintained longer than necessary to preserve the availability of the property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. This may requirA review by the national court should be ensured in case a freview by the national courtezing order has been taken by a competent authority other than a judicial authority in order to ensure that the purpose of preventing the dissipation of property remains valid.
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Freezing measures should include measures aimed at preserving and optimizing the value of concerned property until its disposal and should be without prejudice to the possibility for a specific property to be considered evidence throughout the proceedings, in line with applicable law on admissibility of evidence and related procedural safeguards, and provided that itsuch property would ultimately be made available for effective execution of the confiscation order. In the context of criminal proceedings, property may also be frozen with a view to its possible subsequent restitution or in order to safeguard compensationto the legitimate of owner from whom the property was stolen, or in order to safeguard compensation to the victims and to the public concerned for the damage caused by a criminal offence.
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The practice by a suspected or accused person of transferring property or proceeds to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and widespread. Acquisition by a third party refers to situations where, for example, property has been acquired, directly or indirectly, for example through an intermediary, by the third party from a suspected or, accused, or convicted person, including when the criminal offence has been committed on their behalf or for their benefit, and when an accused person does not have property that can be confiscated. Such confiscation should be possible in cases where it has beena national court has established that the third parties knew or ought to have known that the property is directly or indirectly linked to criminal conduct or knew or ought to have known that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation, on the basis of concrete facts and circumstances, including that the transfer was carried out free of charge or in exchange for an amount significantly lower thandisproportionate to the market value. The rules on third party confiscation should extend to both natural and legal persons, without prejudice to the right of third parties to be heard, including the right to claim ownership of the property concerned. In any event, the rights of bona fide thircase of transferred tangible proceeds or tangible property directly derived from criminal conduct, the affected partiesy should not be affectedbear the burden of proof that the purchasing of the confiscated property has taken place in bona fide and with due diligence.
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Confiscation should also be possible where a court is satisfied that the instrumentalities, proceeds, or property in question is derived from criminal conduct but where a final conviction is not possible because of illness, or absconding or death of the suspected or accused person, or because the suspected or accused person cannot be held liable because of immunity or amnesty as provided for under international law. The same should be possible wherMember States may take the necessary measures to also enable the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds, or property in cases where criminal proceedings have been initiated but the proceedings could not be continued because of death of the suspected or accused person, or because the time limits prescribed underby national law have expired, where such time limits are not sufficiently long, and not exceeding 15 years to allow for the effective investigation and prosecution of the relevant criminal offences, while keeping to a reasonable and proportional limitation period. Confiscation in such cases should only be allowed where the national court is satisficonvinced that all the elements of the offence are present, and that the property to be confiscated is linked directly or indirectly to the criminal offence. If the verifications directed at establishing the illegal origin of the property to be confiscated take place within a criminal proceeding, the burden of proof should be carried by the prosecution. For reasons of proportionality, confiscating property without a prior conviction should be limited to cases of serious crimes. The right of the defendant to be made aware of the proceeding and to be represented by a lawyer should not be affected.
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) For the purposes of this Directive, illness should be understood to mean the inability of the suspected or accused person, corroborated by an ascertainable medical report, to attend the criminal proceedings, even remotely, for an extended period, as a result of which the proceedings cannot continue after a certain delay.
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Due to the intrinsically opaque nature of organised crime, it is not always possible to link property derived from criminal activities to a specific criminal offence and confiscate such property. In such situations, confiscation should be possible under certain conditions including in particular: the property is frozen based on suspicion of crimes committed within the framework of or in connection with a criminal organisation or state structures involved in fraudulent or corrupt activities, these criminal offences are liable to give rise to substantial economic benefits and the court is satisfior were committed by a politically exposed person in the exercise of their public function or have been facilitated by the exercise of the person’s public function, and the court is convinced that the frozen property is derived from criminal activities carried out within the framework of or in connection with a criminal organisation or state structures involved in fraudulent or corrupt activities. These conditions should ensure that confiscation of property not linked to a specific offence for which the owner has been convicted is limited to criminal activities of criminal organisations and state structures involved in fraudulent or corrupt activities, or criminal activities run in connection to them, that are serious in nature and liable to generate substantial benefits. When determining whether the offenccriminal activities are liable to give rise to significant benefits, Member States should take into account all relevant circumstances of the offencecriminal conduct, including whether the criminal activities wereoffence was committed with the intention to generate regular substantial profits or to deprive third-parties of a substantial part of their rights. While it should not be a precondition for the national court to be satisficonvinced that a criminal offence has been committed, the court must be satisficonvinced that the property in question is derived from criminal offences. When determining whether or not the property in question derived from criminal activities, the national courts should take into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including the fact that the property is substantially disproportionate to the lawful income of the owner. If the verifications directed at establishing the illegal origin of the property to be confiscated take place within a criminal proceeding, the burden of proof should be carried by the prosecution. If such verifications take place within a civil or administrative proceeding, Member States should then require and award an effective possibility for the owner of the property to prove, in a reasonable delay, that the property in question derives from lawful activities.
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 a (new)
Recital 28 a (new)
(28a) Rules for the disposal of frozen or confiscated property should give priority to the compensation of, and restitution of property to, victims. While the notion of ‘victim’ is to be interpreted in accordance with national law, such notion should also be able to provide that a legal person could be a victim for the purpose of this Directive. The public concerned, including affected communities, should be entitled to obtain restoration from damages caused by the offences directly and benefit from the returns from these damages. Frozen property and confiscated property which is not restituted to the legitimate of owner from whom the property was stolen, or that is not used for compensation to the victims and to the public concerned for the damage caused by a criminal offence, should be earmarked, as a matter of priority, for public interest and social reuse purposes, including restorative justice and crime prevention projects and for other projects of public interest, social reuse, and social utility. For the purpose of this directive, public interest, social utility and social reuse should not be understood to mean only actions under the remit of public entities. Member States should devise mechanisms that would prioritise and promote public interest and social reuse in managing and disposing of confiscated assets. Concerned public and the affected communities should be provided with assistance to help enhance their resilience to organised crime, and civil society should be involved in managing and disposing of confiscated assets for public utility purposes. Furthermore, the implementation of this Directive and in particular the measures undertaken to safeguard the value of frozen assets and confiscated property as well as the use of the proceeds from the liquidation of confiscated assets should be done in a way to ensure that no significant harm to any of the six environmental objectives, within the meaning of Article 17, on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment (EU Taxonomy Regulation) is done.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 b (new)
Recital 28 b (new)
(28b) Member States shall coordinate and facilitate possibilities for using the confiscated property for the purpose of restitution vis-a-vis third countries affected by international crimes including crime of aggression originating in the countries of the individuals subject to confiscation. Where the confiscated assets stem from the crime of Russian aggression on Ukraine or associated crimes, and without prejudice to restitution to and compensation of the victims or the public concerned by the criminal offence, the confiscated assets or the net proceeds resulting from the liquidation of such assets should be dedicated to contributions towards the reconstruction efforts of Ukraine.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) In circumstances where the property frozen is perishable, rapidly depreciating, or whose maintenance costs are disproportionate to its expected value at the time of confiscation, or that is too difficult to administer or is easily replaceable, Member States should allow for the sale of this property. The sale of confiscated should remain the last resort with respect to compensation of the victims and social reuse. Before taking such a decision, the owner of the property should have the right to be heard. Member States should consider the possibility to charge the costs of the management of frozen property to the beneficial owner, for instance in alternative to the ordering of an interlocutory sale, and in case of final conviction. These rules, including the possibility for the costs for the management of frozen property to be charged to the beneficial owner, apply to property identified in the context of the implementation of Union restrictive measures to the extent that they have been frozen in relation to criminal charges, such as violation of Union restrictive measures.
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) An effective recovery systemasset tracing and recovery system as well as maintaining the value of frozen assets requires concerted efforts of a wide range of authorities, from law enforcement, including customs authorities, tax authorities and tax recovery authorities to the extent that they are competent for asset recovery, asset recovery offices, judicial authorities and asset management authorities, including asset management offices. In order to ensure coordinated action by all competent authorities, it is necessary to establish a more strategic approach to asset recovery and promote a greater cooperation between the relevant authorities, and to obtain a clear overview of the results of asset recovery. For this purpose, Member States should adopt and regularly review a national strategy on asset recovery to guide actions in relation to financial investigations, freezing and confiscation, management as well as final disposal of the relevant instrumentalities, proceeds, or property. Furthermore, Member States should provide competent authorities with the necessary resources to be able to fulfil their tasks effectively. Competent authorities should be understood as the authorities entrusted with the carrying out of the tasks as outlined under this Directive and according to national set-ups.
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive establishes minimum rules on the tracing and identification, freezing, confiscation, and management of property within the framework of criminal proceedings in criminal matters.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive also establishes rules to facilitate the effective implementation of Union restrictive measures and the tracing and subsequent recovery of related property where necessary to prevent, detect or investigate criminal offences related to the violation of Union restrictive measures.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point l a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point l a (new)
(la) market abuse, including insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation, as defined in Directive (EU) 2014/57 of the European Parliament and of the Council49a; _________________ 49a Directive (EU) 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive) (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 179).
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point m
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point m
(m) environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties as defined in in Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council50, as well as offences related to ship pollution as defined in Directive 2005/35/EC as amended by Directive 2009/123/EC51; _________________ 50 Directive 2008/99/EC XXX [Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 28). 51 Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ L 280, 27.10.2009, p. 52).and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC] ;
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point n a (new)
(na) genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998;
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(ea) illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters;
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e b (new)
(eb) illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials;
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
(fa) racism and xenophobia;
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
(ga) swindling;
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point i a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point i a (new)
(ia) rape;
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point i b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point i b (new)
(ib) arson;
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point i c (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point i c (new)
(ic) unlawful seizure of aircraft or ships;
Amendment 151 #
(id) sabotage;
Amendment 152 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point j
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point j
(j) tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes and as defined in the national law of the Member States, which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order of at least one year.
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
(9a) ‘public concerned’, means the natural or legal persons, or groups of persons including local communities and non-governmental organisations being entitled to the compensation of the damages caused by the offences referred to in Article 2;
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)
(10a) ‘politically exposed person’ means person who is or who has been entrusted with prominent public functions in a Member State, as defined in Directive 2015/849/EU;
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Asset tracing investigations pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be carried out immediately by competent authorities whenever an investigation is initiated in relation to a criminal offence which instrumentalities and proceeds, or a property become the object of a freezing or confiscation order in the course of criminal proceedings, whenever an investigation is initiated in relation to a criminal offence listed under Article 2 paragraph 1 as well as when an investigation is initiated in relation to one of the offences identified under Article 2 paragraphs 2 and 4, when such offence is likely to give rise to substantial economic benefit, or where necessary to prevent, detect or investigate criminal offences related to the violation of Union restrictive measures.
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) trace and identify instrumentalities, proceeds, or property which may become or is the object of a freezing or confiscation order issued byto be frozen or confiscated pursuant to an order issued by a competent judicial authority in another Member State;
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) exchange information with other Member States' asset recovery offices in the Member Statesas well as with the Commission ‘Freeze and Seize’ Task Force in relatedion to the effective implementation of Union restrictive measures, where necessary to prevent, detect or investigate criminal offences.
Amendment 182 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Asset recovery offices shall be empowered to trace and identify property of persons and entities subject to EU targeted financial sanctionUnion restrictive measures where necessary to prevent, detect or investigate criminal offences. To that effect, they shall cooperate with asset recovery offices and other relevant competent authorities in other Member States and exchange relevant information.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purposes of performing the tasks referred to in Article 5, Member States shall ensure that asset recovery offices have immediate and direct accessaccess without delay to the following information to the extent that access to such information is necessary and proportionate for the tracing and identification of proceeds, instrumentalities, and property:
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall ensure that information accessed and data gathered by asset recovery offices pursuant to paragraph 1 is limited to what is adequate, relevant and not excessive for purposes of the asset tracing investigation. Member States shall ensure that information obtained by asset recovery offices shall be used only for the purpose for which it was sought.
Amendment 196 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Where the information referred to in paragraph 1 is not stored in databases or registers that are accessible to the asset recovery office, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that asset recovery offices can swiftly obtain that information by other meanssubmit a reasoned request for data access to the authorities holding the information, or to the authorities competent to order the disclosure of the data sought.
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The direct and immediate access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the procedural safeguards established under national law and the guarantees provided under the Union data protection acquis.
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that staff of the asset recovery offices comply with the procedural safeguards applicable to asset tracing investigations in criminal proceedings, rules on confidentiality and professional secrecy as provided for under applicable national law, as well as with the Union data protection acquis. Member States shall also ensure that staff of asset recovery offices have the necessary specialised skills and abilities to perform their roles effectively.
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The logs referred to in paragraph 1 may be used only for data protection monitoring, including checking the lawfulness of data processing, for criminal proceedings, and for ensuring data security and integrity. The logs shall be protected by appropriate measures against unauthorised access and erased five years after their creation. If, however, they are required for monitoring procedures that are ongoing, they shall be erased once the monitoring procedures no longer require the logs.
Amendment 206 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their asset recovery offices provide, upon request from an asset recovery office of another Member State, any information that is necessary for the performance of their tasks pursuant to Article 5. The categories of personal data that can be provided are those listed in Section B, point 2 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/794, with the exception of the special categories of personal data pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and behavioural data.
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Any request for personal data to be provided shall be determined on a case-by-case basis, in light of what is necessary for the performance of the tasks pursuant to Article 5pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be assessed by the competent asset recovery office on a case-by-case basis. Information shall be provided to the asset recovery office of the requesting Member State only to the extent that such information is necessary and proportionate for the performance of the tasks pursuant to Article 5. Member States shall ensure that information received by their asset recovery offices from another Member State asset recovery office shall be used only for the purpose for which it was requested.
Amendment 212 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the legal and factual grounds upon which the request is based, and the indication of the reasons for the request, including the relevance of the information requested for the tracing and identification of the property;
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) and/or the natural or legal persons presumed to be involved, such as names, addresses, dates and places of birth, date of registration, shareholders, headquarternationality and place of residence, date of registration, shareholders, country of establishment, headquarters and subsidiaries;
Amendment 214 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable that their asset asset recovery offices exchange information with asset recovery offices of other Member States, without a request to that effect, whenever they are aware of information on instrumentalities, proceeds, or property that they consider necessary for the performance of the tasks of the asset recovery offices of that other Member State pursuant to Article 5. When providing such information, asset recovery offices shall set out the reasons why the information exchanged is considered necessary.
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that tThe information provided by asset recovery offices pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 canmay be presented as evidence before a national court of a Member State, in accordance with procedures in national lawthat Member State’s procedural rules on admissibility of evidence in criminal matters, and in full compliance with the obligations under Article 6 TEU.
Amendment 218 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point b
(b) jeopardise an ongoing investigation, or a criminal intelligence operation, or pose an imminent threat to the life or physical integrity of a person.;
Amendment 220 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point b a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point b a (new)
(ba) not be in accordance with fundamental principles of national law, including Member State’s obligations under Article 6 TEU.
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable the freezing of property necessary to ensure a possible confiscation of and preservation of that property under Articles 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. When necessary to preserve the property, Member States shall enable asset recovery offices to take immediate action pursuant to paragraph 2 until a freezing order pursuant to paragraph 1, or other competent authorities, to take immediate freezing measures until a freezing order is issued. The validity of such temporary urgent freezing measures shall not exceed seven days.
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. Property in the possession of a third party can be subject to freezing measures pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 and 32 where necessary to ensure a possible confiscation under article 13.
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Article 11 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall ensure that the freezing orders and measures pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 43 are issued by a competent authority and are adequately motivated. In case the freezing order under this Directive has been issued by a competent authority other than a judicial authority, national law shall provide that such an order is to be either validated or annulled by a judicial authority without undue delay.
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 6
Article 11 – paragraph 6
6. The freezing order pursuant to paragraph 1 shall remain in force only for as long as it is necessary to preserve the property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. Frozen property which is not subsequently confiscated, shall be returned without delay to the owner of the property without delayor to the person from whom the property was seized. The conditions or procedural rules under which such property is returned shall be determined by national law.
Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. The provisions under this article shall not preclude possibility to freezing on other legal grounds.
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable the confiscation of proceeds, or other property the value of which corresponds to proceeds, which, and instrumentalities which were acquired by or otherwise directly or indirectly, were transferred by a suspected or accused person to third parties, or which were acquired by third parties from a suspected or accused personto a third party from a suspected, accused or convicted person. Member States shall also take the necessary measures to enable the confiscation of property, other than proceeds and instrumentalities and within the value that corresponds to those proceeds and instrumentalities transferred to a third party.
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 shall not affect the rights of bona fide third parties. In case of transferred tangible proceeds or tangible property directly derived from criminal conduct, the affected party shall bear the burden of proof that the purchasing of the confiscated property has taken place in bona fide and with due diligence.
Amendment 245 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
In all other cases, the court has to establish based on all the proven circumstances of the case that the benefiting third parties knew or ought to have known that the transferred instrumentalities, proceeds or property are directly or indirectly linked to criminal conduct or that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation. Such facts and circumstances from which can be inferred that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation include that the transfer or acquisition was carried out free of charge or in exchange for an amount significantly disproportionate to the market value.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall ensure that the affected person’s rights are respected including by granting access to a lawyer, and awarding access to the file and the right to be heard on issues of law and fact.
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. In determining whether the property in question is derived from criminal conduct, account shall be taken of all the circumstances of the case, including the specific facts and available evidence, such as that the value of the property is significantly disproportionate to the lawful income of the convicted person.
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) illness of the suspected or accused person if this results in the expiry of the time limits laid down in national law for criminal liability;
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) personal or functional immunity from prosecution of the suspected or accused person, as provided for under international law;
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point f
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States may take the necessary measures to enable, under the conditions set out in paragraph 2, the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds, or property as referred to in Article 12, or which was transferred to third parties as referred to in Article 13, in cases where criminal proceedings have been initiated but the proceedings could not be continued because of the following circumstances: (a) death of the suspected or accused person; (b) the time limits prescribed by national law have expired, where such limits are not sufficiently long, and not exceeding 15 years to allow for the effective investigation and prosecution of the relevant criminal offences, while keeping to a reasonable and proportional limitation period.
Amendment 260 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Confiscation without a prior conviction shall be limited to criminal offences liable to give rise, directly or indirectly, to substantial economic benefit and only insofar as the national court is satisfihas established that all the elements of the offence are present. The instrumentalities, proceeds or property to be confiscated must be linked directly or indirectly linked to the criminal offence. In the determination of the link, account shall be taken of all the circumstances of the case, including the specific facts and available evidence. The burden of proof shall lie with the prosecution.
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Before a confiscation order within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 2 is issued by the court, Member States shall ensure that the affected person’s rights of defence are respected including by granting access to a lawyer, and awarding access to the file and the right to be heard on issues of law and fact.
Amendment 262 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
4. For the purposes of this Article, the notion of ‘criminal offence’ shall include offences listed in Article 2 when punishable by deprivation of liberty of a maximum of at least four years, or committed within the framework of or in connection with a criminal organisation, or constituting a violation of EU restrictive measures.
Amendment 264 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the property is frozen in the context of an investigation into criminal offences committed in the framework of or in connection with a criminal organisation or EU or non-EU public structures promoted or financed, at least partially, by public authorities and involved in fraudulent or corrupt activities;
Amendment 265 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the criminal offence pursuant to point (a) is liable to give rise, directly or indirectly, to substantial economic benefit, or was committed by a politically exposed person in the exercise of their public function, or has been facilitated by the person’s public function;
Amendment 266 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the national court is satisficonvinced that the frozen property is derived from criminal offences committed in the framework of or in connection with a criminal organisation, or EU or non-EU public structures promoted or financed, at least partially, by public authorities and involved in fraudulent or corrupt activities.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. When determining whether the frozen property is derived from criminal offences, account shall be taken of all the circumstances of the case, including the specific facts and available evidence, such as that the value of the property is substantially disproportionate to the lawful income of the owner of the property. The burden of proof shall lie with the prosecution.
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4
Article 16 – paragraph 4
4. Before a confiscation order within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 2 is issued by the court, Member States shall ensure that the affected person’s rights of defence are respected including by granting access to a lawyer, and awarding access to the file and the right to be heard on issues of law and fact.
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall consider takingtake the necessary measures allowing confiscated property to be used for public interest or social purposes.
Amendment 279 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – title
Article 18 – title
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Where, as a result of a criminal offence, victims or the public concerned have claims against the person who is subject to a confiscation measure provided for under this Directive, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the confiscation measure does not affect victims’ rightsthe right of the victims or of the public concerned to obtain compensation for their claims.
Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Public concerned can also include the natural or legal persons, or groups of persons including local communities and non-governmental organisations of third countries directly or indirectly affected by the criminal conduct of the suspected, accused or convicted property owners or the states of their nationality.
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure the efficient management of frozen and confiscated property until its disposal, including through the measures mentioned in Article 17, paragraph 2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure full transparency in the procedures and criteria to apply in the assignment of the frozen and confiscated property to be managed. Member States shall promote the involvement of civil society organisations in managing and disposing of frozen and confiscated property for public interest or social purposes.
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that property frozen pursuant to Article 11 paragraph 1 cannot be transferred or sold before the issuing of a confiscation order, except in one or more of the following circumstances:
Amendment 292 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the property is too difficult to administer, or its managementmanagement of the property requires special conditions and expertise that are non-readily available expertise.
Amendment 293 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Amendment 294 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. Earnings from interlocutory sales shouldall be secured until a judicial decision on confiscation is reached. Member States shall take appropriate measures to protect third party buyers of property sold from retaliatory measures, to ensure that the property sold is not returned to persons convicted of the criminal offences referred to in Article 2.
Amendment 296 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 4
Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. When provided under national law, Member States may require the costs for the management of frozen property to be charged, at least partially, to the beneficial owner. Member States shall ensure sufficient budgetary resources to properly manage and maintain value frozen property in cases where there is no possibility to charge the costs for the management of such property to the beneficial owner, or proceed with an interlocutory sale.
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) to cooperate with other competent authorities responsible for the tracing and identification, freezing and confiscation of property, pursuant to this Directive, including EU agencies and bodies referred to in Article 28, in accordance with the areas of their competence;
Amendment 299 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) to cooperate with other competent authorities responsible for the management of frozen and confiscated property in cross- border cases.;
Amendment 300 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) to cooperate with civil society organisations involved in managing and disposing of frozen and confiscated property for public interest or social purposes.
Amendment 303 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the freezing orders pursuant to Article 11, confiscation orders pursuant to Articles 12 to 16, and orders to sell the property pursuant to Article 20 are communicated to the affected person setting out the reasons for the measure. The affected persons shall also be informed of their rights and of the legal remedies available pursuant to Article 23.
Amendment 306 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
In the case of confiscation orders pursuant to Article 13, such circumstance shall include facts and circumstances on which the finding was based that the third party knew or ought to have known that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation or that the transferred instrumentalities, proceeds or property were directly or indirectly linked to, or derived from, a criminal conduct.
Amendment 307 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
In the case of confiscation orders pursuant to Article 15, such circumstances shall include facts and evidence on the basis of which the national court concluded that all the elements of the offence are present, and that the property concerned is considered to be property that is derived from criminal conduct.
Amendment 309 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall adopt by [one year after the entry into force of this Directive] a national strategy on asset recovery and update it at regular intervals of no longer than five years. our years, based on a risk-analysis-based-approach, in order to take account of relevant developments and trends related to the areas of crimes covered by this Directive.
Amendment 313 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) measures taken to ensure the social re-use of confiscated property;
Amendment 314 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
(bb) measures taken to ensure that the confiscated property is used to compensate the victims and the public concerned;
Amendment 315 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) appropriate mechanisms to ensure complementarity with the national strategies adopted by other Member States, and mechanisms and procedures for coordination and cooperation with relevant EU agencies and bodies;
Amendment 316 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
(cb) the use of administrative and civil law procedures to freeze and confiscate assets;
Amendment 318 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) procedures for regular monitoring and evaluation of the results achieved, and of the degree of implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Directive.
Amendment 319 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall cooperate with the Commission to monitor, on a regular basis, the implementation of this Directive and to exchange experiences and best practices on how to ensure victims’ compensation and the use of confiscated properties for public or social purposes. Member States shall communicate their strategies, and any updates of their strategies, to the Commission within three months from their adoption.
Amendment 320 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – title
Article 25 – title
Resources and training
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that asset recovery offices and asset management officother competent authorities performing tasks pursuant to this Directive, have a sufficient number of appropriately qualified staff and appropriate financial, technical and technological resources necessary for the effective performance of their functions related to the implementation of this Directive.
Amendment 324 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Without prejudice to judicial independence and specifities in the organisation of the judiciary across the Union, Member States shall request those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors, police, judicial staff and competent authorities involved in asset identification, asset tracing, asset recovery and confiscation procedures to provide at regular intervals specialised training and exchanges of best practices at EU level to ensure the effective achievement of the objectives of this Directive. The specialised training shall cover the practical use of tools available for identification, tracing and recovery of assets, cooperation between the different authorities, the protection of the rights of the victims and the public concerned, as well as ethics, integrity, anti-corruption standards.
Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that asset recovery offices, asset management offices, and other competent authorities performing tasks pursuant to Article 4, 19 and 20 , have the power to enter, access and search, directly and immediately, the information referred to in paragraph 3. Member States shall ensure that information stored in the registry can only be accessed and used for the purposes of freezing, confiscation and management of instrumentalities and proceeds, or property which may become or is the object of a confiscation order.
Amendment 332 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Member States shall designate the authority responsible for the management of the centralised registries referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 333 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 5 b (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Member States shall ensure that the centralised registries referred to in paragraph 1 are compatible with the tools used for the digital communication in judicial cooperation procedures in civil, commercial and criminal matters, such as the decentralised IT system and European electronic access point regulated under Regulation XX/XXX and Directive XX/XXX [Digitalisation of judicial cooperation package].
Amendment 339 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
The statistical data referred to in paragraph 1 shall include at least the following:
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
(a) the number of asset tracing investigations launched, and the number of asset traced;
Amendment 341 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)
(b) the number of freezing orders adopted;
Amendment 342 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point c (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point c (new)
(c) the types and number of confiscation procedures initiated;
Amendment 343 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point d (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point d (new)
(d) the types and number of confiscation order adopted;
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point e (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point e (new)
(e) the types and number of assets confiscated pursuant to the different types of confiscation orders adopted;
Amendment 345 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point f (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point f (new)
(f) the average length of the confiscation procedures;
Amendment 346 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point g (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point g (new)
(g) the number of dismissed court cases for environmental crime;
Amendment 347 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point h (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – point h (new)
(h) the cases where frozen and confiscated property is used for public interest or social purposes.
Amendment 348 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall transmit the statistics referred to in paragraph 2 using a standard form established by the Commission. The Commission shall establish the standard form within 1 year after the entry into force of this Directive. The Commission shall regularly publish a report based on the statistical data transmitted by the Member States. The report shall be published for the first time two years after the entry into force of this Directive.
Amendment 356 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point a (new)
(a) ensuring common priorities and understanding of the relationship between criminal and administrative enforcement;
Amendment 357 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point b (new)
(b) exchange of information for strategic and operational purposes;
Amendment 358 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point c (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point c (new)
(c) consultation in individual investigations;
Amendment 359 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point d (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 2 – point d (new)
(d) assistance to European agencies and bodies, and European networks of practitioners.
Amendment 361 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. The European Commission shall facilitate cooperation between competent authorities and EU agencies and bodies, including by providing financial support and by promoting a more institutionalised structure for existing networks of practitioners.
Amendment 364 #
1. The Commission shall, by [date of entry into force + 32 years], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the implementation of this Directive.
Amendment 365 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 2
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall, by [date of entry into force + 54 years], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council evaluating this Directive. The Commission shall take into account the information provided by Member States and any other relevant information related to the transposition and implementation of this Directive. On the basis of this evaluation, the Commission shall decide on appropriate follow-up actions, including, if necessary, a legislative proposal.