13 Amendments of Emmanuel MAUREL related to 2022/0167(COD)
Amendment 48 #
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 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 been established that third parties 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 than 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 third parties should not be affected. However, this principle of good faith should not be applied if the third party knew or should have known that the transferred property or proceeds were directly or indirectly linked to criminal conduct.
Amendment 62 #
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, absconding or death of the suspected or accused person, or because the suspected or accused person cannot be held liable because of personal or functional immunity or amnesty as provided for under national or international law. The same should be possible where the time limits prescribed under national law have expired, where such time limits are not sufficiently long to allow for the effective investigation and prosecution of the relevant criminal offences. Confiscation in such cases should only be allowed where the national court is satisfied that all the elements of the offence are present. 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 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable the freezing and preservation of property necessary to ensure a possible confiscation of that property under Article 12.
Amendment 91 #
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. Good faith shall not be assumed if the third party knew or should have known that the transferred property or proceeds were directly or indirectly linked to criminal conduct.
Amendment 97 #
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 national law;
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the time limits prescribed by national law have expired, where such limits are not sufficiently long (not exceeding 15 years) to allow for the effective investigation and prosecution of the relevant criminal offences.
Amendment 109 #
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 awarding access, in particular to a lawyer, to the file and the right to be heard on issues of law and fact.
Amendment 115 #
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 awarding access, in particular to a lawyer, to the file and the right to be heard on issues of law and fact.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – title
Article 18 – title
Amendment 126 #
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 set out in Article 17(2);
Amendment 131 #
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 this property requires special conditions and non-readily available expertise.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
3. Earnings from interlocutory sales should 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 any threats or other retaliatory measures, to ensure that the property sold is not returned to persons convicted of the criminal offences referred to in Article 2.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall provide for the effective possibility for the person whose property is affected to challenge the freezing order pursuant to article 11 before a court, in accordance with procedures provided for in national law. Where the freezing order has been taken by a competent authority other than a judicial authority, national law shall provide that such an order is first to be submitted for validation or review in reasonable time to a judicial authority before it can be challenged before a court.