2016/0414(COD) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

~~(1)~~1. Money laundering and the ~~associ~~related financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union. In order to tackle those problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34, this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better ~~cross- border~~ cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73), on a cross-border basis and with the EU agencies responsible, to improve exchanges of information and identify those instigating terrorism.

Amendment 14 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) Money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union. In order to tackle those problems and also complement and reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34 , this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better cross- border cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73).

Amendment 15 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

~~(2)~~2. Measures adopted solely at national or even at Union level, without taking into account international coordination and cooperation, ~~would~~ have very limited effect. The current EU legislative framework is neither comprehensive nor sufficiently coherent to be fully effective. While the Member States criminalise money laundering, there are significant differences between them regarding the definition of what constitutes money laundering and what are predicate offences, as well as with regard to the level of sanctions. The differences in legal frameworks can be exploited by criminals and terrorists, who can choose to carry out their financial transactions where they perceive anti-money laundering measures to be weakest. The measures adopted by the Union in countering money laundering should therefore be compatible with, and at least as stringent as, other actions undertaken in international fora.

Amendment 16 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

~~(3)~~3. Union action should continue to take particular account of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and instruments of other international organisations and bodies bodies active in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The relevant Union legal acts should, where appropriate, be further aligned with the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the ‘revised FATF Recommendations’). As a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198), the Union should transpose the requirements of that Convention into its legal order.

Amendment 17 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)

(4a) According to available evidence, criminal proceeds of around EUR 110 billion 1a have been injected into the main illicit markets of the European Union, while only a small fraction thereof has been recovered 2a. A stronger EU legal framework would therefore help to tackle terrorist funding more effectively and reduce the threat from terrorist organisations by making it harder for them to to finance their activities.

Amendment 18 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) The definition of criminal activities which constitute predicate offences for money laundering should be sufficiently uniform in all the Member States. Member States should ~~include a range of offences within each of the categories designated by the FATF~~penalise money laundering offences arising in connection with any offences punishable by deprivation of liberty to the degree stipulated in this Directive. Furthermore, where this is not already being done through the application of these penalty thresholds, Member States should include a range of offences within each of the categories designated on the basis of this Directive. In that case, Member States may decide on how to classify the range of offences in the relevant categories. Where categories of offences, such as terrorism or environmental crimes, ~~are~~include offences set out in Union law, this Directive refers to such legislation. ~~This ensures that the laundering of the proceeds of the financing of terrorism and wildlife trafficking are punishable in the Member States~~Member States should, in line with the above definition, treat any offence provided for in this EU legislation as a predicate offence. The expression 'any offence' does not necessarily imply that all offences defined in existing EU instruments should be considered predicate offences. (...). Any involvement in the commission of a predicate offence punishable under national law as a criminal offence is also regarded as a criminal activity for the purposes of this Directive. In cases where Union law allows Member States to provide for other sanctions than criminal sanctions, this Directive should not require Member States to ~~establish~~classify those cases as predicate offences for the purposes of this Directive.

Amendment 19 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) The definition of criminal activities which constitute predicate offences for money laundering should be sufficiently ~~uniform~~aligned in all the Member States. Member States should include a range of offences within each of the categories designated by the FATF. Where categories of offences, such as terrorism or environmental crimes, are set out in Union law, this Directive refers to such legislation. This ensures that the laundering of the proceeds of the financing of terrorism and wildlife trafficking are punishable in the Member States. In cases where Union law allows Member States to provide for other sanctions than criminal sanctions, this Directive should not require Member States to establish those cases as predicate offences for the purposes of this Directive.

Amendment 20 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) This Directive should not apply to money laundering as regards property derived from offences affecting the Union's financial interests, which is subject to specific rules as laid down in Directive 2017/XX/EU36.Nevertheless, Member States may still transpose these two Directives through a single comprehensive framework at national level. In accordance with Article 325(2) TFEU, the Member States shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests. _________________ 36Directive 2017/XX/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of x x 2017 on the protection of the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ x L, xx.xx.2017, p.x).

Amendment 21 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) ~~Where~~Member States should thus ensure that certain types of money laundering activity are also punishable when committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity through which the property was obtained (self-laundering). Where, in such cases, money laundering activity does not simply amount to the mere possession or use, but also involves the transfer ~~or the~~, conversion, concealing ~~and~~or disguise of property through the financial system and results in further damage than that already caused by the predicate offence, such as damaging the integrity of the financial system, ~~that activity should be punished separately. Member States should thus ensure that such conduct is also punishable when committed by the perpetrator of the~~for example by putting into circulation the proceeds of criminal activity, th~~at generated that property (so-called self- laundering)~~ereby concealing the illegal provenance thereof, such activities should also be punishable.

Amendment 22 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

Amendment 23 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In order for criminal proceedings against money laundering to be an effective tool ~~against organised crime, it should not be necessary~~, sentencing should be possible without the need to identify the specifics of the ~~crime~~predicate offence that that generated the property, ~~let alone require~~and still less point to a prior or simultaneous conviction for that crime. In line with their internal legal requirements, Member States may provide the necessary guarantees through non- legislative means. Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence in that Member State or third country. Member States may establish as a prerequisite the fact that the predicate offence would have been a crime in its national law, had it been committed thersubject to the conditions set out in this Directive.

Amendment 24 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)

(9 a) It is in the interest of justice that persons accused of an offence under Articles 3 and 4 of this Directive have a real opportunity to present their case and challenge the charges against them, and have access to the submissions and evidence against them.While the cases concerning terrorism and the financing of terrorism are of serious nature, there is an overriding imperative to disclose to individuals the essence of the case against them when they face the prospect of coercive measures by the State, so that they can give effective instructions to their lawyer or to the special lawyer.This Directive should also adhere to the principle of equality of arms between the parties.

Amendment 25 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

(10) This Directive aims to criminalise money laundering when committed intentionally. Intention and knowledge may be inferred from objective, factual circumstances. As this Directive provides for minimum rules, Member States are free to adopt or maintain more stringent criminal law rules for money laundering. and in the knowledge that the property was obtained through illegal acts. In this context it is irrelevant whether the property was obtained directly or indirectly from such activities, in accordance with the broad definition of 'proceeds of criminal acts', as laid down in Directive 2014/42/EU. Intention and awareness of the facts may be inferred from objective, factual circumstances. As this Directive provides for minimum rules, Member States are free to adopt or maintain more stringent criminal law rules for money laundering. Where there are divergences between Member States between legal definitions regarding the subjective element required for the offence, but these divergences have not been identified as a substantial problem for cross-border cooperation., the Member States may, for example, provide that money laundering committed recklessly or by serious negligence constitutes a criminal offence.

Amendment 26 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11). In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. Where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA378 or where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)ensure that such offences carry a maximum of at least four years' imprisonment. This obligation is without prejudice to the imposition and application of penalties and enforcement of judgments in accordance with the factual circumstances of each individual case.

Amendment 27 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. Where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 8 or where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering or when the perpetrator is a politically exposed person, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)

Amendment 28 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) Member States should ensure that judges or courts may take into account aggravating circumstances as defined in this Directive when determining sentences for offenders, although there is no obligation to increase the penalty.It is up to the judges or courts to decide, in view of all the facts of the case, whether to take into account the aggravating circumstance.Member States are not required to adduce aggravating circumstances in cases where sentences for the offences defined in Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA are determined separately under national law and may result in severer penalties.

Amendment 29 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) Given the mobility of perpetrators and proceeds stemming from criminal activities, as well as the complex cross- border investigations required to combat money laundering, all Member States should establish their jurisdiction in order to enable the competent authorities to investigate and prosecute such activities. Member States should thereby ensure that their jurisdiction includes situations where an offence is committed by means of information and communication technology from their territory, whether or not based in their territory. Under the international human rights law concept of jurisdiction, States that are contracting parties to human rights treaties are obliged to secure the rights for individuals falling within their jurisdiction, even if such individuals are outside their territory.

Amendment 30 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) To ensure the success of investigations and prosecution of money laundering offences, those responsible for investigating or prosecuting such offences should be given access to effective investigative tools such as those used to combat organised crime or other serious crimes.The use of such tools should, in accordance with national law, take into account the principle of proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation and respect the right to personal data protection.

Amendment 31 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)

(12 a) In countering money laundering by means of criminal law, a high level of legal certainty as well as respect for fundamental rights and, in particular, the rights of the accused should be ensured.In that respect, all measures taken by Member States should be proportionate and balanced.

Amendment 32 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14

(14) Since the objective of this Directive~~, namely to subject money laundering in all Member States to effective, proportionnate and dissuasive criminal penalties,~~ cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects ~~of this Directive~~thereof, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

Amendment 33 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14

(14) [In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.deleted

Amendment 34 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15

~~(15) AND/OR~~deleted

Amendment 35 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of money laundering, helping to update existing legislation and remedy any shortcomings identified.This would create a strengthened EU legal framework making it possible to deal with terrorist funding more effectively and reduce the threat from terrorist organisations by making it harder for them to finance their activities.

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The establishment, implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Directive should be carried out in full compliance with the obligations set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.All measures adopted by the Union and its Member States in relation to the criminalisation of money laundering as provided for in this Directive, and the determination of criminal and non-criminal sanctions thereof, must be subject to the principle of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, to the presumption of innocence and to the rights of defence, and should exclude any forms or arbitrariness.

Amendment 37 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. This Directive shall adhere in full to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Amendment 38 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. This Directive shall fully respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Amendment 39 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

(1). "criminal activity" means any kind of criminal involvement in the commission of ~~the following crimes~~all offences under national law that are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a maximum of at least one year or, as regards Member States that have a minimum threshold for offences in their legal system, all offences punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a minimum of at least six months; Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that a range of offences falling within the categories listed below are regarded as criminal activity for the purposes of this Directive:

Amendment 40 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point g

(g) illicit trafficking in stolen goods and other goods, such as trafficking of crude oil, weapons, narcotics, tobacco and tobacco products, precious metals and minerals, cultural artefacts and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural and religious importance, or rare scientific value, as well as ivory and wildlife;

Amendment 41 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point p

(p) smuggling ~~(including in relation to customs and excise duties and taxes);~~

Amendment 42 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point p a (new)

(pa) tax crimes linked to direct and indirect taxation as defined under national law in the Member State;

Amendment 43 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point v

(v) all offences, including tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes as defined in the national law of the Member States, which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a maximum of more than one year or, as regards Member States that have a minimum threshold for offences in their legal system, all offences punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a minimum of more than six months;deleted

Amendment 44 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. ~~Each~~ Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following conduct shall be a punishable criminal offence, when committed intentionally:

Amendment 45 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the conversion or transfer of property, knowing that such property is derived from criminal ~~activity or from an act of participation in such~~ activity, for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or of assisting any person who is involved in the commission of such an activity to evade the legal consequences of that person's action;

Amendment 46 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, rights with respect to, or ownership of, property, knowing that such property is derived from criminal ~~activity or from an act of participation in such an~~ activity;

Amendment 47 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing ,at the time of receipt, that such property was derived from criminal activity ~~or from an act of participation in such an activity.~~;

Amendment 48 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession, management or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt, that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 49 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. ~~In order for an offence referred to in paragraph 1 to be punishable, it shall not be necessary to establish~~Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that:

Amendment 50 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. ~~In order for an offence referred to~~ For the purpose of implementing paragraph 1 ~~to be punishable, it shall not be necessary to establish~~, each Member State shall ensure that:

Amendment 51 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) a prior or simultaneous conviction for the criminal activity that generated the propertyshall not be a precondition for sentencing perpetrators of the offences referred to in paragraph (1);

Amendment 52 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) it is not necessary to establish a prior or simultaneous conviction for the criminal activity that generated the property;

Amendment 53 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) ~~the identity of the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated the property or other circumstances relating to that criminal~~a conviction for the offences referred to in paragraph (1) shall be possible where it is established that the property has been obtained through the criminal activities referred to in Article 2(1), without it being necessary to establish all the facts or circumstances surrounding such activity;.

Amendment 54 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) it is not necessary to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated the property or other circumstances relating to that criminal activity;

Amendment 55 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) it is not necessary to establish whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of another Member State or in that of a third country, when the relevant conduct is a criminal offence under the national law of the Member State or the third country where the conduct was committed and would be a criminal offence under the national law of the Member State implementing or applying this Article had it been committed there;

Amendment 56 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) ~~whether the criminal activity that genera~~offences referred to in paragraph (1) shall extend theo property ~~was carried out~~obtained through the acts committed in the territory of another Member State or in that of a third country, when the relevant conduct iswould be a criminal ~~offence under the national law of the Member State or the third country w~~activity if committed in the territory of the Member State concerned. Member States may also call for the re ~~the~~levant conduct ~~was committed and would be a criminal offenc~~to be treated as an offence punishable under the national law of the other Member State ~~implementing or applying this Article had it been committed there~~or third country in question;

Amendment 57 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. ~~The offences referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall also apply to~~Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the conduct referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 is considered as a punishable criminal offence when perpetrated by persons who committed or ~~participat~~were involved in the criminal activity from which the property was derived.

Amendment 58 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. The knowledge, intent or purpose required as an element of an offence set out in paragraph 1 may be inferred from objective, factual circumstances.

Amendment 59 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1

Each Member State shall ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting ~~and~~, counselling the commission of, conspiring to commit, or attempting an offence referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable.

Amendment 60 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1

~~Each~~ Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting and attempting an offence referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable.

Amendment 61 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Each~~ Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties with full respect for fundamental rights.

Amendment 62 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. ~~Each~~ Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the ~~offences~~conduct referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least four years~~, at least in serious cases.~~;

Amendment 63 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Each Member State shall ensure that in cases of aggravating circumstances the maximum term of imprisonment is adjusted accordingly.

Amendment 64 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Member States shall ~~ensure that the following circumstances shall be regard~~take the measures necessary to ensure that, where offences have been committed within a criminal organisation as defined under Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA, this may, in line with domestic legislation, be considered asn aggravating circumstances, in relation to the ~~offences~~conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 ~~when:~~.

Amendment 65 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) Member States may rule that, where the offender has a contractual relationship and a responsibility towards an obliged entity or is an obliged entity within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2015/849/EU and has committed the offence in the exercise of their professional activities, this may be considered an aggravating circumstance as referred to in Articles 3 and 4.

Amendment 66 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) the offender is a politically exposed person within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2015/849/EU.

Amendment 67 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) money or property is used to directly fund or aid further criminal activities, such as terrorism.

Amendment 68 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. ~~Each~~ Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons can be held liable for any of the ~~offences~~conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed for their own benefit ~~of those legal persons~~ by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal person, based on:

Amendment 69 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall also take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons ~~can~~may be held liable where the lack of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 of this article has made possible the commission of any of the ~~offence~~acts referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority.

Amendment 70 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Liability of legal persons under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article shall not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who ~~incite the commission of or are perpetrators of , or are accessories to any of the offences~~are perpetrators, instigators or accessories to the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4.

Amendment 71 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

~~Each~~ Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable for offences pursuant to Article ~~6 shall be~~7 is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as:

Amendment 72 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 73 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) ~~the~~ exclusion ~~of that legal person~~ from entitlement to public benefits or aid;

Amendment 74 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 2

(2) ~~the~~ temporary or permanent disqualification ~~of that legal person~~ from the practice of commercial activities;

Amendment 75 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 2

(2) the ~~temporary or~~ permanent disqualification of that legal person from the practice of commercial activities;

Amendment 76 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 3

~~(3) the~~3. placing ~~of that legal person~~ under judicial supervision;

Amendment 77 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 4

~~(4)~~4. a judicial winding-up ruling;

Amendment 78 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 5

(5) the ~~temporary or~~ permanent closure of establishments which have been used for committing the offence.

Amendment 79 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the ~~offences~~conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 where:

Amendment 80 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. A Member State shall inform the Commission where it decides to establish further jurisdiction over the ~~offences~~conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed outside its territory where:

Amendment 81 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Each Member State shall seek cooperation with the respective Member States affected by the same offense, respecting the principles of good judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters.

Amendment 82 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

Each Member State shall ensure that effective investigative tools, arising from the relevant legal framework, such as those used in countering organised crime or other serious crimes are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.

Amendment 83 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

source: 608.070

2017/09/11 DEVE 25 amendments...

Amendment 28 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) Money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union. In order to tackle th~~ose~~is urgent problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34 , this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better cross- border cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73).

Amendment 29 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)

(6 a) Illicit financial flows and all unrecorded private financial outflows involving capital that is illegally earned, transferred or utilised, typically originate from tax evasion. Avoidance activities are a source to finance terrorism activities.

Amendment 30 #

Judith SARGENTINI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)

(7 a) While the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing are legitimate aims to pursue, measures taken in that regard should not impede the financial inclusion of persons belonging to all social levels, within the Union and in third countries.

Amendment 31 #

Judith SARGENTINI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 b (new)

(7 b) Remittances represent an important contribution to family and community development.While recognising the importance of tackling tax evasion, the measures taken in that regard should not impede INTERNATIONAL remittance transfers.

Amendment 32 #

Judith SARGENTINI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 c (new)

(7 c) Humanitarian aid is of the utmost importance and is designed to provide, at a global level, aid and assistance to people in need.Measures aiming to tackle money laundering, terrorism financing and tax evasion should not prevent persons and organisations from providing humanitarian aid to persons in need.

Amendment 33 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

Amendment 34 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10 a (new)

(10 a) It is important to call urgently for information with regard to the beneficial ownership of companies, trusts and other mechanisms, to be made publicly available in open-data formats in order to prevent anonymous shell companies and comparable legal entities from being used to launder money to finance terrorist activities.

Amendment 35 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)

(11 a) Remittances have become a major source of external development finance, providing a convenient angle from which to approach the complex migration agenda.Remitters use informal channels because these channels are cheaper, better suited to transferring funds to remote areas where formal channels do not operate, and offer the advantage of the native language and, on rare occasions, anonymity.Informal channels, however, could be subject to abuse.Strengthening the formal remittance infrastructure by offering the advantages of low costs, expanded reach, and native language could shift flows from the informal sector to the formal one.Both sender and recipient countries could support migrants’ access to banking services by providing migrants with identification tools.

Amendment 36 #

Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Maurice PONGA

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 b (new)

(11 b) A decrease in remittances to developing countries may adversely affect the human rights of people living in those countries.It is crucial that the Union enforce counterterrorism policies so that remittances go to the right channels, thereby contributing to the prevention of terrorist incidents.

Amendment 37 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)

(12 a) Money laundering, corruption, illicit financial flows and tax evasion and avoidance remain an obstacle to sustainable development and disproportionately affect developing countries.The Union, the Member States and third countries have a shared responsibility to improve the coordination of the measures taken to counter these negative and harmful conducts and align them with their development strategies and policies.

Amendment 38 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt of the property and of its use in an economic or financial activity, that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 39 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(c a) participation in, association to commit, attempts to commit and aiding, abetting, facilitating and counselling the commission of any of the actions referred to in points (a), (b) and (c).

Amendment 40 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

(ca) whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of a third country, when, under the national law of the Member State transposing this Article, the relevant conduct, had it been committed there, would have been a criminal offence falling into the categories of terrorism or financing of terrorism, organised crime, corruption, trafficking in human beings, sexual exploitation, enslavement, trafficking in waste, trafficking in wild species or tax offences;

Amendment 41 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, with strict respect for fundamental rights and the general principles of the criminal law which protect the rights of defence and of the accused.

Amendment 42 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The Commission shall arrange for harmonisation and coordination of the degrees of severity of the penalties, both minimum and maximum, provided for in this field in the various countries of the Union, with due regard for the specific features of the legal system of each Member State.

Amendment 43 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)

Article 5 a Each Member State shall take measures to ensure that natural persons who are responsible for the crimes referred to in Articles 3 and 4, including where they have acted under cover of a legal person, are also liable to additional penalties, such as: (a) a temporary or permanent ban on entering into contracts, excluding employment contracts, with public authorities; (b) temporary disqualification from the practice of commercial activities .

Amendment 44 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Each Member State shall ensure that a legal person held liable for offences pursuant to Article 6 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, with strict respect for fundamental rights and the general principles of the criminal law which protect the rights of defence and of the accused,such as:

Amendment 45 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 a (new)

Article 8a Seizure of property and of the proceeds of criminal activities 1.Each Member State shall provide for seizure of all property and proceeds derived from criminal activity as defined in Article 2, where, on the basis of the circumstances of the case and taking account of the specific facts and the available evidence, including for example the fact that the value of the property is disproportionate to the legitimate income of the person convicted, the judicial authorities are convinced that the property in question has been derived from criminal conduct in any of the following cases: (a) the offence of money laundering as defined in this Directive has been committed as demonstrated by a conviction that has the force of res judicata in a Member State or, on account of a conviction that is not final, the time limit for conviction of the offender has passed or the case has lapsed due to the death of the offender;or (b) the offence from which the proceeds were derived (predicate offence) has been committed as demonstrated by a conviction handed down in a Member State or a third country or, on account of a conviction that is not final, the time limit for conviction of the offender has passed or the case has lapsed due to the death of the offender. 2.This article shall apply irrespective of whether the laundering or the predicate offence have been committed by a natural or a legal person.

Amendment 46 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) the offender is a resident.

Amendment 47 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Member States shall improve cross-border cooperation and exchange of information in order to prevent regulatory arbitrage.

Amendment 48 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 a (new)

Article 9 a Jurisdiction of more than one Member State Where an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and can be prosecuted in more than one of those Member States, on the basis of the same facts, those Member States shall cooperate in order to decide which of them is to have jurisdiction with the aim, if possible, of centralising proceedings in that Member State.To that end, those Member States may refer to Eurojust in order to facilitate cooperation between their judicial authorities and to coordinate their action. Member States referred to in the first paragraph shall include: (a) the Member State in the territory where the offence was committed; (b) the Member State where the offender is a national or resident; (c) the Member State where the victim is a national or resident; (d) the Member State in the territory where the offender was arrested.

Amendment 49 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 a (new)

Article 9 a Return of illegal funds and assets to the country of origin Member States shall take all the necessary measures to return the funds and the assets which result from, or are the subject of, illegal activity to the third country of origin. Those funds and assets shall be returned to developing countries of origin provided that they are used to: · improve the living conditions of the population of those countries, in particular the most vulnerable people on their territory, · strengthen the rule of law in those countries with the aim of contributing to the fight against money laundering, the financing of terrorism and other criminal acts.

Amendment 50 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Each Member State shall take effective measures to step up coordination between the Union and the Member States and increase cooperation with third countries to combat money laundering, which in particular constitutes a serious threat to the future of developing countries.

Amendment 51 #

Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Maurice PONGA

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 b (new)

The Commission shall think about ways of improving international cooperation and supporting developing countries by means of effective measures, particularly the establishment of technical assistance programmes, to enable the latter to improve their administrative and legal systems with the aim of combating money laundering more effectively.

Amendment 52 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 a (new)

Article 10 a Member States shall step up the cooperation with third countries by developing an effective communication and ensuring better coordination with measures taken at the Union level, especially as regards developing countries, in order to promote good practices aiming at strengthening their financial systems and implementing efficient anti-laundering mechanisms.

source: 609.660

2017/09/26 ECON 69 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) Money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union. In addition, significant intentional or unintentional legislative vacuums in national and Union legislation allow for the intensifying of the problem, damaging also sound economic development, fair and inclusive participation in economic activities, having further financial and political negative implications. In order to tackle those crucial and urgent problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34, this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better cross- border cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73).

Amendment 10 #

Ashley FOX

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

Amendment 11 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)

(6a) A wider definition of predicate offences in the anti-money laundering directive is needed, so tax crimes would be captured independently of their legal classification at national level. Tax evasion should be a predicate offence for money laundering. The beneficial owners of corporations and legal entities need to be transparent and lawyers which increase opacity (25% of shares, substitute director) to be eliminated. The central registers should be accurate, up to date and fully accessible to the public. Entities and trusts not registered in the central registers should not be allowed to operate.

Amendment 12 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

Amendment 13 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In order for money laundering to be an effective tool against organised crime, it should not be necessary to identify the specifics of the crime that generated the property, let alone require a prior or simultaneous conviction for that crime. Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence in that Member State or third country. Member States ~~may~~should also be able to establish as a prerequisite the fact that the pre~~dicate offence~~levant conduct would have been a ~~crim~~predicate offence in its national law, had it been committed there. However, insofar as the relevant conduct constitutes terrorism, organised crime, corruption, trafficking in human beings, environmental crimes, sexual exploitation or tax crimes, Member States should not require that the relevant conduct be a criminal offence in the Member State or country where that conduct took place.

Amendment 14 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In order for money laundering to be an effective tool against organised crime, it should not be necessary to identify the specifics of the crime that generated the property, let alone require a prior or simultaneous conviction for that crime, nor all the factual elements or all circumstances relating to the criminal activity. Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence in that Member State or third country. Member States may establish as a prerequisite the fact that the predicate offence would have been a crime in its national law, had it been committed there.

Amendment 15 #

Ashley FOX

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

Amendment 16 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. WMinimum types and levels of penalties should also be laid down with respect to inciting, aiding and abetting the commission of such criminal offences. Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems, in the following circumstances: where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 ~~8 or~~; where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering~~, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems~~; where the money or property being laundered is derived from terrorist activities as defined in Directive 2017/541 or illicit arms trafficking; or where the offender is a Politically Exposed Person as defined by Directive 2015/849 or involved in corruption of elected officials. Member States should calculate the amount of fines in accordance with the gross principle, i.e. based on the profit stemming from the criminal action without deducting any costs incurred, so as to ensure that the sanction is higher than the economic value of the crime. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)

Amendment 17 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should ~~lay down~~increase and lay down clearly defined minimum types and levels of high penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed, also with respect to covering, inciting, aiding and abetting the commission of such criminal offences. Where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 8 or where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)

Amendment 18 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down in a catalogue minimum types and minimum levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. Where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA378 or where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, Member States should make effective providesion for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their national legal systems and should make arrangements for its effective implementation. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42).

Amendment 19 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) The Union and the Member States should provide the necessary legal measures for the protection of whistle- blowers, when reporting information in relation to money laundering, including in third countries.

Amendment 2 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) Money laundering and the ~~associ~~related financing of terrorism and organised crime remain very significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and ~~threatening~~economic activity. The opportunity for money laundering and the very fact of money laundering itself endangers the internal security and the internal market of the Union and destroys trust among market players. In order to tackle th~~ose~~ese serious problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34, this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better, faster and more efficient cross- border cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73).

Amendment 20 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) Third countries should be regularly assessed and those not fulfilling high standards should be considered high risk countries. The Commission should have the necessary resources to contact an appropriate autonomous analysis, which should be public six months after being made available to Member States. Up to now, the FATF has approached this issue exacerbating the perception that stronger economies are using this list in a politically motivated way, causing financial exclusion, country blacklisting and competitive disadvantage only for countries that are outside their area of influence.

Amendment 21 #

Ashley FOX

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

(1) "criminal activity" means any kind of criminal involvement in the commission of the following crimes, subject to national legislation:

Amendment 22 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point h a (new)

(ha) tax crimes, including tax evasion and fraud and tax avoidance and any fraudulent action;

Amendment 23 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point p a (new)

(pa) tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes, including evading taxes by concealing income, earned either legally or illegally, from detection and collection by the tax authorities;

Amendment 24 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point v

(v) all offences~~, including tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes as defined in the national law of the Member States,~~ which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a maximum of more than one year or, as regards Member States that have a minimum threshold for offences in their legal system, all offences punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a minimum of more than six months;

Amendment 25 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing, at the time of receipt~~, that such property~~ or subsequently, or having the possibility of coming to know, that it was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.,

Amendment 26 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, ~~knowing at the time of receipt,~~ that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 27 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) a prior or simultaneous conviction for the criminal activity ~~that generated the property;~~ from which the property was derived, as referred to in paragraph 1;

Amendment 28 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

(ba) all the factual elements or all circumstances relating to a criminal activity, where it is established that the property has been derived from such activity, as referred to in paragraph 1;

Amendment 29 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of another Member State or in that of a third country, when the relevant conduct iswould constitute a criminal ~~offence~~activity under the national law of the Member ~~State or the thir~~implementing or applying this Article had it been carried cou~~ntry where the conduct was committed and would be~~t there. Member States may, however, require that the relevant conduct, insofar as it does not fall within the categories referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, points (a), (b), (c), (d), (h) (l) and (pa), constitutes a criminal offence under the national law of the other Member State ~~implementing or applying this Article had it been committed there;~~ or of that of the third country;

Amendment 3 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) Money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union. In order to tackle those urgent problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34, this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better cross- border cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73).

Amendment 30 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

(ca) whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of a third country mentioned in the list of countries at high risk of money laundering as referred to in Directive 2015/849, when the relevant conduct would constitute a criminal activity under the national law of the Member State implementing or applying this Article had it been carried out there;

Amendment 31 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1

Each Member State shall ensure that ~~inciting, aiding and abetting and~~the following is punishable: a) the fact to incite or to attempt~~ing~~ an offence referred to in Article 3 ~~shall be punishable.~~b) the fact to aid or to abet an offence referred to in Article 3

Amendment 32 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1

Each Member State shall ensure that covering, inciting, aiding and abetting and attempting an offence referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable.

Amendment 33 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Each~~The Member States shall ensure that ~~the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionat~~perpetrators of the criminal activities referred to in Articles 3 and 4 are subsequently prosecuted and punished and that the punishments will have and dissuasive ~~criminal penaltie~~effect on imitators.

Amendment 34 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, with strict respect for fundamental rights and the general principles of criminal law which protect the rights of defence and of the accused.

Amendment 35 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including criminal or non- criminal fines, based on the gross value of the total amount stemming from criminal activity.

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 and in Article 4(b) shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least f~~our~~ive years~~, at least in serious cases~~.

Amendment 37 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least f~~our~~ive years~~, at least in serious cases~~.

Amendment 38 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ~~four~~three and a half years, at least in serious cases.

Amendment 39 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Each Member State shall ensure that all natural persons, who ultimately own or control a legal entity through direct or indirect ownership, punishable under Articles 3 and 4, are banned from any financial and commercial activity with the public authorities.

Amendment 4 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) Existing rules failed to put an end to practices of tax heavens and secrecy jurisdictions, which are used to obscure the real owners of assets, bank accounts and corporations.

Amendment 40 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The Commission shall arrange for harmonisation and coordination of the degrees of severity of the penalties, both minimum and maximum, provided for in this field in the various Member States, with due regard for the specific features of the legal system of each Member State.

Amendment 41 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 4(a) shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.

Amendment 42 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 4 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.

Amendment 43 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 and 4 may also be punishable, at the judge’s discretion, by complementary, temporary or permanent sanctions including: (a) a ban on entering into contracts with public authorities; (b) a disqualification from the practice of certain commercial activities; and (c) a ban to run for elected offices.

Amendment 44 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the money or property being laundered is derived from terrorist activities as defined in Directive 2017/541 or illicit arms trafficking;

Amendment 45 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the offender is a Politically Exposed Person as defined by national transpositions of Directive 2015/849;

Amendment 46 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(bb) the offender is a Politically Exposed Person as defined by Directive 2015/849 or involving corruption of elected officials;

Amendment 47 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)

(c) the criminal activity was committed and funded by offshore companies; letterbox companies are involved in the criminal acts; illegal transfers of funds have taken place; money couriers and NGOs have been involved; there is a presumption of a professional activity as a money launderer if the person concerned is, for example, active in more than two money laundering syndicates or criminal groups.

Amendment 48 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Each Member State shall ensure that legal persons can be held liable for any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed for their benefit o~~f those legal~~r for the benefit of a third persons by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal person, based on:

Amendment 49 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that legal persons can be held liable where the lack of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the commission of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for their benefit o~~f that legal~~r for the benefit of a third person by a person under its authority.

Amendment 5 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) Union action should ~~continue to take particular account of~~go beyond the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and instruments of other international bodies active in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The Commission should carry its own assessment regarding the efficiency of measures proposed by FATF and the implementation and effectiveness of anti money laundering measures in general. The FATF itself should undertake a revision of existing standards, an assessment of its own output , and ensure better use of financial intelligence, regional representation, credibility and efficiency. The relevant Union legal acts should, where appropriate, be further aligned with the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the ‘revised FATF Recommendations’). As a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198), the Union should transpose the requirements of that Convention into its legal order.

Amendment 50 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Each Member State shall ensure that a legal person held liable for offences pursuant to Article 6 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, with strict respect for fundamental rights and the general principles of criminal law which protect the rights of defence and of the accused, such as:

Amendment 51 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Each Member State shall ensure that a legal person held liable for offences pursuant to Article 67 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines ~~and may include other~~, based on the gross value of the total amount stemming from criminal activity, and may, at the judge’s discretion, include other temporary or permanent sanctions, ~~such as~~including:

Amendment 52 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 53 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) the exclusion of that legal person from entitlement to public positions, contracts benefits or aid, including Union related benefits or aid;

Amendment 54 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

(1a) the exclusion of that person from entitlement to Union funds;

Amendment 55 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new)

(1b) a ban on entering into contracts with public authorities;

Amendment 56 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 2

(2) the temporary or permanent disqualification of that legal person from the practice of commercial activities, including withdrawal of business licences;

Amendment 57 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory or;

Amendment 58 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the offender is one of its nationals. or;

Amendment 59 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 are committed outside its territory but the offender is a habitual resident in its territory or;

Amendment 6 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4

(4) Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA35 lays down requirements on the criminalisation of money laundering. That Framework Decision is not comprehensive enough, however, and the current incrimination of money laundering is not sufficiently coherent to effectively combat money laundering across the Union, thus leading to enforcement gaps and obstacles in the cooperation between the competent authorities in different Member States. . The Union’s multi-tier system of law making creates additional loopholes, where several Member States still have not fully implemented Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (3rd anti money laundering directive) agreed in 2005. _________________ 35 Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (OJ L 182, 5.7.2001).

Amendment 60 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(bb) the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 are committed outside its territory but the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory.

Amendment 61 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. When an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and when any of the Member States concerned can validly prosecute on the basis of the same facts, Member States shall take into account the following factors, listed in order of priority, to decide which of them will prosecute the offenders: (a) the territory of the Member State where the offence was committed; (b) the nationality or residency of the offender; (c) the country of origin of the victims; (d) the territory of the Member State where the offender was found.

Amendment 62 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Member States may have recourse to Eurojust in order to facilitate cooperation between their judicial authorities and the coordination of their action.

Amendment 63 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. A Member State shall inform the Commission where it decides to establish further jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed outside its territory where: (a) the offender is a habitual resident in its territory; (b) the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory.deleted

Amendment 64 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title

Investigative tools and cooperation

Amendment 65 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

Each Member State shall ensure that effective investigative tools, such as those used in countering organised crime or other serious crimes are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4. The Member States shall ensure, as soon as possible, the availability of the requisite material resources and personnel who are properly trained to pursue the investigations so that these may be conducted without delay. This is especially important to ensure effective cooperation between the relevant authorities in each country and the participating authorities in other Member States affected, as well as the EU institutions.

Amendment 66 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall ensure that effective investigative tools, such as those used in countering organised crime or other serious crimes are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.

Amendment 67 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Each Member State shall ensure that adequate and sufficient human and financial resources, as well as trainings are allocated to investigate and prosecute the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.

Amendment 68 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

1b. Each Member State shall ensure that their national authorities investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 are empowered to cooperate with other national authorities and their counterparts in other Member States.

Amendment 69 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [24 months after adoption] at the latest, ensuring all the necessary resources for it. They shall immediately communicate the text of those provisions to the Commission.

Amendment 7 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) The definition of criminal activities which constitute predicate offences for money laundering should be sufficiently extended and uniform in all the Member States. Member States should include a range of offences within each of the categories designated by the FATF, including tax evasion, fraud and avoidance, as well as any fraudulent behaviour involving concealment of income or profits. Where categories of offences, such as terrorism or environmental crimes, are set out in Union law, this Directive refers to such legislation. This ensures that the laundering of the proceeds of the financing of terrorism and wildlife trafficking are punishable in the Member States. In cases where Union law allows Member States to provide for other sanctions than criminal sanctions, this Directive should not require Member States to establish those cases as predicate offences for the purposes of this Directive.

Amendment 8 #

Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Fabio DE MASI, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) Tax crimes relating to direct and indirect taxes should be included in the definition of criminal activity, in line with the revised FATF Recommendations. Given that different tax offences may in each Member State constitute a criminal activity punishable by means of the sanctions referred to in this Directive, definitions of tax crimes may diverge in national law. However ~~no harmonisation of the definitions of tax crimes in Member States' national law is sought~~tax crimes should be understood as including at least tax fraud, aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion offences and any fraudulent behaviour involving concealment of income or profits or the organisation of one’s insolvency which aims at reducing or suppressing tax liability. The definitions of tax crimes should not include thresholds requiring the existence of a significant amount of unpaid taxes or the systematic use of fraudulent manoeuvres in national law.

Amendment 9 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) Tax crimes and tax avoidance relating to direct and indirect taxes should be included in the definition of criminal activity, in line with and beyond the revised FATF Recommendations. Given that different tax offences may in each Member State constitute a criminal activity punishable by means of the sanctions referred to in this Directive, definitions of tax crimes may diverge in national law. ~~However no harmonisation of t~~The definitions of tax crimes in Member States' national law ~~is sought~~should be extended and the punishment be stronger and properly implemented, being in this way both preventive and effective.

source: 610.825

2017/10/12 LIBE 182 amendments...

Amendment 100 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point v

Amendment 101 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point v

Amendment 102 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point v

Amendment 103 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point v

(v) all other offences~~, including tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes as defined in the national law of the Member States,~~ which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a maximum of more than one year or, as regards Member States that have a minimum threshold for offences in their legal system, all offences punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a minimum of more than six months;

Amendment 104 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Each Member State shall ensure that the following conduct shall be a punishable criminal offence, when committed intentionally or by gross negligence:

Amendment 105 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Each Member State shall ensure, through evidence, that the following conduct shall be a punishable criminal offence, when committed intentionally:

Amendment 106 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Each Member State shall ensure that the following conduct shall be a punishable criminal offence~~, when committed intentionally~~:

Amendment 107 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the conversion or transfer of property, knowing that such property is directly derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such activity, for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or of assisting any person who is involved in the commission of such an activity to evade the legal consequences of that person’s action;

Amendment 108 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt or at the time of use in economic and financial activities, that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 109 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt or of its use, that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 110 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, management, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt, that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 111 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt, that such property was directly derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 112 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt or use, that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 113 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the acquisition~~, possession~~ or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt, that such property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such an activity.

Amendment 114 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in paragraph 1 shall be a punishable criminal offence, when: (a) the offender suspected or ought to have known that the property was derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such activity; and (b) the offender has a contractual relationship and a responsibility towards an obliged entity or is an obliged entity within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2015/849/EU .

Amendment 115 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. In order for an offence referred to in paragraph 1 and 1a to be punishable, it shall not be necessary to establish:

Amendment 116 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. In order for an offence referred to in paragraph 1 to be punishable, it shall ~~not~~ be necessary to establish:

Amendment 117 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) a prior or simultaneous conviction for the criminal activity that generated the property;~~deleted

Amendment 118 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)

(aa) the actions have the intention to hide the illegal origin of the property

Amendment 119 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

~~(b) the identity of the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated the property or other circumstances relating to that criminal activity;~~deleted

Amendment 120 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the identity of the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated the property ~~or other circumstances relating to that criminal activity~~;

Amendment 121 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the identity of the perpetrator of the criminal activity, the type of crime that generated the property or other circumstances relating to that criminal activity;

Amendment 122 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

(ba) all the factual elements or all circumstances relating to the criminal activity, where it is established that property has been derived from such activity;

Amendment 123 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

Amendment 124 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of another Member State or in that of a third country, when the relevant conduct is a criminal ~~offence~~activity under the national law of the Member State ~~or the third country where the conduct was committed and would be~~implementing or applying this Article had it been committed there. Member States may, however, require that the relevant conduct, insofar as it does not fall within the categories of crimes referred to in Article 2 (1) points (a) to (ha), constitutes a criminal offence under the national law of the other Member State ~~implementing or applying this Article had it been~~or the third country where the conduct was committed ~~there;~~.

Amendment 125 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of another Member State or in that of a third country, when the relevant conduct ~~is a criminal offence under the national law of the Member State or the third country where the conduct was committed and would be~~would constitute a criminal activity had it occurred domestically. Member States may further require that the predicate offence constitutes a criminal offence under the national law of the other Member State ~~implementing or apply~~or that of a third country, expect when the third country is mentioned ing th~~is Article had it been committed there~~e list of countries at high risk of money laundering as referred to in Directive 2015/849;

Amendment 126 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the territory of another Member State or in that of a third country, when the relevant conduct ~~is a criminal offence under the national law of the Member State or the third country where the conduct was committed and would be a criminal offence~~would have been a criminal activity in the sense of Article 2, paragraph 1 of this Directive, under the national law of the Member State implementing or applying th~~is Article~~ese provisions, had it been committed there;.

Amendment 127 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. The offences referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall also apply to persons who committed or participated in the criminal activity from which the property was derived if the following conditions apply: a) there is a previous conviction for the criminal activity from which the property was derived, or the criminal activity is tried at the same time as the offences referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, and b) the actions have the clear intention to hide the illegal origin of the property.

Amendment 128 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. The offences referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall also apply to persons who committed or participated in the criminal activity from which the property was directly derived.

Amendment 129 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. The offences referred to in points (a) and (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 shall also apply to persons who committed or participated in the criminal activity from which the property was derived.

Amendment 130 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in paragraph 1 shall be a punishable laundering offence in cases where the offender: a) suspected that the property was proceeds; b) ought to have assumed that the property was proceeds.

Amendment 131 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to prosecution and conviction even if the suspected person has been granted immunity from prosecution, arrest and detention in her/his country of origin or within the European institutions.

Amendment 132 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1

Each Member State shall ensure that ~~inciting, aiding and abetting and attempting~~participation in, inciting, association with or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit and aiding, abetting, counselling and facilitating in any way an offence referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable.

Amendment 133 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1

Each Member State shall ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting, counselling, conspiring the commission of , and attempting an offence referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable.

Amendment 134 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall ensure, through evidence, that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, which respect fundamental rights.

Amendment 135 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in full respect for fundamental rights.

Amendment 136 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by autonomous, effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties.

Amendment 137 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least four years, ~~at least in serious cases~~for aggravated offences under national law.

Amendment 138 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maxinimum term of imprisonment of ~~at least four years, at least in serious cases~~three years, particularly where aggravating circumstances described in Article 6 are applicable.

Amendment 139 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least four years, at least in serious cases, corresponding to the gravity of the offence.

Amendment 140 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least f~~our~~ive years, at least in serious cases.

Amendment 141 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least four years~~, at least in serious cases~~.

Amendment 142 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least f~~our~~ive years~~, at least in serious cases~~.

Amendment 143 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Fabio DE MASI, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable by a maximum ~~term of imprisonment~~penalty of at least four years~~, at least in serious cases~~ of imprisonment.

Amendment 144 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Each member state shall ensure that offences referred to in Article 3 and 4, including those intermediated by legal persons or other representatives of the offender, are punishable by complementary sanctions, including: (i) a permanent ban on entering into contracts with public authorities; (ii) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of certain commercial activities; (iii) a long-term ban on running for elected offices or holding a position of public servant, where ´´long term´´ is defined as the equivalent of 2 consecutive mandates or a minimum of 10 years.

Amendment 145 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Article 3 paragraph 1 are punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment of at least two years where one of the circumstances referred to in Article 6 is applicable.

Amendment 146 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Each Member State shall ensure that the offences referred to in Articles 3, paragraph 1a and 4 shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.

Amendment 147 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Fabio DE MASI, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. In complementarity with criminal penalties, and taking into account the specific circumstances of the criminal activity, each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative penalties, such as: a) a temporary or permanent ban from entering into contracts with the public authorities; b) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of administrative, commercial and/or other regulated activities or functions; c) a temporary or permanent ban from running for public office.

Amendment 148 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)

Article 5 a Burden of proof Each Member State shall ensure that the burden of proof demonstrating the lawful origin of disproportionate income or property, as defined in this Directive, found by investigators or signalled by suspicious activity reports (SARs) is incumbent to the owner of such proceeds.

Amendment 149 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – title

~~Aggravating circumstanc~~Minimum penalties

Amendment 150 #

Salvatore Domenico POGLIESE

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Each Member States shall ensure that the ~~following circumstances shall be regarded as aggravating circumstances, in relation to the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 when~~intentional offences referred to in Article 3 paragraph 1 are punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment of at least two years where one of the following circumstances is applicable:

Amendment 151 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the offence was committed within the framework of a criminal organisation within the meaning of Framework Decision 2008/84153, including organisations of a terrorist nature; or _________________ 53 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42).

Amendment 152 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Fabio DE MASI, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) the property being laundered is derived from criminal activities referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (h), (n) and (m);or

Amendment 153 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) the offender is a politically exposed person in the sense of Directive 2015/849 or the case involves corruption of elected officials; or

Amendment 154 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)

(ab) the criminal modus operandi involves the use of bearer shares, offshore jurisdictions, shell companies, illegal transfers of funds through systems such as Hawala, cash couriers, smurfing activities or non-governmental organisations; or

Amendment 155 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a c (new)

(ac) the suspect operates as a professional money launderer for two or more different criminal groups; or

Amendment 156 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a d (new)

(ad) the property or money being laundered are a result of the offences defined by Directive 2017/541 or of illicit arms trafficking; or

Amendment 157 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the offender has a contractual relationship and a responsibility towards an obliged entity or is an obliged entity within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2015/849/EU and has committed the offence in the exercise of their professional activities.; or

Amendment 158 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the offender is a Politically Exposed Person, in accordance with national law transposing the definition provided in Article 3 (9) of the Directive 2015/489/EU ;

Amendment 159 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the offender acts as a service provider for money laundering for more than one criminal group within the meaning of Framework Decision 2008/841;

Amendment 160 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) The offender is a politically exposed person in the sense of Directive 2015/849;

Amendment 161 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the money is used to finance other criminal activities;

Amendment 162 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(bb) the modus operandi of the offender involves the use of letterbox companies, money laundering syndicates, offshore jurisdictions, virtual currencies, smurfing activities, illegal transfer of funds through unregulated systems such as Hawala; or

Amendment 163 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(bb) The property being laundered is derived from terrorist activities as defined in Directive 2017/541;

Amendment 164 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Each Member State shall ensure that legal persons can be held liable for any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed for their benefit o~~f those~~r for the benefit of other natural or legal persons by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal person, based on:

Amendment 165 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that legal persons can be held liable where the lack of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the commission of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for their benefit o~~f that~~r for the benefit of other natural or legal persons by a person under its authority.

Amendment 166 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that legal persons can be held liable where ~~the~~ serious negligence, lack of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the commission of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority.

Amendment 167 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Liability of legal persons under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who are incite ~~the commission of or are~~rs, conspirators, perpetrators of , or a~~re a~~ccessories (including facilitators or counsellors) to any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.

Amendment 168 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Each Member State shall ensure that a legal person held liable for offences pursuant to Article 67 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal ~~or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such a~~fines and may, at the judge’s discretion, also include the following temporary or permanent sanctions:

Amendment 169 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 170 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Fabio DE MASI, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) the exclusion of that legal person from entitlement to public benefits or aid including EU programmes or funds;

Amendment 171 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

(1a) the exclusion of that legal person from entitlement to European Union funds and the permanent prohibition for that legal person to enter into contracts with public authorities;

Amendment 172 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

(1a) the exclusion of that legal person from entitlement to European Union funds;

Amendment 173 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 a (new)

Article 8a Receiving the proceeds of money laundering The penalties provided for by this Directive shall not apply to the following: (a) those who receive goods for the purpose of meeting the basic subsistence needs of themselves or of another person whom they are obliged by law to support in this way; (b) those who receive normal payment for basic necessities supplied in the form of goods or services; (c) defence counsel who receive the proceeds as remuneration for legal defence work, unless the remuneration is unreasonably generous as measured against the rates customarily charged in the profession.

Amendment 174 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 b (new)

Article 8b Amendments to Directive 2014/42/EU Directive 2014/42/EU is hereby amended as follows: Article 5(2)(e)a money laundering offences as defined by Directive 2018/XXX/EU on countering money laundering by criminal law.

Amendment 175 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory or;

Amendment 176 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory; or

Amendment 177 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the offender is one of its nationals. or habitual resident or;

Amendment 178 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory.

Amendment 179 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the offender is a habitual resident in its territory.

Amendment 180 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(bb) the offence is committed for the benefit of a natural or legal person resident or established in its territory.

Amendment 181 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2

Amendment 182 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2

Amendment 183 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. When an offence referred to in Articles 3 and 4 falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and when any of the Member States concerned can validly prosecute on the basis of the same facts, the Member States concerned shall cooperate in order to decide which of them will prosecute the offender, with the aim of centralising proceedings in a single Member State. The following factors shall be taken into account, by order of priority: a) the territory of the Member State where the offence was committed; b) the nationality or residency of the offender; c) the country of origin of the victims; d) the territory where the offender was found. Member States may have recourse to Eurojust in order to facilitate cooperation between their judicial authorities and the coordination of their actions.

Amendment 184 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. When an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and when any of the Member States concerned can validly prosecute on the basis of the same facts, the Member States concerned shall cooperate in order to decide which of them will prosecute the offenders with the aim, if possible, of centralising proceedings in a single Member State. To this end, the Member States may have recourse to Eurojust in order to facilitate cooperation between their judicial authorities and the coordination of their action. Account shall be taken of the following factors: (a) the Member State shall be that in the territory of which the offence was committed; (b) the Member State shall be that of which the offender is a national or resident; (c) the Member State shall be that in the territory of which the offender was found.

Amendment 185 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. When an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and when any of the Member States concerned can validly prosecute on the basis of the same facts, Member States shall take into account the following factors, listed in order of priority, to decide which of them will prosecute the offenders: (a) the territory of the Member State where the offence was committed; (b) the nationality or residency of the offender; (c) the country of origin of the victims; (d) the territory of the Member State where the offender was found. Member States may have recourse to Eurojust in order to facilitate cooperation between their judicial authorities and the coordination of their action.

Amendment 186 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Amendment 187 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 a (new)

Article 9 a Jurisdiction of more than one Member State Where an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and can be prosecuted in more than one of those Member States, on the basis of the same facts, those Member States shall cooperate in order to decide which of them is to have jurisdiction with the aim, if possible, of centralising proceedings in that Member State. To that end, those Member States may refer to Eurojust in order to facilitate a cooperation between their judicial authorities and to coordinate their action in a swift and effective manner. Member States referred to in the first paragraph shall include: (a) the Member State in the territory where the offence was committed; (b) the Member State where the offender is a national or resident; (c) the Member State where the property was derived from; (d) the Member State in the territory where the offender was arrested.

Amendment 188 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title

Investigative tools and freezing or confiscation measures

Amendment 189 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title

Investigative tools and confiscation measures

Amendment 190 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title

Investigative tools and confiscation measures

Amendment 191 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title

Investigative tools and confiscation

Amendment 192 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – title

Investigative tools and cooperation

Amendment 193 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1a. Each Member State shall ensure that specific training and effective investigative tools, such as those used in countering organised crime or other serious crimes are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4. Such tools and training need to be adapted to the latest evolutions in the field of cybercrime and money laundering, including by using bitcoins, cryptocurrencies and ransomeware attacks. 1b. Each Member State shall ensure that their competent authorities freeze or confiscate, as appropriate, in accordance with Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, the property derived from and the instrumentalities used in committing or attempting to commit any of the offences referred to in this Directive. The provisions of Paragraph 2 apply irrespective of the fact that a natural or a legal person has committed the laundering of proceeds or the predicate offence.

Amendment 194 #

Salvatore Domenico POGLIESE

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

Amendment 195 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. Each Member State shall ensure that effective investigative tools, sufficient personnel, adequate training and technological capacity, such as those used in countering organised crime or other serious crimes are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.

Amendment 196 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their competent authorities freeze or confiscate, as appropriate, in accordance with Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, the proceeds derived from and instrumentalities used or intended to be used in the commission or contribution to the commission of any of the offences referred to in this Directive.

Amendment 197 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Each Member State shall ensure that adequate and sufficient human and financial resources are allocated to investigate and prosecute the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.Persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall receive specific and targeted training.

Amendment 198 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Each Member State shall ensure that freezing and confiscation measures deemed appropriate are applied to the property derived from and the instrumentalities used in committing or attempting to commit offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of this Directive, in accordance with Directive 2014/42/EU.

Amendment 199 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Amendment 200 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 a (new)

Article 10 a Freezing and Confiscation 1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their competent authorities freeze or confiscate, as appropriate, property derived from and instrumentalities used or intended to be used in the commission or contribution to the commission of any of the offences referred to in this Directive, in accordance with Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council; 2. In a case where the property referred to in Article 3, paragraph 1, is located in more than one Member State, Member States’ authorities shall cooperate and, where appropriate, may refer to Eurojust and Europol for a swift and effective cooperation.

Amendment 201 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 a (new)

Article 10 a Cooperation Member States shall take the necessary measures to improve data exchange within the Union, as well as to increase cooperation with third countries and international organizations fighting money laundering, while ensuring better coordination between themselves and the relevant Union bodies and Agencies, in order to efficiently combat money laundering and encourage third countries, particularly high-risk third countries, to adopt similar measures and reforms.

Amendment 202 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Fabio DE MASI, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [124 months after adoption] at the latest. They shall immediately communicate the text of those provisions to the Commission.

Amendment 203 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Amendment 204 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Amendment 205 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [2418 months after adoption] at the latest. They shall immediately communicate the text of those provisions to the Commission.

Amendment 206 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

The Commission shall, by [2418 months after the deadline for implementation of this Directive], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Directive.

Amendment 207 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Fabio DE MASI, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

The Commission shall, by [124 months after the deadline for implementation of this Directive], submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Directive.

Amendment 208 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

Amendment 209 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)

The Commission shall also, by 36 months after the deadline for implementation of this Directive, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council evaluating the added value and efficiency of this Directive on countering money laundering, as well as on the impact of this Directive on fundamental rights such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and right of defence or the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence. On the basis of this evaluation, the Commission shall, if necessary, decide on appropriate follow-up actions.

Amendment 28 #

Beatrix von STORCH

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out~~Rejects the Commission proposal;

Amendment 29 #

Proposal for a directive
Title 1

~~Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on countering money laundering by criminal law~~(Does not affect the English version.)

Amendment 30 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) Money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union, public safety and the individual safety of EU citizens. In order to tackle those problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34 , this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for ~~bet~~more efficient and swifter cross- border cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73).

Amendment 31 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

~~(1)~~1. Money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union. In order to tackle those problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34, this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better cross- border cooperation between the competent national and European authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73).

Amendment 32 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

Amendment 33 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) Money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal security and the internal market of the Union. In order to tackle those growing problems and also reinforce the application of Directive 2015/849/EU34 , this Directive aims to tackle money laundering by means of criminal law, allowing for better cross- border cooperation between competent authorities. _________________ 34 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p.73).

Amendment 34 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Fabio DE MASI, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) Measures adopted solely at national or even at Union level, without taking into account international coordination and cooperation, would have very limited effect. The measures adopted by the Union in countering money laundering should therefore be compatible with, and at least as stringent as, other actions undertaken in international fora. Moreover, many international and European jurisdictions still allow the use of bearer shares, which are instrumental for receiving, owing and transferring illicit money anonymously and became a very useful tool for creating international schemes with a purpose to launder money. They allow a system which is more opaque than those in notorious tax havens such as, inter alia, Panama, Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic or Lichtenstein; therefore, the EU anti-money laundering legal framework should fully ban the use of bearer shares.

Amendment 35 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

~~(2)~~2. Measures adopted solely at national or even at Union level, without taking into account international coordination and cooperation, would have very limited effect and would not enable the goal of combating criminality to be fully achieved. The measures adopted by the Union in countering money laundering should therefore be compatible with, and at least as stringent as, other actions undertaken in international fora.

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)

(2a) Money laundering counter- measures should be balanced in order to protect interests that are perceived to be threatened by organised crime and terrorism; legislative and judicial efforts in that regard should focus on achieving the highest level of legal certainty and respect for all the fundamental rights (such as the right to privacy and data protection, or the right to be presumed innocent).

Amendment 37 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)

(2a) A harmonised definition of the term ‘money laundering’ should be agreed in order to iron out the differences that exist between Member States’ legislation in this field and establish an effective framework for combating criminality.

Amendment 38 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) Union action should continue to take particular account of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and instruments of other international bodies active in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The relevant Union legal acts should, where appropriate, be further aligned with the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the ‘revised FATF Recommendations’). As a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198), the Union should transpose the requirements of that Convention into its legal order. Regardless of EU action in this field, EU Member States who signed, but not ratified the Convention yet, shall do so without delay.

Amendment 39 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

~~(3)~~3. Union action should continue to take particular account of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and instruments of other international bodies active in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The relevant Union legal acts should, where appropriate, be further aligned with the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the ‘revised FATF Recommendations’). As a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198), the Union should transpose the requirements of that Convention into its legal order and the legal orders of the Member States.

Amendment 40 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) Union action should continue to take particular account of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and instruments of other international bodies active in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The relevant Union legal acts should, where appropriate, be further aligned with the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the ‘revised FATF Recommendations’). As a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198), the Union should transpose without delay the requirements of that Convention into its legal order.

Amendment 41 #

Salvatore Domenico POGLIESE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4

(4) Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA35 lays down requirements on the criminalisation of money laundering. That Framework Decision is not comprehensive enough, however, and the current incrimination of money laundering is not sufficiently coherent to effectively combat money laundering across the Union, thus leading to enforcement gaps and obstacles in the cooperation between the competent authorities in different Member States. An example of this is the increase in cybercrimes linked to money laundering and to the use of digital currencies, a type of offence which in the past used hardly to exist. _________________ 35 Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (OJ L 182, 05.07.2001).

Amendment 42 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) The definition of criminal activities which constitute predicate offences for money laundering should be sufficiently uniform in all the Member States. Member States should apply the crime of money laundering to all offences that are punishable with imprisonment of a level defined in this Directive. To the extent that the application of these penalties thresholds does not already do so, Member States should include a range of offences within each of the categories designated by the FATF. Where categories of offences, such as terrorism or environmental crimes, are set out in Union law, this Directive refers to such legislation. This ensures that the laundering of the proceeds of the financing of terrorism and wildlife trafficking are punishable in the Member States. Any kind of punishable involvement in the commission of a predicate offence or money laundering activity, such as participation in, association with or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit and aiding, abetting, facilitating and counselling, should be considered as a criminal activity for the purposes of this Directive. In cases where Union law allows Member States to provide for other sanctions than criminal sanctions, this Directive should not require Member States to establish those cases as predicate offences for the purposes of this Directive.

Amendment 43 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) Tax crimes relating to direct and indirect taxes should be included in the definition of criminal activity, in line with the revised FATF Recommendations. Given that different tax offences may in each Member State constitute a criminal activity punishable by means of the sanctions referred to in this Directive, definitions of tax crimes may diverge in national law. However ~~no harmonisation of the definitions of tax crimes in Member States’ national law is sought.~~ tax crimes should be understood as including at least tax fraud, aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion offences and any fraudulent behaviour involving concealment of income or profits or the organisation of one’s insolvency which aims at reducing or suppressing tax liability. The definitions of tax crimes should not include thresholds requiring the existence of a significant amount of unpaid taxes or the systematic use of fraudulent manoeuvres in national law.

Amendment 44 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) Tax crimes relating to direct and indirect taxes should be included in the definition of criminal activity, in line with the revised FATF Recommendations. Given that different tax offences may in each Member State constitute a criminal activity punishable by means of the sanctions referred to in this Directive, definitions of tax crimes may diverge in national law. ~~However n~~No harmonisation of the definitions of tax crimes in Member States’ national law is sought, however, for the purposes of this Directive, any form of tax fraud or evasion shall be covered, regardless of thresholds in national law requiring the existence of a significant amount of undeclared amounts or unpaid taxes or the systematic use of fraudulent manoeuvres.

Amendment 45 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

Amendment 46 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) This Directive should not apply to money laundering as regards property derived from offences affecting the Union’s financial interests, which is subject to specific rules as laid down in Directive 2017/XX/EU36 . In accordance with Article 325(2) TFEU, the Member States shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests. This Directive should not apply to any person who receives proceeds as normal payment for ordinary consumer goods or services, as long as the consideration for such goods or services is adequate. _________________ 36 Directive 2017/XX/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of x x 2017 on the protection of the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ x L, xx.xx.2017, p.x).

Amendment 47 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) Where money laundering activity does not simply amount to the mere possession or use, but also involves the transfer or the concealing and disguise of property through the financial system and results in further damage than that already caused by the predicate offence, such as damaging the integrity of the financial system, that activity should be punished separately. Member States should thus ensure that such conduct is also punishable when committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated that property (so-called self-laundering). Given the high risks that self-laundering may bring to the principle of ne bis in idem and the right not to incriminate oneself, Member States should punish self- laundering only if the two conditions are met: a) there is a previous conviction or the predicate offence is tried at the same time, and b) the actions have the clear intention to hide the illegal origin of the property.

Amendment 48 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) Where money laundering activity does not simply amount to the mere possession or use, but also involves the transfer or the concealing and disguise of property through the financial system and results in further damage than that already caused by the predicate offence, such as damaging the integrity of the financial system, that activity should be punished separately. Member States should thus ensure that such conduct is also punishable when committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated that property (so-called self-laundering), if there is a previous conviction or if the predicate offence is tried at the same time, if the actions have the intention to hide the illegal origin of the property.

Amendment 49 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) ~~Where~~Member States should ensure that certain types of money laundering activities are also punishable when committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated that property (so-called self-laundering) when committed with the intention to hide the illegal origin of the property. Where, in such cases, money laundering activity does not simply amount to the mere possession or use, but also involves the transfer or the concealing and disguise of property through the financial system and results in further damage than that already caused by the predicate offence, such as damaging the integrity of the financial system, that activity should be punished separately. Member States should thus ensure that such conduct is also punishable when committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated that property (so-called self- laundering)able.

Amendment 50 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

Amendment 51 #

Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) ~~In order for money laundering to be an effective tool against organised crime, it should no~~For the effective countering of money laundering by criminal law measures, a conviction should be possible without being necessary to identify the specifics of the crime that generated the property, the type of crime that generated the property, let alone require a prior or simultaneous conviction for that crime. Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence in that Member State or third country. Member States may establish as a prerequisite the fact that the predicate offence would have been a crime in its national law, had it been committed therecrime. Moreover, Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure that the lawful origin of property, wealth and assets is demonstrated by the investigated person in every case involving large amounts of money of unclear origin, suspicious acquisitions or bank transactions, money transfer schemes such as hawala or any other potential proceeds of crime. Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, or that the person being investigated comes from a Member State where she/he is protected by immunity from prosecution, arrest and detention (such as politically exposed persons and magistrates, inter alia).

Amendment 52 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In order for money laundering to be an effective tool against organised crime~~, it should not be necessary to identify the specifics of~~ and in order to safeguard the cri~~me that generated the property, let alone require~~ght to presumption of innocence, a prior or simultaneous conviction for thate crime that generated the property is necessary. Prosecutions for money laundering should ~~also~~ not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence in that Member State or third country. Member States may establish as a prerequisite the fact that the predicate offence would have been a crime in its national law, had it been committed there. The presumption that a predicate offence in a third country is a crime under national law should be based on factual and objective evidence, especially as regards terrorist offences.

Amendment 53 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

Amendment 54 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In order for the tackling of money laundering by criminal law measures to be an effective tool against organised crime, it ~~should~~must not be necessary to identify the specifics of the crime that generated the property, let alone require a prior or simultaneous conviction for that crime. Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence in that Member State or third country~~. Member States may establish as a prerequisite the fa~~, subject t~~hat~~o the ~~predicate offence would have been a crime in its national law, had it been committed ther~~conditions set out in this Directive.

Amendment 55 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In order for measures countering money laundering to be an effective ~~tool against organised crime~~, it should not be necessary to ~~identify the specifics of the crime that~~establish precisely the circumstances relating to the predicate offence which generated the property, let alone require a prior or simultaneous conviction for that crime. Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence ~~in that Member State or third countr~~domestically. Member States may establish as a prerequisite the fact that the predicate offence would have been a crime in its national law, had it been committed there.

Amendment 56 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In order for money laundering to be an effective tool against organised crime, it should ~~not~~ be necessary to identify the specifics of the crime that generated the property~~, let alone require~~; a prior or simultaneous conviction for that crime should be required. Prosecutions for money laundering should ~~also~~ not be impeded by the mere fact that the predicate offence was committed in another Member State or third country, provided it is a criminal offence in that Member State or third country. Member States may establish as a prerequisite the fact that the predicate offence would have been a crime in its national law, had it been committed there.

Amendment 57 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)

(9a) If money laundering is to be punished, there is a need for certainty as to the illegal origin of the money which is being laundered. In that respect, there is a need for a legal document attesting to the illicit nature of the assets and, by implication, the identity of the perpetrator.

Amendment 58 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 b (new)

(9a) The task of deciding, in concrete and objective situations, whether there are concurrent crimes or a single crime should fall to the competent judicial bodies.

Amendment 59 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

(10) This Directive aims to criminalise money laundering when committed intentionally~~. Intention and knowledge may be inferred from objective, factual circumstances~~ or by negligence or recklessness when the offender has a contractual relationship and a responsibility towards an obliged entity or is an obliged entity within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2015/849/EU. Intention, knowledge and negligent behaviour may be inferred from objective, factual circumstances. In this context it does not make a difference whether the property has been derived directly or indirectly from a certain criminal activity, in line with the broad definition of “proceeds”, as laid down in Directive 2014/42/EU. As this Directive provides for minimum rules, Member States are free to adopt or maintain more stringent criminal law rules for money laundering. ~~Member States may, for example, provide that money laundering committed recklessly or by serious negligence constitutes a criminal offence.~~

Amendment 60 #

Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

(10) This Directive aims to criminalise money laundering when committed intentionally and with the knowledge that the property had been derived from criminal activity. Intention and knowledge may be inferred from objective, factual circumstances. As this Directive provides for minimum rules, Member States are free to adopt or maintain more stringent criminal law rules for money laundering. Member States may, for example, provide that money laundering committed recklessly or by serious negligence constitutes a criminal offence.

Amendment 61 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

Amendment 62 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

Amendment 63 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10 a (new)

(10a) The purpose of this directive is not to criminalise socially harmless conduct such as the acquisition of goods and services to meet basic needs, or to penalise people for acquiring goods or services that they have the right to acquire. Persons will therefore not be open to prosecution for money laundering because of having acquired, possessed or used goods in good faith. Persons will be regarded as having acquired goods in bad faith if the value of the agreed consideration is significantly lower than the value of the goods or if it is known or may reasonably be suspected that the acquisition of goods and services might help another person to commit a crime. In particular, lawyers who accept fees in the context of defence in criminal proceedings will not be regarded as committing an offence unless such fees are unreasonably large as measured against the rates customarily charged.

Amendment 64 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10 a (new)

(10a) This Directive should not limit the right of suspects and accused persons to have access to a lawyer and the right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A lawyer should not run the risk of being prosecuted for money laundering for having accepted to defend a client accused of the same offence. Similarly, a suspect should not be obliged to confess that the payment of his or her legal fees originates from money laundering as this would constitute an obvious violation of the right not to incriminate oneself.

Amendment 65 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. ~~Where~~Member States should provide for minimum penalties in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems, when the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 ~~8 or~~, wheren the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, ~~Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems~~when the perpetrator is using large-scale sophisticated money laundering schemes such as smurfing, cash couriers, offshore jurisdictions, money laundering syndicates or when the offender acts as service provider for money laundering for more than one criminal group. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)

Amendment 66 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. Where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 8 or where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, or where the money or the property being laundered is derived from terrorist activities as defined in Directive 2017/541; or where the offender is a Politically Exposed person as defined by Directive 2015/849, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)

Amendment 67 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Fabio DE MASI, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. Where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 8 or, where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, or where the offender is a Politically Exposed Person, in accordance with national law transposing the definition provided in Article 3 (9) of the Directive 2015/489/EU , Member States sh~~ould~~all provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)

Amendment 68 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. Where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 8 or where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering or when the perpetrator is a politically exposed person, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)

Amendment 69 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Bernd LUCKE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay down minimum types and levels of penalties when the criminal offences defined in this Directive are committed. Where the offence is committed within a criminal organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA37 8 or where the perpetrator abused their ~~professional~~dominant position, e.g. as an official or poslitioncal decision maker, to enable money laundering, Member States should provide for aggravating circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems. _________________ 37 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, (OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42)

Amendment 70 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) Given the mobility of perpetrators and proceeds stemming from criminal activities, as well as the complex cross- border investigations required to combat money laundering, all Member States should establish their jurisdiction in order to enable the competent authorities to investigate and prosecute such activities. Member States should thereby ensure that their jurisdiction includes situations where an offence is committed by means of information and communication technology from their territory, whether or not based in their territory. To ensure the success of investigations and the prosecution of money laundering offences, those responsible for investigating or prosecuting such offences should make use of effective and improved investigative tools, such as those used in combating organized crime or other serious crimes. These tools should be adapted to the latest evolutions in the field of cybercrime and money laundering, including by using bitcoins, cryptocurrencies and ransomeware attacks.

Amendment 71 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) To ensure the success of investigations and the prosecution of money laundering offences, those responsible for investigating or prosecuting such offences should have the possibility to make use of effective investigative tools such as those which are used in combating organised crime or other serious crimes. The use of such tools, in accordance with national law, should be targeted and take into account the principle of proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation and should respect the right to the protection of personal data.

Amendment 72 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) This Directive should fully respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Amendment 73 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) Knowledge of the beneficial ownership of companies and bank accounts is fundamental, among others, for the purposes of taxation and preventing prosecuting crime

Amendment 74 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 b (new)

(12b) Furthermore, the cross-border nature of money laundering activities requires a strong coordinated response and cooperation within and between the Member States, as well as with and among the competent Union agencies and bodies to counter money laundering, including Eurojust and Europol. To that end, efficient use of the available tools and resources for cooperation should be made, such as joint investigation teams and coordination meetings facilitated by Eurojust. The global character of money laundering necessitates international action, requiring the Union and its Member States to strengthen cooperation with relevant third countries.

Amendment 75 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 b (new)

(12b) Transparency and openness, which are core elements of the Union legal framework, require European and international efforts. In order to facilitate those efforts, Member States should maintain publicly searchable registries of the beneficial owners of all corporations, trusts foundations, or other relevant entities.

Amendment 76 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 c (new)

(12c) Competent authorities, which supervise the compliance of credit and financial institutions with this Directive, should be able to cooperate, coordinate and exchange in due time confidential information to the widest extent possible, in accordance with the applicable international standards in this field, regardless of their respective nature or status; tax information involving registries of beneficial owners should be the basis of the automatic exchange of information between tax authorities and other relevant government regulatory and enforcement authorities.

Amendment 77 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 d (new)

(12d) Competent authorities, which supervise the compliance of credit and financial institutions with this Directive, should have an adequate legal basis for promptly exchanging confidential information.

Amendment 78 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 e (new)

(12e) Information of prudential nature relating to credit and financial institutions, such as information relating to the fitness and properness of directors and shareholders, internal control mechanisms, governance or compliance and risk management, is often indispensable for an adequate anti-money laundering supervision of such institutions; conversely anti-money laundering information is essential for the prudential supervision of such institutions.

Amendment 79 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 f (new)

(12f) The exchange of confidential information and cooperation between competent authorities, which supervise credit and financial institutions with this Directive, and prudential supervisors should not be hampered by legal uncertainty, which can stem from a lack of explicit provisions in this field; clarification of the legal frame work is even more important since prudential supervision has been entrusted, in a number of cases, to non anti-money laundering supervisors, such as the European Central Bank.

Amendment 80 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 g (new)

(12g) Delayed access by Financial Intelligence Units and other competent authorities to information on the identity of holders of bank and payment accounts and safe deposit boxes, hampers the detection of transfers of funds relating to money laundering and the associated financing of terrorism and organised crime.

Amendment 81 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 h (new)

(12h) National data allowing the identification of bank and payment accounts and safe deposit boxes belonging to one person is fragmented, and therefore, not always accessible by Financial Intelligence Units and other competent authorities in a timely manner; it is therefore essential to establish centralised automated mechanisms, such as a register or a data retrieval system in all Member States as an efficient means to get timely access to information on the identity of holders of bank and payment accounts and safe deposit boxes, their proxy holders, and their beneficial owners.

Amendment 82 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 i (new)

(12i) The principle of professional secrecy as well as the right to privacy and fair trial should not be undermined or violated by the collection and transmission of data or information on transactions based on a suspicion, of the private sphere of individuals.

Amendment 83 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 j (new)

(12j) Financial centres, both onshore and offshore, or bank secrecy havens should not be allowed in any way facilitate corruption or illicit activities, such money laundering; such centres should be effectively cut off from the union and international financial community; a European and/or national “knowledge bank” should be established in order to fight money laundering by increasing the knowledge and transparency of such centres and their structures1. 1 van Konigsveld, T. Jan (2015), De offshore wereld, ont maskend

Amendment 84 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 k (new)

(12k) Stresses the importance to make legislation on correspondence banking clearer and stricter, especially regarding remittance of funds to offshore and non- cooperative jurisdictions, with the obligation to cease activities if beneficial information is not provided.

Amendment 85 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 l (new)

(12l) Stresses that by failing to enact anti-money laundering controls and proper supervision on investments of foreign investors, some EU member states actually serve as “laundromats”.

Amendment 86 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)

(13a) This Directive respects the principles recognised by Article 2 TEU, respects fundamental rights and freedoms and observes the principles recognised, in particular, by the Charter, which encompass, inter alia, the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, covering also the requirement of precision, clarity and foreseeability in criminal law, the presumption of innocence. This Directive has to be implemented in accordance with those rights and principles taking also into account the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other human rights obligations under international law.

Amendment 87 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)

This Directive shall fully respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Amendment 88 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

(b) terrorism, including ~~any of the~~the relevant offences set out in Directive 2017/XX/EU40 ; _________________ 40 Directive 2017/XX/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of X X 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism (OJ x L, xx.xx.2017, p. x.).

Amendment 89 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

(b) terrorism, including any of the offences set out in Directive 2017/XX/EU40 ; _________________ 40Directive 2017/XX/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of X X 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism (OJ x L, xx.xx.2017, p. x.).541/EU40 ;

Amendment 90 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point f

(f) illicit trafficking of arms, t~~rafficking~~heir components or ammunition;

Amendment 91 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point g

(g) illicit trafficking in stolen goods and other goods, such as illicit trafficking of crude oil, weapons, narcotics, tobacco and tobacco products, precious metals and minerals, cultural artefacts and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural and religious importance, or rare scientific value, as well as ivory and wildlife;

Amendment 92 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point h a (new)

(ha) tax fraud and evasion relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes, regardless of thresholds in national law requiring the existence of a significant amount of undeclared amounts or unpaid taxes or the systematic use of fraudulent manoeuvres;

Amendment 93 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point m

(m) murder, ~~grievous bodily~~ injury;

Amendment 94 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point p a (new)

(pa) tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes, including evading taxes by concealing income, earned either legally or illegally, from detection and collection by the tax authorities;

Amendment 95 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point q a (new)

(qa) tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes as clearly defined in the national law of the Member States;

Amendment 96 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point u

(u) ~~cybercrime~~attacks against information systems, including any of the offences set out in Directive 2013/40/EU52 ; _________________ 52 Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA (OJ L 218, 14.8.2013, p. 8).

Amendment 97 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER, Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Fabio DE MASI

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point u a (new)

(ua) tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes as defined in the national law of the Member States;

Amendment 98 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point u a (new)

(ua) tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes;

Amendment 99 #