Brussels, 11/05/2000 (Agence Europe) - Next Thursday, 18 May, the EP will discuss in plenary the report by German Social Democrat Gerhard Schmid on the Council proposal for a framework decision aimed at combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash payments (the Parliament is consulted in one reading).
The rapporteur, followed by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, recalls that the European Parliament had drawn attention to the need to act in this field back in its report dated May 1998 on the draft common action concerning arrangements allowing a better exchange of information on crime linked to the use of payment cards. The sums which circulate in the world through such cards amount to around US$2,000 billion, and losses due to the different forms of fraud represent between 0.1 and 0.2% of this amount, which, says Mr Schmid in his report, means that some $3 billion "is siphoned off annually from the normal economy by criminals". The rapporteur also notes that the terms "fraud" and "counterfeiting" do not always mean the same thing in the criminal law of the various Member States and that these differences give rise to considerable difficulty in the context of inquiries and legal action across national boundaries.
According to Mr Schmid, the draft decision as proposed by the European Commission must be amended on certain points in order to:
- provide for sanctions not only in the case of "involvement as an accessory or instigator" in the acts described but also in the case of "tentative involvement". The "commission of such offences should in fact also be punishable even if their perpetrators have not succeeded in carrying them through, for instance because they have been prevented from doing so by the intervention of the Executive";
- provide a derogatory regime to provide for exceptions when "the perpetrator and the victim of an offence are members of the same family" (for example, a father should decide himself whether his son who has used his payment card to withdraw money without his permission, should be subject to criminal proceedings or if he prefers to settle the matter privately without the assistance of the authorities;
- deal with the precursor acts of money laundering in a separate legal instrument;
- take into account not only the place where the acts were committed but also that where they "materialised" (otherwise, for example, the French criminal authorities could not act against a third country national engaging in illegal activities in, for example, Russia, the proceeds of which came to be raised in France, since the act was not committed in France and its perpetrator is not of French nationality;
- strengthen the protection of the use of personal data.