Brussels, 18/10/2001 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday evening, the delegation of the European Parliament approved the compromise reached within the conciliation committee with a view to the impending adoption of the new directive on combating money laundering (see also EUROPE of 17 October, p.8). The final vote in plenary should come in November (12-15 December session).
After this meeting, attended by Commissioner Frits Bolkestein, the chairman of the parliamentary delegation, James Provan (British Conservative), stressed before the press that this text was approved unanimously less one abstention. He said he was confident it would soon be ratified by plenary. He congratulated himself on the result showing that "the EU is united in the fight against money laundering", and stressed how important this is in the fight against terrorism and all other forms of organised crime. Rapporteur Klaus-Heiner Lehne (CDU) welcomed the fact that it was now compulsory to give information in a series of activities and professions that are vulnerable to misuse by money launderers. At the same time, he stressed that the fundamental rights of citizens (mainly the right to a fair trial) had been safeguarded thanks to a formula allowing lawyers to safeguard their professional secret in the context of defence rights. The chairman of the parliamentary committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, British Liberal Democrat Graham Watson, affirmed that the text will prevent criminals from using Europe as a refuge for their financial activities. Also welcoming this result, Commissioner Frits Bolkestein felt that the new directive "will once more set an international benchmark of the fight against money laundering", as had been the case for the 1991 Directive. "Once the Directive has been formally adopted, I hope that Member States will do their level best to implement the new rules ahead of the 18 month deadline", he added.
Only one discordant voice, that of Sarah Ludford, troubled this self-satisfied agreement. The British Liberal Democrat stressed that "it will be argued by some that the newly-agreed Directive only requires lawyers to report on their clients' involvement in money laundering if they 'know' that is the purpose of the transactions they are asked to advise on". "Fortunately", continued Ms Ludford, "the actual text makes clear that reporting is required 'of any fact which might be an indication of money laundering', and the specified exemption for lawyers is only under tightly defined criteria of legal privilege. So the only feasible interpretation is that lawyers who have a shrewd suspicion, when they are consulted, that their clients are up to no good should inform the authorities.". Ms Ludford hoped that all Member States would adopt the same interpretation, adding: "In my opinion, the majority of the European Parliament has not covered itself in glory over this saga. Relieved as I am that a consensus has at last been reached, the Directive now needs to be implemented with vigour".