Strasbourg, 13/11/2001 (Agence Europe) - On 13 November, the European Parliament gave its go-ahead to the amendment to the 1991 Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering to make it cover art dealers and auctioneers, casinos, money and stock market regulators and the legal profession (lawyers and notaries). This was made possible by the compromise with the Council agreed on 17 October in the Conciliation Committee on the thorny issue of lawyers' professional confidentiality, which was acceptable to the rapporteur Klaus-Heiner Lehne (German Christian Democrat), who had doggedly tried to ensure that confidentiality was respected (see EUROPE of 17 October, p.8 and 19 October, p.9). The compromise stipulates that "notaries and independent legal professionals should be made subject to the provisions of the Directive when participating in … transactions, where there is the greatest risk of the services of those legal professionals being misused for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of criminal activity". Also: "There must be exemptions from any obligation to report information obtained either before, during or after judicial proceedings, or in the course of ascertaining the legal position for a client. Thus, legal advice remains subject to the obligation of professional secrecy unless the legal counsellor is taking part in money laundering activities, the legal advice is provided for money laundering purposes or the lawyer knows that the client is seeking legal advice for money laundering purposes". (The Council initially wanted to include the words "or has reason to believe" after "knows" in the last sentence, but agreed to drop this demand.) Another important factor enabling the dossier to progress (after stalemate for over two years since the Commission's proposal goes back to July 1999 although the EP had been calling for the directive to be revised since 1995) is the agreement whereby Member States would decide (according to the legal traditions in their countries) whether information obtained on alleged money laundering can be used for other purposes.
During the short debate, Klaus-Hinder Lehne said that the "good compromise" had been possible because the Council had "given ground" by agreeing that Member States should decide whether information on alleged money laundering can be used for other purposes; also giving ground by accepting that confidentiality measures should not be "binding". The rapporteur again stressed citizens' right to obtain confidential legal advice, pointing out that this is one of the rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted in Nice, and said it was now for the relevant Member State authorities to take action. European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein also welcomed the "good compromise", which catered for the "legitimate concerns" of both Parliament and Council. He said the Money Laundering Directive formed a vital part of the fight against serious and organised crime and had also been an "integral part" of the fight against the funding of terrorism since the 11 September events. He mentioned the great interest elsewhere in the world in the directive.
Most of the MEPs who spoke in the debate expressed concerns. The most categorical, German Social Democrat Willi Rothley, said he was against the proposal since the conciliation compromise killed off legal advice, exclaiming that he had never seen such rules in the West or the East for that matter and they had probably never even existed in the Stone Ages. He felt it was a similar error to the one made in OLAF legislation, allowing European Anti-Fraud Office staff free access to MEPs' offices. The Lista Bonino MEP, Maurizio Cappato, was also unable to vote for the text because it gave investigators "special rights" to use information obtained about money laundering for other purposes and because it was an error to concentrate on money laundering. He pointed out Afghanistan's role in global opium production and said that opium legislation would be more effective than chasing their money across the world. More balanced, UK Liberal Democrat Sarah Ludford said that Parliament "had not covered itself with glory" and that individual rights had not always taken centre stage, but felt that the hard won compromise would be "acceptable if interpreted in a common sense way". Other MEPs stressed the importance of the manner in which Member States interpreted the rules on the legal profession: FPÖ MEPs Gerard Hager and Wolfgang Ilgenfritz, for example, announced that the battle for defendants' rights had only just begun.