Brussels, 18/02/2005 (Agence Europe) - The Commission's proposal for the 3rd directive on combating money laundering is “bureaucratic and impractical” and should therefore be amended on several points, the rapporteur of the European Parliament, Hartmut Nassauer (CDU) told a small group of journalists on Thursday. The proposal will be discussed on 21 February in Strasbourg by the EP Committee on Justice and Home Affairs. Nassauer criticises several aspects of the proposal, beginning with the moment chosen by the Commission for proposing a new directive. “The Commission is proposing a 3rd directive while the 2nd is not even transposed in all Member States” (France and Greece are still lacking). “Furthermore, a general assessment of control measures are needed, introduced by the preceding directives”, Nassauer stresses. The same position was defended by the presidents of the European bar who, for the same reason, last week urged for the new directive to be postponed (see EUROPE of 11 February, p.17). The German MEP also asks whether the very detailed and very strict control obligations imposed on the different providers of financial services, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, art dealers, jewellers and solicitors are really justified compared to the results that one can hope for in the new directive. Mr Nassauer mainly fears that many small banks do not have the technical means or administrative resources for setting in place the control and risk-management system necessary for fulfilling the many very strict obligations listed in the current Commission proposal. The rapporteur also requests that terrorism financing, which is now included in the Commission's proposal, is not treated as a “sub-category” of money laundering. “Money laundering aims to be able to use financial means obtained from criminal acts. Terrorism financing, on the other hand, also comes from legal financial sources. Terrorism financing must therefore be defined as a separate and autonomous criminal act”. According to Mr Nassauer, the Council and the Commission are putting pressure on the EP so that the proposal can be adopted at a single reading, in order to be able to apply the new measures as quickly as possible. “We are willing to work along these lines”, Mr Nassauer said, on condition that a satisfactory compromise can be negotiated with the Council and Commission before the reading in EP plenary which, in this case, could take place in April (during the mini-session in Brussels) or in May in Strasbourg.