Brussels, 28/02/2006 (Agence Europe) - The Commission has recognised the progress made by new Member States on the implementation of the 2001 framework decision on money laundering and the confiscation of proceeds of crime. The second report, adopted by the Commission on 23 February, was on the measures taken by Member States to comply with the framework decision of June 2001 on money laundering, identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime. This framework decision should have been implemented by Member States by 31 December 2002. In the first assessment report of April 2004 (see EUROPE 8682), the Commission highlighted delays and imperfect implementation of the framework decision.
According to the second report, Malta is the only Member State not to have provided any information. The information provided by the Greek authorities is still incomplete. Article 1 of the framework decision requires Member States to remove their reservations in respect of the 1990 Council of Europe Convention on money laundering and confiscation: Malta and Hungary will probably need to review the content of their reservations, and Greece, despite indications of a legislative procedure in progress, is still not meeting the obligations of this Article, preferring to draw up a closed list of offences rather than subscribe to the concept of a serious offence. According to Article 2, Member States have to ensure that the offences targeted by the 1990 Convention are punishable by at least four months' imprisonment: Hungary could reword the provision automatically exempting all those who expose money laundering activities, and also its definition of the offence of money laundering (limited to professional money laundering), and Greece submitted patchy information. The Commission “once again considers that far more information is needed to assess the implementation of Articles 3 and 4” of the framework decision. The submission of information, however, is difficult because Member States gather statistical data differently. Article 3 states that Member States must, at least when the proceeds of crime exceed 4000 euro, allow for the confiscation of goods to an equivalent value in cases where the proceeds of crime cannot be seized: Latvia does not appear to have such a procedure and in Austria the confiscation procedure only comes into play above a threshold higher - 21,000 euro - than the provisions of Article 3. Article 4 stipulates that requests for identification, tracing, freezing or confiscation from another Member State be treated with the same degree of urgency as a domestic request: the Commission restates the position it took after the first assessment, “that it does not have enough information to consider that this provision has been specifically implemented”. On the basis of this information and in view of the ruling of 13 September 2005, the Commission will decide whether it is necessary to propose a Community act to help make the arrangements for enforcing money-laundering legislation more consistent and more effective.