Page

Preface by Mr. Raymond Forni, President of the National Assembly 5

Introduction 9

Steering Committee of December 3^rd, 2001

I – Blueprint for the final declaration 13

II – Minutes of the Steering Committee of December 3^rd, 2001 19

III – Blueprint for the final declaration

(version including the comments of the steering committee of December 3^rd, 2001) 51

Steering Committee of January 14^th, 2002

I – Minutes of the Steering Committee of January 14^th, 2002 61

II – Blueprint for the final declaration

(version including the comments of the steering committee of January 14^th, 2002) 89

Conference of the European Union Parliaments Against Money Laundering

(7 - 8 February 2002)

I – Draft Paris Declaration Against Money Laundering

(text proposed by the Presidency) 99

II – Minutes of the Working session of February 7^th, 2002 107

A – Opening Address 113

B – Round Table 1 :

Transparency of Capital Movements 123

C – Round Table 2 :

Sanctions against Non-co-operative Countries and Territories 141

D – Round Table 3 :

Prudential Rules 159

E – Round Table 4 :

Judicial, Police and Administrative Co-operation 177

III – Paris Declaration Against Money Laundering adopted by the Conference

(February 8^th, 2002) 205

IV – Minutes of the Formal Session of February 8^th, 2002 213

The urgency of a combat

Money laundering has represented a relevant threat to democracy for many years. This misuse of the international financial mechanisms supports the development of serious criminal acts related to frauds, drug-smuggling, mafia-related activities, corruption. Furthermore, the events of September 11^th, 2001 have drawn attention on the need of a relentless international fight against terrorism and its financing.

Fighting terrorism and fighting money laundering face the very same urgency. All public international actors must today engage themselves to adopt strong measures aimed at fighting money laundering and punishing those who let these practices flourish. Not only do these criminal acts undermine enterprises and financial actors, but they also dangerously endanger democracy.

The indispensable engagement of the national Parliaments of the European Union

Accordingly, I have taken the initiative to organise a Conference of the Parliaments of the European Union against money laundering, held on the 7^th and 8^th February 2001, with the aim of completing the actions already undertaken by the European institutions.

Europe has a special responsibility in this area. A large part of the financial crimes is detected in the territories historically or geographically related to the continent. Furthermore, money laundering, like the financing of terrorism, takes advantage of the flaws, weaknesses or simply of the differences between the financial, banking and commercial systems inside and outside Europe. Accordingly, fighting against these practices implies an harmonisation of the regulations, which, it seems to us, should first of all be achieved among the Fifteen. By showing their commitment to implement concrete measures against money laundering and the financing of terrorism, the Europeans cannot but urge the other big financial centres to question their own procedures.

Governments and their departments – in particular justice and police – as well as international and European institutions through the conventions and directives signed over the last years, play a decisive role in the fight against money laundering and financial crime. Some structures fighting these crimes have been put in place and some success has already been achieved.

National Parliaments are not the less important actors of this policy, where national laws constitute a first-class tool in the fight against money laundering. The effectiveness of this combat implies first and foremost clear and well-established laws that, within the framework of the necessary harmonisation of national legislations, take into consideration existing practices and institutions of the other countries. The implementation by law of effective mechanisms is among the criteria adopted by international institutions to evaluate the reliability of a State in effectively fighting financial crime.

Parliaments also have an important responsibility in the ratification of international conventions, the delay of which could constitute a serious drawback.

A special initiative with an uncontested success

This Conference has been aimed at proposing to all national parliaments of the European Union a common Declaration recalling the importance and urgency of the actions to be undertaken and listing a series of concrete measures. In fact, we deemed necessary not to be satisfied with the tracing of bank accounts belonging to those who finance terrorism or carry out money laundering. We have also questioned the very rules governing the offshore centres and, more generally, the effectiveness of the rules and regulations at the disposal of the European democracies in the fight against these menaces.

The rules of procedure and voting usually applied to international or European texts have not been adopted during this Conference. It was not the case of passing a text meant to be immediately enforced in the subscribing countries, since not all the parliamentarians who were present could engage their Parliaments. However, the adopted procedure has allowed each participant to voice his or her personal commitment in this vital democratic combat, by defining the series of measures deemed necessary to make the fight more effective.

This Declaration supported by all delegations present will allow Parliaments to have a common reference and define the bases of a demanding legislative policy. The Parliamentarians present in Paris have voiced their wish to support the incorporation into national law of the fifty-three measures listed in the final declaration of the 8^th February 2002.

Only through the strong will of all delegations could this result be achieved. I would like to thank them once more.

Many delegations have proposed to host this Conference in the next years. This fact expresses the will of national Parliaments to follow up this initiative. It could be also foreseen to enlarge this format of the Parliaments of the European Union to other domains, in particular the social domain, where the delay in the harmonisation of the laws and regulations among the Fifteen is obvious.

The Conference of the Parliaments of the European Union against money laundering met at the National Assembly on the 7^th and 8^th February 2002.

Mr. Raymond Forni, President of the National Assembly, had convened the Presidents and a delegation of each parliamentary institution of the European Union, with the aim of "preparing a common text containing some precise items on the basis of which participants will commit themselves to work towards the strengthening of national legislations".

Representatives of the parliamentary institutions of the countries applying for membership of the European Union as well as of the State Duma of the Russian Federation had been invited as observers.

The drafting of a final declaration clearly required some previous work. This was the task of the Steering Committee and the working session of the Conference, held on the 7^th February 2002.

When inviting the Presidents to the Conference, President Forni had asked them to appoint some representatives to sit in this Committee, with the aim of drafting the final text collectively. Some European experts had also been invited. There were magistrates, financial-market professionals, academics and representatives of the European institutions.

The Steering Committee met twice, on December 3^rd, 2001 and the 14^th January 2002. At each meeting all the remarks made by the different parliamentary delegations and the experts were recorded. A new project of the declaration was then drafted, which was transmitted to all participants.

The blueprint for the final declaration established by the Steering Committee at its meeting of the 14^th January was itself modified to take into consideration the amendments tabled after the meeting.

Accordingly, a new project of the Paris Declaration was submitted to the Conference at its session of February 7^th, during which the last modifications were made.

At the end of the session the "Paris Declaration against Money Laundering" was eventually drafted. The Conference of the Parliaments of the European Union against money laundering adopted it at its formal session of the 8^th February 2002.

I - Blueprint for the final declaration in view of the meeting

of February 8 2002

Parts submitted to the steering committee of December 3 2001

PREAMBLE

Money laundering and financial crime have been on the constant increase over the last few years exploiting the potentialities given by the globalisation of financial markets ; they represent a threat for the stability of our democratic societies.

The financing of terrorism is just a part of this threat, but it uses the same instruments as all organised crime.

Without the global coordinated mobilisation of States, investigators and law enforcement services will never be able to act as efficiently and as quickly as those they pursue.

From October 1 1996, during the Geneva appeal, European magistrates questioned political decision-makers about this acknowledgment of powerlessness.

In the fight against money laundering and financial crime, Europe’s exemplary behaviour must be without fault.

The persistence of legal mechanisms which lead to the impenetrableness of financial transactions, the use of ‘‘black holes’’ in the international financial system, a certain form of leniency vis-à-vis many uncooperative territories which come under the sphere of influence of European Union Member States can no longer be tolerated.

The European Union has not been inactive since it set about updating the directive against money laundering and it has constantly worked on strengthening the European police and legal system which lags behind economic and monetary union.

In a wider framework the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering has refined its analyses of the phenomenon and has defined criteria enabling uncooperative territories and loopholes in the systems of cooperative countries to be identified.

Stemming from universal suffrage, the national parliaments must necessarily contribute to directing and stimulating the harmonisation of legislation and the cooperation of European Union Member States.

Following a debate bringing together many European experts, MP’s and also academics and practitioners, the Conference of European Union Parliaments privileged four working subjects and adopted a series of concrete proposals in an attempt to improve efficiency in the fight against money laundering.

Subject n° 1 : The transparency of capital movements

An efficient fight against money laundering and financial crime means being able to reconstruct the history of capital movements. The traceability of transactions and order makers is therefore a priority objective, but it comes up against several obstacles, including :

The impenetrableness of certain legal entities (trusts, institutions, foundations and limited partnerships) ;

Objection to investigators with regard to different professional secrets including banking secrecy ;

The existence of international financial services (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers) which do not always enable the order maker to be identified.

Provide for a systematic declaration to the financial intelligence unit of transactions carried out using trust or assimilated funds.

Control the form of trusts (standardised documents and ban of suspect clauses).

Provide for the obligation to register trusts in a central register in addition to the identification of the beneficiaries.

Harmonise professional secret release procedures

Standardise the order maker’s identification in international financial messages (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers).

Subject n° 2 : Sanctions against uncooperative territories

The identification of uncooperative territories in the fight against money laundering falls within the scope of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) whose 40 recommendations are the international reference standard.

Determining and applying sanctions depends on the States. A coordinated action by the European Union in this field can only increase the efficiency of these sanctions.

Provide for a systematic declaration to the financial intelligence unit of financial transactions with these territories.

Strengthen the prudential ratios applicable to financial transactions carried out with these territories.

Restrict or ban transactions with institutions located in these territories.

Ban European Union member country institutions from opening subsidiaries, branches or representative offices in these territories or from holding dealers’ accounts there.

Subject n° 3 : Legal and police cooperation

The fight against money laundering and financial crime necessarily involves legal and police cooperation due to the systematic globalisation of this type of crime.

Money laundering depends on cross-border economic and financial deals.

European magistrates questioned policy-makers on the obstacles encountered in cooperation from October 1 1996 during the Geneva Appeal.

The European Union has taken on this appeal and has tried to facilitate this cooperation during the last several ‘‘Justice & Home Affairs’’ council meetings. The European Council’s summit meeting in Tampere on October 15 and October 16 1999 began to give concrete expression to these intentions in its conclusions namely by announcing the creation of Eurojust (police and legal coordination structure).

This process is however still too long and could be accelerated by well-known measures since they have been discussed for several years.

Institute a European public prosecutor’s office.

Harmonise criminal sanctions namely by favouring the confiscation of revenue from crime and the instrument of money laundering.

Mutually recognise decisions to freeze, seize and confiscate illicit assets.

Introduce financial crimes including laundering on the list of crimes and offences at the basis of the European warrant for arrest.

Subject n° 4 : Prudential rules

The world deregulation of capital markets has complicated the prevention of money laundering and financial crime, namely due to the acceleration and the growth in international financial flows that is has generated. The sophistication of techniques and trades which has accompanied financial globalisation needs the reinforcement of capital-adequacy standards and ethical obligations of markets.

This widening of controls and financial regulations should include all providers of financial and legal services, and also international networks, whether traditional and informal (‘‘Hawala’’ type) or, on the contrary, very well integrated in the international capital markets (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers).

Provide for the compulsory approval of agents belonging to a fund or security transfer network by the financial services regulatory authority.

Same measure as for company creation officers.

Organise, internationally, prudential rules and the regulation of the activities of clearing companies, and fund and security payment-delivery companies.

Follow-up of the present declaration

[In order to control and update the measures it recommended during its formative session, the Conference of European Union Parliaments against Money Laundering agreed to meet periodically at the invitation of the parliament of one of the European Union Member States.]

II – Minutes of the Steering Committee

Monday 3 December 2001

List of Participants

Parliaments Represented:

Bundestag

Mr Andreas NOTHELLE, Deputy Director for Interparliamentary Affairs

Chamber of Representatives

Mr Hugo COVELIERS, President of the Flemish Liberal Group (VLD)

Senate

Mr Hugo VANDENBERGHE, President of the Monitoring Committee on Organised Crime, accompanied by Mr T. DEWAELE, Secretary of the Committee

Congress of Deputies

Mrs Soledad BECERRIL, Vice President of Congress, accompanied by Mrs Silvia MARTI, Legal Adviser

Senate

Mr Alfredo PRADA PRESA, First Vice President of the Senate, accompanied by José-Manuel BRETAL VASQUEZ, Legal Adviser

National Assembly

Mr Vincent PEILLON, President of the Investigation Committee on Obstacles to the Control and Repression of Financial Crimes and Money Laundering in Europe

Senate

Mr Bernard ANGELS, Vice President, Senate

Hellenic Parliament

Mr FLOROS, Deputy, accompanied by Mr NIKOLOUDIS, State Prosecutor and Mrs Eleni CONSTANTINIDOU, civil servant

Chamber of Deputies

Mr Donato BRUNO, President of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, accompanied by Mr Rodolfo CILLOCO, from the Bureau on Relations with the European Union

Senate

Mr Roberto CENTARO, Senator, accompanied by Mr Sebastiano CARDI, Diplomatic Counsel to the President of the Senate, and Mrs Chiara CIPRIANI (protocol) and Mrs Angela SCARAMUZZI, interpreter

Other Experts

Mr Alan-Bruce BEVERLY, European Commission

Mr Robert BIEVER, State prosecutor (Luxembourg)

Mr Olivier de BAYNAST, Magistrate representing France within Pro-Eurojust

Mr Harlem DESIR, Author of a report for the European Parliament

Mr Dominique GARABIOL, Former Head of Inspection, Council on Financial Markets

Mr Gilles LECLAIR, Deputy Director, Europol

Mr Jean de MAILLARD, Magistrate, High Civil Court, Blois

Mr Jean SPREUTELS, President of the Financial Information Processing Unit (Belgium)

Mr Jean-François THONY, Counsel, Appellate Court, Versailles

Vincent PEILLON

Welcome to the Steering Committee meeting for the Conference of European Union Parliaments Against Money Laundering. Allow me to extend my very warm thanks for your attendance. This session was organised in a very short time and, as your schedules are tight, I know that it is difficult for you to squeeze in meetings such as this. That is one of the reasons for which only some of the delegations are represented here today. That being said, you have all received the text that we prepared and which will be discussed over the course of our work sessions. Arnaud Montebourg has also informed me that the luncheon will offer an opportunity for exchange on this topic.

In a few words, I would like to remind you of the French Parliament’s intentions. In the present context, the fight against financial crime and money laundering is a priority amongst multilateral institutions, within the European Union and in most of our governments. This has become even truer since the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Given this context, we thought it would be useful that governmental, European and multilateral initiatives be accompanied by an initiative on the part of the European parliaments, officialising the parliaments’ commitment to the fight against money laundering and financial crime. With this in mind, we wished to bring together a number of experts and parliamentary representatives to endorse a formal declaration, to be issued in February. It is this declaration on which we will work today, for the first session of the Steering Committee. You have received a copy of the proposed text.

We will meet once again to discuss the text on January 14^th. Following this session, and until the January meeting, we can still work effectively toward the adoption of the declaration, in writing. We hope to garner the broadest approval possible for the document from each of the European parliaments, as it includes some very new ideas regarding the present situation. This would confer optimal political effectiveness upon the initiative and lend it worth as an international example.

For this afternoon, I suggest that each of the delegations present share their thoughts on the document, so that we may see which points raise problems and deserve to be the subject of further debate and fine-tuning. To begin, I will give the floor to the parliamentary representatives. Following that, I will ask the international experts to present their views on the topic.

Might I ask, then, for your reactions to the text in its present form. We will proceed in alphabetical order, according to the French language, and will therefore begin with Germany (Allemagne). I give the floor to the representative of the Bundestag, Andreas Nothelle, Deputy Director of Parliamentary Affairs.

Andreas NOTHELLE

Thank you. I did not receive the draft declaration until last Friday afternoon. I have therefore not had a chance to study it in detail. However, I did confer upon it with several experts in this field. The text seems acceptable to us, although a few minor amendments would be necessary. These points will have to be discussed with the representatives involved, who have not yet had the opportunity to look it over thoroughly. Nonetheless, I believe that we will easily be able to endorse the text.

The amendments that we would suggest concern, in particular, Paragraph 2, which seems to liken money laundering to terrorism. In our view, these two factors should be kept distinct, and we therefore propose that Paragraph 2 be deleted. We will also submit two additional minor amendments, which I will send to you in writing.

Vincent PEILLON

Thank you. If all of the delegations shared your viewpoint, we could move very quickly. However, I fear that will not be the case. To cover a methodological issue, might I ask that you send us the amendments that you have not been able to discuss so that we can distribute them as quickly as possible? This way, we will all be able to follow the changes in the document until it reaches its final form.

I give the floor to Hugo Vandenberghe, from the Belgian Senate.

Hugo VANDENBERGHE

We also received the draft declaration over the course of last week. For this reason, I was not able to discuss the text with the Monitoring Committee on Organised Crime, which meets on Tuesday mornings. I will do so in the very next weeks.

Allow me to emphasise that the events of September 11^th should serve as a call to action. In politics, it is important to recognise and seize opportunities. The present context is propitious for the type of initiative you suggest, the principles of which we support. As you know, under the former legislature, the Senate established an Investigative Committee on Organised Crime. This Committee suggested a number of measures against economic and financial crime, all of which were adopted unanimously. I would like to take this opportunity to mention them.

Firstly, we ask that the European Convention on Judicial Co-operation in Penal Matters (20 April 1959) be revised, as Article 2.1 provides that it should not apply to tax-related issues.

Secondly, we suggest that bank secrecy be lifted in the countries where it can still be invoked in matters of organised crime in response to legal injunctions.

The Committee had also recommended that the implementation of Title VI in the Treaty of the European Union (7 February 1992) be hastened, as it works toward strengthening co-operation in the fields of justice and domestic affairs, and opens new avenues in the fight against fraud.

We next suggest continuing in the concrete implementation of Article 209-A of the Treaty of the European Union. The Article was intended to ensure that Member States enforce the same measures in fighting fraud that harms the Community’s financial interests, as they would when fighting fraud that harms their own countries, with a view toward effectively curbing fraudulent practices involving, among other things, subsidies, Community budget or VAT.

By the same token, we recommend that the law punish a new type of tax fraud, when the fraud involves a high tax amount and is carried out through systematic misrepresentation, the objective of which is to disguise reality, especially where VAT is concerned.

We also suggest that a federal magistrate be appointed and entrusted with the fight against money laundering.

In addition, the Belgian Senate proposes that legislation on confiscation be drawn up. This would require making a distinction between the search for the criminal and the misappropriated funds, on the one hand, and the establishment of an illegally-obtained benefit. It would thus be possible that the latter be considered separate from the main case. If this were to come into being, Belgian law would have to do away with the notion of unity of punishment. The Minister of Justice proposed a bill to this effect a few weeks ago.

We also recommend that authorities look into the possibility of introducing asset sharing. This tool would allow the States that contributed to the dismantling of a money-laundering network, or to the seizure of patrimonial belongings to share the confiscated goods.

Lastly, we suggest that all major public markets be subject to strict monitoring, especially when the terms of reference show an amount that is significantly lower than that deemed reasonable by the authorities.

I should add that these proposals are in the process of being implemented.

In my view, obviously, the ideas and themes set forth in your document are constructive. However, I feel that, in order to be effective, our proposals must be concrete and realistic. We cannot be content with a declaration of principle. We must also provide methods for their realisation.

Regarding co-operation between the judiciary and investigative services, the document calls for a European Public Prosecutor. The idea is certainly worthy of further study, but we must also specify operating terms, a timetable for its creation and details about its environment, while also describing our expectations of such an institution from a judiciary standpoint and its relationship to the European Court of Justice. It is, in my view, necessary that the proposals be more precise.

The Senate’s Monitoring Committee has made plans to discuss these matters in January. At that time, we will most certainly be able to suggest amendments to the document you submitted to us.

Vincent PEILLON

I pass the floor to Hugo Coveliers, from the Belgian Chamber of Representatives.

Hugo COVELIERS

I, too, received the draft declaration last Friday. The Justice Committee of the Chamber of Representatives will look over it soon. I will simply give you some of my impressions.

Whatever the final form of the text, I feel that the content must be far more concrete. The fight against money laundering will not be won by one country alone, especially if the said country is small. Europe, on the other hand, is in a position to take action. However, even from that standpoint, certain questions arise.

First of all, it would be advisable that we establish the definitions on which the document is to be based. The first theme in the draft document suggests, for instance, that we harmonise the procedures by which we are to ban professional secrecy. In my view, everyone agrees that the purpose of professional secrecy is not to foster money laundering. Many parliamentarians, in Belgium and elsewhere, might object to this measure unless we specify its purpose and our intentions. We wish to prevent "dirty money", in particular that which results from criminal activity, to be injected into the official system with the aim of facilitating or introducing a certain kind of power. For this reason, when we state that we want to harmonise measures on the lifting of professional secrecy, it is necessary to specify what this might protect us from and explain the way in which we intend to achieve our goal. If we do not do so, we may spark symbolic discussion and create opposition that we could do without.

Likewise, the document calls for limitations or bans on transactions with establishments located in non-cooperative territories. I agree with the intent of the proposal, but wonder whether it would entail sanctions comparable with those dealt to States that support terrorism, and which those States always manage to avoid. We need to be more concrete, specifically indicating the measures that we intend to enforce vis-à-vis parties that do not respect the rules, and specifying how we intend to forbid transactions with non-cooperative territories. Everyone knows that banks are very powerful. How will we force them to play by the rules?

As Hugo Vandenberghe emphasised, and even though I am an advocate the European Public Prosecutor, I feel it is necessary to specify its prerogatives. We have already created Europol, which I hope will become an effective European investigations unit. We also created pro-Eurojust, along with an assembly of public prosecutors from the Union Member States. Madame Delmas-Marty has suggested a corpus juris that would apply only to fraud on European subsidies. Do we plan to bring all of these entities together around a European public prosecutor, with one deputy for each of the countries in the Union? Would the latter's powers be only European, or also domestic? These questions are all the more important in a context where national public ministries often encounter difficulties in their relations with the entities we create at the European level. It would therefore advisable to establish protocols on the powers and duties of each of the entities, as well as on the relations that they should maintain with one another.

I agree that we should add financial crimes, including money laundering, to the list of crimes and offences that can give rise to a European warrant for arrest. But while sharing this aim, we will nonetheless need to come to an agreement on the definition of financial offences. This is of the utmost importance. The definitions must be spelled out clearly so as to avoid any and all misinterpretation.

To summarise, I would like to congratulate you for this initiative, Mr Chairman. It is important that the national parliaments and the European Parliament take action against money laundering. Illegally-acquired funds are already a problem. When, in addition, the funds involved are laundered and used to buy a certain type of power, the difficulties add up and, ultimately, threaten democracy. It thus appears necessary to take action at the European level. With this in mind, we need to avoid creating obstacles for ourselves. In order to exempt ourselves from the criticism of certain NGOs, which are all too ready to accuse us of abolishing liberties, we need to define our measures and their objectives precisely. I am in favour of the idea of a European Public Prosecutor, for instance, but feel that it cannot come into being until we have clearly established its relations with national courts.

Vincent PEILLON

We will come back to the problem that you raise. As you say, it will be very difficult to define our purpose. It is true that we must not restrict ourselves to asserting principles; we must also define the area to which they apply. While keeping our ultimate purpose in mind, we will need to strike a proper balance. It will not be easy.

I give the floor to Soledad Becerril, Vice President of the Spanish Congress of Deputies.

Soledad BECERRIL

As I have worked on the document in English, it is easier for me to speak in English. This draft declaration is a valuable contribution to a European framework against financial crime. I expect it to become a benchmark document on a topic that concerns public opinion. My presentation will deal with the four topics that you submitted.

In broad terms, we agree with the document’s introduction. However, we do not agree with the proposal made by one of the members present concerning the suppression of the second paragraph. We believe that the financing of terrorism represents a threat to our democratic society. Furthermore, we agree that it uses the same instruments as all organised crime. Therefore, we support the inclusion of this important paragraph.

Among the four topics within the document, topic one needs to be stressed. It provides effective measures to prevent the misuse of certain corporate vehicles for the purpose of money laundering. It is important to encourage our governments and EU institutions to promote initiatives against money laundering within our corporate vehicles.

Regarding topic two, a strong consensus exists behind the efforts of the financial action task force in convincing non-compliant jurisdictions to respect the relevant recommendations. In this respect, the rigorous counter-measures adopted to persuade territories to comply with the recommendations may prove indispensable.

Turning to topic three, it is clear that, in the face of the internationalisation of crime, international co-operation needs to be strengthened. Concerning topic four, we must ensure that everyone involved in the transmission of money should be properly registered and supervised. Finally I want to draw your intention to the financing of terrorism. I believe that the implementation of the financial action task force’s special recommendation on money laundering will create a key instrument in the prevention of terrorist activities.

This draft declaration could provide a new important political push to combat financial support for illicit activities and the threats of terrorist. In general terms, we agree with the draft declaration.

Vincent PEILLON

Your agreement in principle is stirring, as it shows strong determination. Our list of proposals was elaborated on the basis of work carried out by this assembly over the last three years. However, by no means do we feel that the final text should be limited to these proposals. Thus, until the text is ratified, we will welcome any and all additional proposals that you might bring forth.

I now give the floor to Alfredo Prada Presa.

Alfredo PRADA PRESA

Since September 11^th, terrorism is no longer limited to certain countries. It has become a problem for everyone. Against this background, I suggest that our text assert that the financing of terrorism will be treated in the same way as financial crime and money laundering.

Vincent PEILLON

Once again, let me state that we will have an opportunity to come back to this worrisome topic. As you stated, it is appropriate that these two topics be linked, probably in a more assertive manner, but also in a more precise manner than it has until now.

I call upon Bernard Angels, Vice President of the Senate.

Bernard ANGELS

The Senate’s general viewpoint on the text is the same as that which we have already heard. The Senate’s work follows the same lines as what has been presented today. I will simply offer some of my thoughts on the text. I agree in particular with our Belgian friends, when they say that our work will only be fruitful if it gives rise not only to a declaration, but also to concrete measures that allow us to carry this issue forward at the European level. In my view, this objective truly deserves our attention.

Regarding the text itself, I would like to raise a few questions that might serve as fodder for our discussions.

Theme 1 calls for systematic reporting to the financial intelligence unit. Yet, it is not certain whether each of the European countries has access to a system comparable to France’s "Tracfin". I know that Germany is in the process of developing such a tool. If the same is not true in all of the Member States, those lacking will have to establish financial intelligence units, based on discussions that we will have to guide.

Discussions are also called for where sanctions are concerned so that these may be harmonised. I believe it is possible to reach consensus on this matter, so that Europe as a whole will speak the same "language".

Theme 3 suggests harmonisation of sanctions where offenders are concerned, but does not deal with the informants. I question the logic of that. We should be able to go further, so as to also punish those who come forth with false information.

As regards judiciary and financial co-operation, Eurojust has been mentioned several times. Yet it is clearly not the only institution fighting against financial crime. The Anti-Fraud Office (Office de lutte anti-fraude) has not been mentioned. Yet it deserves to be recognised, having gained access to new means this year. I therefore ask that the role of this institution be reasserted.

I will conclude with an idea sparked by Alfredo Prada Presa’s comments. Whereas the National Assembly has mainly been focusing on financial crime and money laundering, the events of September 11^th compel us to broaden our debate, so as to include "underground money". I refer, in particular, to money that is not earned illegally, but which serves to destabilise our planet.

Vincent PEILLON

So that the matter is clear, I should state that the sanctions to which you referred would apply to informers who do not respect the principle of due diligence, but not to non-cooperative territories. It is true that, in this area, legislation differs greatly from one European country to another. It is also true that France is not among the leading countries in this field.

I turn the floor over to our Greek friends.

Mr FLOROS

Given the current state of international affairs, I welcome the goal of this conference and European initiatives against money laundering and terrorism. In Eastern Europe, we have strong evidence of the link between these two illegal activities. I would like to register our agreement with all the proposals. Some minor points have been raised and will be addressed by our national prosecutor. However, the draft document appears to complement the financial action taskforce’s eight new recommendations, proposed in Washington in October 2001.

Mr NIKOLOUDIS

I understand the need to link terrorism and money laundering. However, something appears amiss in our efforts to prove this. Traditionally, money laundering has involved the transformation of illegally held money through legal activities. In the case of terrorism, we seem to encounter just the opposite effect: legally held money flowing towards illegal activities. We have to be careful to respond through legal and correct means. Regarding the idea of a European public prosecutor, we recognise the need but have doubts regarding its effectiveness. In our opinion, one person seems insufficient to promote the European public prosecution.

Finally, regarding topic two, we strongly believe that sanctions should be tough. However, since we believe in tough sanctions, we think they should follow objective and fair procedures.

Vincent PEILLON

We will come back to the topic of sanctions, as a first decision seems imminent for the FATF.

We are presently in the process of preparing what should be the adoption of a declaration of political principle by the national parliaments. The question has been raised as to how precise the latter should be. The affirmation of principles that will later be amplified within our national parliaments is progress in itself. This is particularly true where the lifting of professional secrecy is concerned. We are all aware of the recent events in this area, particularly within the context of the revision of the Directive. We may find ourselves having to debate over how we might be more precise, in particular on topics such as evaluation, sanctions and, as a result, the criteria that we would have to adopt to that end. I speak in the conditional voice, as I have doubts as to whether that method is the easiest.

I give the floor to the Italian delegation.

Roberto CENTARO

I would like to thank you for taking this initiative, which I regard as extremely important. Today, organised crime is exploiting technological progress more than ever before. As a consequence, parliaments and nations are lagging behind. Therefore, this initiative should enable us to formulate a definition of concrete proposals.

I would like to speak about the preamble content and add a fifth topic to the existing list. I would not support the suppression of the second paragraph of the preamble. Money laundering can represent a source financing for terrorism and other similar criminal activities. Therefore, this paragraph would occupy a useful position in the preamble. Even in Italy, the collusion between organised crime and terrorism has been proven conclusively.

Regarding the third paragraph, I would rather speak of global action than mobilisation. In this regard, all countries must play their part. In my opinion, the fourth paragraph of the preamble should be suppressed. As this document is political in nature, judges should play no part in its application. They are employed by the state to apply national laws.

I also want to make a comment on the sixth paragraph of the preamble. Instead of dwelling on legal mechanisms or financial black holes, I would mention legislative inadequacy. Otherwise, parliaments tend to adopt a favourable attitude towards particular action. Furthermore, I would prefer the use of the term ‘states’ than ‘territories’. I will mention my fifth topic at the end of my consideration presentation.

Concerning the topic one, I believe that all member states of the European Union should define a common version of fiscal, criminal and financial law provisions. We need the same definitions for the same crimes. In some countries, the distinction between regular and Mafia-related crime does not exist. In addition, common regulations concerning beneficiaries of trusts and the lifting of professional secrets remain crucial: we need to be in agreement, as vigorous sanctions will be needed.

Turning to topic two, I agree on the necessity to identify non-cooperative countries. I think that severe criminal sanctions are needed, both for organisations and individuals. However, I do not agree that the EU has the right to forbid member states from opening subsidiaries within non-cooperative countries. The criteria applied by the EU are based on the rule of law in vigour within the Union’s borders. In addition, I agree on the need to implement sanctions for non-cooperative countries.

Regarding topic three, I would eliminate the echo of the Geneva appeal. Instead, I would include a passage on the past experience acquired in the EU in the judicial field. In our view, the existence of the Eurojust institution may negate the need for the European prosecutor. What should this role entail? I believe that it should seek to facilitate the circulation of news concerning the different enquiries carried out within the EU countries. However, unless the substantial criminal law of all member states is harmonised, such co-operation will prove elusive. In 1998, Italy signed an agreement with Switzerland, which I will now describe.

Ratified recently by the Italian parliament, the agreement has provoked controversial statements. Unfortunately, such controversy arises due to lack of real knowledge on the matter. However, this agreement allows joined investigations between judges, magistrates and investigations services. Thanks to this agreement, we have the possibility of using videoconferencing during proceedings and of transferring suspects to the other country when required. The series of measures included has created an advanced legal instrument. In addition, co-operation extends to documentation and investigation. Therefore, this type of document should be mentioned in the document.

In conclusion, I would like to mention the value of joint committees. In Italy, we have a joint anti-mafia committee, featuring members from both chambers. I believe that these should be copied in other member states. Such an instrument could combat any national judicial weakness. We must remember that the huge financial resources controlled by criminal organisations remains a serious threat for all EU countries. In this regard, sanctions on money laundering and reinvestment of those funds are essential.

Vincent PEILLON

Could you say more about the fifth theme, which you mentioned briefly, but on which you did not have an opportunity to conclude?

Roberto CENTARO

The fifth topic that I referred to was the need to establish homogenous criminal laws and sanctions across the EU. In addition, I believe that we should recognise the crime of association with criminal activity.

Donato BRUNO

I agree with what has been said so far. In particular, I would support the introduction of a fifth topic. Despite the importance of intelligence, I do not see it included in the text. I would like to conclude by voicing my general support for this initiative. However, after consulting with our parliamentary colleagues in Italy, we may propose some amendments.

Vincent PEILLON

The possible inclusion of a fifth theme brings us back to the topic of better harmonising incriminations. If we take up that theme and want to be precise, we may find ourselves before a Herculean task. There is a chance that we will be forced to do so.

I would like to give the floor to Robert Biever, who is a National Prosecutor for Luxembourg, but was designated by the Luxemburgish authorities.

Robert BIEVER

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I must, however, call to your attention that I was by no means designated by the Chamber of Deputies.

Vincent PEILLON

I found it surprising that the two powers should be amalgamated.

Robert BIEVER

I was also surprised upon reading your list of participants.

Vincent PEILLON

In that case, I will call on you to speak as an expert.

I give the floor to Elena Ornella Paccioti, European Deputy.

Elena Ornella PACCIOTI

Thank you for having brought the European Parliament into your work session. We are also deeply involved in defining the European legislative framework. I have just turned in the text modifying Directive 91 to the Secretariat. I ensure you that I will keep you abreast, in writing, of the discussions and texts under debate at the Parliament in Strasbourg.

We would like to achieve a better understanding of the different national legislative frameworks so as to see the points that distinguish them from the European framework. If you wish, Emilio de Capitani can present a review of the tools that currently exist at the European level.

Vincent PEILLON

We will now give the floor to the experts who accepted our invitation, so that they may present their viewpoints and react to our comments. Some of them, including Robert Biever, represent States, while others belong to European institutions. Harlem Désir, a member of the European Parliament, has worked on today’s topic at length. Other guests are civil servants who work for such institutions as Europol or Eurojust, on which we have already commented.

I give the floor, once again, to Robert Biever.

Robert BIEVER

Thank you for your invitation. I agree with all of the points raised in your text but, once again, I must remind you that I am not speaking on behalf of the Luxemburgish Chamber of Deputies.

None of the points seems likely to give rise to disagreements. However, we must recognise that, over the past five years, parliamentarians have produced many texts, conventions, directives and regulations, not all of which were later transposed into national law. Given that fact, does it not seem appropriate that the Parliaments force themselves to be more careful on this matter?

In addition, it is not enough to elaborate texts. The said texts must also be coherent and intelligible. Moreover, the offices must be given sufficient and competent staffing if they are to implement the texts. When this does not occur, the governments have an easy excuse for not enforcing the legislation, even though they themselves ratified it.

The financing of terrorism was discussed at length. We saw that a single problem can have many different aspects. There is no doubt that terrorism can be financed using funds gathered illegally, and in particular, through extortion. Such cases are instances of ordinary money laundering. A number of tools have been developed to prevent the transferring of large sums of money without any real economic base. Now, since September 11^th, we have discovered that a large number of terrorists had received very small amounts of money: they were supported as students would be by their parents. The tools normally used to detect money laundering were obviously not designed to detect that type of financing.

I would also like to broach the topic of the European Public Prosecutor. In my view, this topic alone could take up an entire day of discussions. For the time being, we remain faithful to Eurojust’s philosophy. In other words, we are trying to ensure better collaboration between the various national offices. If we are to make a true leap ahead where quality is concerned, we would have to ask the European Public Prosecutor to arouse public action. However, it would not be able to do so alone. Therefore, we would have to give it a jurisdiction. I do not need to remind you that, throughout the Union, the powers of the Public Prosecutors are checked by the supervisory powers given to the jurisdictions.

My last comment pertains to Theme 4. In this area, we will also have to ensure that sanctions are harmonised not only within the Union, but also with the judgements rendered by the FATF. If this does not occur, there will be considerable confusion. Thus, in this field as well, a number of political decisions will have to be made.

Vincent PEILLON

I give the floor to Alan-Bruce Beverly from the European Commission, who took part in the revision of the Directive.

Alan-Bruce BEVERLY

Thank you for inviting the European Commission to this valuable and worthy occasion. I appreciate the difficulty involved in formulating a balanced document based on a parliamentary declaration and a legislative text. I believe that the reference to terrorism belongs in this document. In this regard, the time is right to progress on this issue.

Regarding the sixth paragraph, I wonder at the number of non co-operative states in existence within the EU sphere of influence. The work of the financial action task force has demonstrated that none of its 29 member countries operate under a perfect system. Some territories may remain co-operative on criminality without that spirit extending to fiscal matters. In this regard, I would question the ability of anti-laundering legislation in combating tax fraud.

Turning to topic one, I fully agree with the presentation of the problems. However, the solutions may require some further discussion. I am not convinced that the financial intelligence units would welcome this extra burden of reporting on additional funds. In addition, in the area of trust law, I do not know of many countries that have adopted a central trust register.

Having worked on the recent EU directive text, I am not sure that a harmonisation of procedures on the lifting of professional secrecy is totally feasible. Following the update of the FATF recommendation, the question of identification of originators of payment is on the agenda. Concerning topic two, I am not certain that a systematic declaration to the financial intelligence units is desirable. Perhaps this system could be applied best to small-scale offshore centres. A recent meeting of EU finance ministers agreed to apply the counter-measures decision of the FATF.

I have no specific comment on topic three except to state that a lot of progress has been achieved on third pillar side of community activity. The Justice and Home Affairs ministers plan to meet soon and are committed to reach agreement. Concerning topic four, a lot of pressure now exists to look at the question of official and non-official movements of funds. I believe that professionals involved in the creation of companies or the provision of company or trust services could and should be regulated. Those were my initial comments. However, we will need to study every recommendation in more detail at a later date.

Olivier de BAYNAST

I am a member of pro-Eurojust, which has already been mentioned. The "pro" stands for "provisoire", which means "temporary" in French. We hope that our status will be finalised by the end of the year.

Experts and users alike expect declarations such as these to provide the impetus that will lead to progress. It is a mighty task because, although today’s topic is a buzzword, it is no less a crucial challenge. In my view, your declaration needs to call for greater consistency among the conventions and texts that are piling up, as many before me have remarked, and through which the users are wading with some difficulty. This discussion gives me an opportunity to emphasise the importance of ratifying those texts, many of which were the subject of lengthy debates. With this and today’s event in mind, I carried out a study of all of the texts that deal with today’s topic. I also indicated whether each of the texts had been ratified and provided a reminder of their content. I think the results will be of use to you.

We see that some texts have been adopted, but are not ratified. Other texts have been ratified, but are not enforced. A number of institutions have been established, but do not work together. It would be appropriate to ask these institutions to co-operate and collaborate. While they most certainly have a role to play, they cannot do so effectively unless they work together. Bernard Angels mentioned the Anti-Fraud Office. It is necessary that the Office join forces with Eurojust, just as Europol should work with Eurojust. Each of these institutions is part of a whole.

As Robert Biever stated, the European Public Prosecutor and Eurojust are two entirely distinct entities. The latter is part of an intergovernmental line of thinking, based on co-operation. If you decide to call for a European Public Prosecutor in your declaration, you will need to make it clear that, in proposing a tighter structure, you are by no means dismissing the importance of the existing institutions. In the past, I have observed that some requests for highly integrated tools were, in fact, a way of disguising the fact that the existing tools were no longer wanted.

The declaration will also have to reflect the ongoing nature of the negotiations. The European arrest warrant will be ratified by the end of the year, or so I hope. Once this is accomplished, it will be impossible to add anything to it. It will therefore be necessary to determine what the warrant can over, even beyond the list. With this idea in mind, I would like to offer my help in finding the wording that will allow optimal usage of the warrant. That being said, given that we are still in the midst of ratifying the European arrest warrant, I ask that each delegation check its country’s standpoint in the negotiations. Amongst the countries represented today, some are strongly against the inclusion of financial crimes in the arrest warrant’s breadth. I would add the latter view could have a devastating effect on public opinion, as it implies that the fight against white-collar crime is not a European priority, contrary to what politicians, whether left-wing or right-wing, have declared.

Vincent PEILLON

We appreciate your having prepared a study for us.

Harlem DESIR

Regarding Theme 1 and the declaration as a whole, we must look into the junction between European legislation and its transposition or ratification in national law. Directive 91-308 is now ten years old and has not proved satisfactory when we have had to deal with real cases of money laundering. This is not due only to the flaws in its wording or to its content, but also to the difficulties that arise in its implementation. As an example, on 2 May 2001, in the case involving the clearinghouse Clearstream, the European Commission declared that it would only ensure that the transposed law was implemented and enforced in Luxembourg, the country involved. The Commission explained that the implementation of the Directive by a country’s financial institutions could only be overseen by the country’s government itself. Yet the Directive requires financial institutions and clearinghouses to report all financial movements that seem to arise from laundering, also defining money laundering in a very broad, albeit unequivocal manner.

In light of this example, I would like to suggest that we study the question of creating a European supervisory body. Such an entity would have direct access to financial establishments and their transactions. This idea is already present, implicitly, in the proposal of designating a European Prosecutor.

Since September 11^th, the fight against terrorism has come to involve the rapid implementation of measures against certain establishments and individuals. In my opinion, it was necessary to react. It showed that, where there is will, it is possible to find judiciary devices that limit or forbid transactions with certain establishments. I would like to draw a parallel between this example and the declaration of intent to limit or forbid transactions with institutions in non-cooperative territories, even though the level of priority may not be as high. In this case, for example, it is worth considering a surtax to make offshore investments less attractive.

Regarding Theme 3, I agree with the representative of pro-Eurojust: we can only hope that Eurojust will be given power, as it would allow us to move concretely and swiftly toward the creation of a European Public Prosecutor.

As pertains to the European arrest warrant, might I remind you that the European Parliament spoke out on this topic, when the vote occurred on 29 November. Following Mr Watson’s report, the proposed creation of a European arrest warrant was adopted.

Gilles LECLAIR

I represent Europol, but also a certain number of users within the investigations services and the judicial field. Our destinies are closely tied together.

I would like to discuss investigations of money laundering in general terms. It is unlikely that this type of investigation will change considerably over time. Some are launched when suspicious transactions occur, and involve tracing financial flows back to their source in order to prove that the transactions are the result of infractions on the law. It is therefore necessary, as was previously stated, that everyone agree on the definition of the infraction.

Investigations can also be launched following an infraction to investigate the financial environment of the individuals and companies that took part in the crime, with an view to determining where the funds were reinvested.

Some investigations arise from the surveillance of financial intermediaries, a true challenge. Lastly, we should mention the surveillance of legitimate funds that are reinvested in underground activities.

All of these scenarios require flawless co-operation between the investigations units, the legal system and the financial institutions, at both the national and European levels. Here, we see one of the system’s first failings. The results achieved, when compared to the number of texts adopted, seem altogether trifling. Few positive investigations have been completed in the field of money laundering. It is difficult to believe that this is due to the preventive nature of the texts adopted. Instead, it is more likely that these provisions have led to a certain form of confusion. This needs to be emphasised.

International co-operation is also imperative, but it is precisely the second weakness of the system. It is important to clarify the definition of non-cooperative States, but above all, it is necessary to list them. As players within the European Union, we have all had to deal with obstacles in carrying out our various international court investigations. It is therefore essential that the States agree on a single definition of the term "non-cooperative State". At the same time, it is advisable to be wary of State certification, as seen in the United States for instance, in particular where drugs are concerned.

The stand it has taken regarding professional and bank secrecy deserves to be praised.

Regarding the European Public Prosecutor, in my view, in order for it to be concrete, we must show more resolve. We must first define the Public Prosecutor, as well as the penal procedures it will follow and the investigations units it will govern. The matter remains open for discussion.

The centralisation of lawsuits at the national level and the centralisation of specific investigations structures are both highly desirable. The fact that the investigations, customs and police services are scattered often hinders the success of investigations.

Although it has not been mentioned before, the overturning of the burden of proof has already been called for by a number of conventions. In my opinion, it is a shame that this factor is not mentioned more frequently, as it is particularly helpful when one must determine the source of illegal funds.

As you know, Europol is a new intergovernmental investigations organisation and, as such, does not have distinct investigative powers. Aside from supplying intelligence, our role does not go beyond technical and operational support. In November 2000, we secured the right to work on laundering in all its forms. It is because of this that I stress the importance of sharing intelligence amongst national units. This is another major challenge.

I would also like to put forth a proposal regarding the financing of terrorism, a sensitive topic, but one related to money laundering, insofar as it makes use of all sorts of techniques, some of which are legal. It might be useful to elaborate a specific file that focuses on issues that pertain specifically to terrorism.

Dominique GARABIOL

My background is in banking and I have worked at length with the administrative supervisory authorities on banks and financial markets. I have also taken an active part in helping the investigations units.

I will make three general comments. Firstly, the introductory document would be more powerful if it offered avenues for clarification. Your discussions show that there exists no clear view of the special unit that should be created to fight the money used in organised crime and terrorism. Financial crime encompasses a vast range of crimes and offences.

In order to reach consensus amongst all of the countries and players, it is important to clearly define our objective. In my view, national parliaments could be instrumental in this.

Theme 1 raises the crucial question of professional secrecy. Often times, political and administrative authorities are unaware that professional secrecy can be invoked in the very professions involved. This is known as "shared professional secrecy". It is a very important concept because, although we have developed very ambitious watch systems, these become powerless as soon as a criminal makes use of several banks, as these cannot—at least in theory—communicate with one another. It would therefore appear that it is necessary to recognise shared professional secrecy with in the European Union. This would make it possible for bankers and lawyers to exchange information, as co-users. The barriers that exist today do not allow that and considerably weaken watch mechanisms.

Lastly, I would like to discuss the issue of resources in investigations. I consider all of the factors mentioned in Theme 3 as relating to crimes or offences. We cannot underestimate the importance of giving sufficient resources to investigations units. Studies have shown that the vast majority of money laundering cases that lead to convictions are the result of criminal investigations. Surveillance mechanisms rarely provide instrumental information. Against this background, I would like to refer back to the Palermo Convention, which was signed last December, and which contains a set of very important and useful factors. If the Palermo Convention were transposed into the legislation of as many countries as necessary for it to be enforced, it would make for a crucial leap ahead in quality in the fight against the money used in terrorism and organised crime.

Jean de MAILLARD

I would like to make a few general observations, based on the comments of the various speakers.

We see that the problems related to terrorism place constraints on us as we try to define money laundering. Certain acts, seemingly, cannot be identified with organised crime. We must not react by forcing certain recently identified problems into a definition that was not originally designed with them in mind. The countries that make up the European Union have comparable, if not similar, definitions of money laundering. Terrorism raises a direct challenge to the workings of the economic and financial systems. The financing of terrorism can occur through events entirely different from classic money laundering, yet be just as great a threat to the economic and financial system. It is important to remember this when making any attempt to improve the situation. If we do not work toward introducing rules of good governance into the economic and financial systems, we will never do any better—and yet, we must do better, rather than doing more.

Given this objective, it is essential implement better surveillance of persons and capital flows. Harlem Desir rightfully raised the problem of clearinghouses and, more specifically, the Clearstream case, presently being heard in Luxembourg. The facts demonstrate that the lack of surveillance over the economic and financial markets is to blame. In my opinion, if we introduce rules of good governance under European supervision, the economic and financial players will be forced to co-operate—far more than they do presently—with the authorities and, in particular, toward the prevention and repression of money laundering transactions. The Swiss system of self-regulation, which gave rise to great hope, is proof that good legislation alone is not enough. Without political will to guide it, the system reached its limits. Thus, legislative improvements must be followed by the implementation of resources. The overturning of the burden of proof, which Gilles Leclair mentioned, will only be possible if special incriminations, similar to those that exist in the United Kingdom, are adopted. There, bankers must report instances where they do not obey prudential rules. Today, it is unacceptable that a banker should say he does not know how criminal organisations or terrorists perform money laundering.

Regarding the European Public Prosecutor, I see two types of reasoning. The first pertains to the first pillar, while the second is related to the third pillar. In other words, there is a Community-based approach and an intergovernmental approach. Pro-Eurojust is based on the principle of intergovernmental co-operation in investigations. It is a worthy creation, but is not enough alone, when we know that major fraud cases involve several Member States. That is why I believe it is essential to establish a European Public Prosecutor. It will not be a repeat of existing structures. That being said, its sphere of duty remains to be defined. It is my view that we should start by entrusting it with all European fraud cases, in order to test and "break in" the tool that was developed, from a technical standpoint, by the corpus juris. This shows that it is technically possible to initiate the European Public Prosecutor, without creating European jurisdictions. Therein lies one of the innovations of corpus juris. The system should already be workable.

Vincent PEILLON

I give the floor to Jean Spreutels, the only representative of an inspection agency.

Jean SPREUTELS

I am President of the Financial Information Processing Unit, which is Belgium’s financial intelligence unit. I was formerly president of the FATF and its ad hoc group on non-cooperative countries and territories. I am also the current head of the Belgian Delegation within the FATF.

We can only express joy at the National Assembly’s undertaking. There is a need to create a clear political impetus and send a strong political message to the various bodies, whether national or international, that must currently face the problem of money laundering.

Each of the countries in the Union has a financial intelligence unit. This is, in part, the result of the framework decision adopted on 16 October 2000, under the French Presidency, a text that lays down the foundations of the fight against money laundering. On 12 October last, the 15 financial intelligence units met in Brussels, following the events of 11 September, with the aim of further improving our co-operation in the fight against terrorism. Some of my proposals today come from the work carried out during that meeting. If you wish, I can supply you with the official event report.

I, too, believe that we need to move beyond the theoretical distinction that exists between the financing of terrorism and money laundering that results from terror-related crimes. This distinction has become moot, not only because of recent events, but also through the international devices created by the United Nations, the FATF and the European Union. I might add that the FATF’s recommendations suggest that States should not only make the financing of terrorism a criminal act, but also include that crime amongst the offences that constitute money laundering. The link between the two acts has thus been clearly established. I would also add that, on a practical note and to show the effectiveness of the anti-laundering unit in the fight against terrorism, we in Belgium have sent up 24 cases involving terrorism or its financing, since 11 September. Therefore, I do not share in the pessimism shown by some speakers regarding the effectiveness of these devices, especially as Belgium has also recorded some 400 convictions based only on reports of suspicious activity, received by financial institutions. According to investigations units, it would appear that 90% of laundering investigations are spawned by reports of suspicious activity. This shows that we must take a complementary approach.

If you wish, I can send you a document presenting a number of solutions that I will now describe quickly.

In the Preamble, we might specify that we are mainly interested in money laundering of criminal origin, as well as by high economic and financial crime.

Secondly, if we must mention investigators and repressive authorities, we should also broaden the issue to include the authorities responsible for preventing these occurrences. As we have established, the fight includes prevention, on the one hand, and repression, on the other. It is thus appropriate that they should both be mentioned.

Insofar as the Financial Action Group is mentioned, the Preamble might also touch upon Group Egmont, which set the foundations of operational co-operation between the world’s financial intelligence units.

In my view, a few additional elements could be added to the ideas on Theme I. In particular, each country could create a central registry of all bank accounts and account holders, as France does already. Germany and The Netherlands are already looking into this solution.

We could also set limits on cash payments above a certain amount. Here too, some Member States have already done so. The idea seems all the more appropriate in that we are soon going to have to transpose the new European Directive regarding merchants of high-value goods, to cover all cash payments of more than EUR 15 000. In my opinion, it will be difficult to oversee all of this professions’ transactions; it would perhaps be easier to prohibit cash payments of more than EUR 15 000.

Financial intelligence units might also be given direct access to the information held by financial institutions. This already occurs in France and Belgium. Some of my colleagues have told me of difficulties that they encounter for lack of such information. It would also be appropriate to establish sanctions, in particular administrative, against financial institutions that do not fulfil their duties in this area.

Lastly, we are increasingly concerned about the usage of the Internet for international payments. We might consider obliging access providers to identify parties carrying out financial transactions.

Moving on to Theme 2, in addition to the counter-measures listed, we might suggest stricter requirements regarding the identification of economic beneficiaries by financial establishments, before entering relations with individuals or companies based in non-cooperative territories. This counter-measure has already been suggested by the FATF.

As Alan-Bruce Beverly stated, we must avoid overloading financial intelligence units with useless information. In order to achieve this, we might strengthen reporting mechanisms and, possibly, call for systematic reporting at a later time. This would leave local authorities some margin in the implementation of the requirement.

Regarding Theme 3, Bernard Angels was right to call OLAF to our attention. From a more general standpoint, we might also broaden our scope to include administrative co-operation. In order to be effective, we must improve judiciary, investigative and administrative co-operation. This would help us call attention to the importance of overturning or modifying the burden of proof.

Themes 1 and 4 have a number of points in common. We should therefore plan on fleshing them out. In addition, I wonder how we would structure prudential supervision of certain activities, such as clearinghouses, at the international level. This might be a long-term objective, but we would have to be careful not to use our long-term initiative as an alibi for not taking action in the short term. In the short term, I feel that we must ensure that these bodies are monitored by the national authority concerned. Where supervisory authority does exist, it will need to be strengthened. For instance, Euroclear is registered as a financial institution in Belgium, making it possible for both the Financial and Banking Committee and the Financial Information Processing Unit to monitor it, through effective co-operation.

Before looking to create new means at the European level, I feel we should work to improve what already exists.

Vincent PEILLON

For our final speaker, before I summarise the day’s comments, I call upon Jean-François Thony.

Jean-François THONY

After such very fruitful discussion, I will simply make three general comments.

Firstly, without wanting to get into a long discussion on semantics, I must say that, in my opinion, the word "laundering" is being used improperly. The fight against laundering is a means in the fight against the money resulting from organised crime. Now, based on these discussions, it would appear that the means has become the end. For that reason, I would suggest that we banish the word "laundering" from our vocabulary and replace it with the expression "crime’s financial networks". The fight against the financing of terrorism would thus naturally fall under the scope of our discussions.

My second point pertains to the issue of sanctions against rogue states. While I agree that we should enforce sanctions against countries that overtly violate the moral rules that govern financial transactions, I am against the idea that a group of countries that has not been mandated by the international community should draw up the list of those rogue states. Those that draw up the list will have no problem accepting the principle, but those who are not on the list will have trouble accepting the judgement of an authority whose legitimacy has not been recognised. I respect the excellent work carried out by the FATF, but we all now that political factors often prevail over technical factors in the drawing up of such lists. The existing list of non-cooperative countries, for instance, does not exactly match the map of money laundering countries. I am therefore hesitant on this topic. I believe that the declaration should call for the elaboration of a list according to objective principles, something that will be particularly complex to achieve.

In closing, I note that there is no single text at the international level that binds all of our investigative means under a single corpus juris, aside from the European Council’s Strasbourg Convention. A protocol proposal has been issued to update the convention and might provide an opportunity to request a true convention on the prevention and repression of laundering.

Vincent PEILLON

I would like to lay emphasis on the objective that we set for ourselves. This action on the part of national Parliaments is of great political importance, as we were reminded by our European colleagues who have worked on international conventions within the European framework or that of the United Nations.

We all know that there are difficulties in the transposition of existing texts. This is true in matters of money laundering, as in matters of terrorism. We know, for instance, that measures had been taken to freeze and confiscate Osama Bin Laden’s assets before September 2001, but that these were not implemented.

Clearly, our text should include references to these necessary transpositions. We must also realise that, in a world run by intergovernmental and European bodies, our national parliaments still have a decisive role to play. The fact that these parliaments are taking hold of the problems created by laundering carries a strong political meaning.

We must strike a balance so that this declaration can be adopted by the Parliaments, whatever their political tendencies. This implies that our text, in order to be aggressive, must not be a mere administrative circular. It must symbolise the political commitment of our national parliaments and must thus stand the middle ground between a declaration of principle and a list of feasible, precise measures to be implemented.

Despite the hesitation that we heard today, I feel that terrorism should be part of our text, provided that we be more specific and that we describe its connection with criminal activity.

The issue of the European Public Prosecutor was raised on many occasions. Yet I do not think it should be given too much importance. In order to be efficient, we should probably withdraw this recommendation which, though a compelling one, is too vague for many of you.

In contrast, we will have to be far more precise regarding the nature of incriminations in this field and on their harmonisation within national law. We will need to make propositions on this issue.

Based on your comments, we will be able to add a number of ideas to our proposition. We will send them to you very shortly, with the aim of revising the text as quickly as possible. For instance, we will incorporate the idea of developing a registry of bank accounts, something that already exists in many of the Union’s countries and has proved itself useful, as well as a mechanism that will make it possible to restructure the burden of proof.

On behalf of the President of the National Assembly, Mr Raymond Forni, who will join us in the course of our work, I would like to suggest that we adopt the most transparent method possible. Hence, our discussions will be transcribed and that transcription will be distributed quickly, in particular to those of our colleagues who were not able to be present today. In addition, based on the proposals and reserves heard today, we will try to prepare a second version of the document shortly, so that you can discuss it in your respective parliaments.

In closing, let me offer my sincere thanks for your presence. We stand at the beginning, rather than at the end, of a process and hope that, by our next meeting, in January, we will have the opportunity to correspond with you, in writing.

III- Blueprint for the final declaration

PREAMBLE

The financing of terrorism uses very different systems and some of these use the legal economy, although it also resorts to the same instruments as all organised crime.

In the fight against money laundering and the use of the financial system by criminal networks, Europe’s exemplary behaviour must be without fault.

The persistence of legal mechanisms which lead to the impenetrableness of financial transactions, the use of ‘‘black holes’’ in the international financial system, a certain form of leniency vis-à-vis many non-cooperative countries and territories which come under the sphere of influence of European Union Member States can no longer be tolerated.

The European Union has however not been inactive since it has updated the directive against money laundering and it has constantly worked on strengthening the European police and legal system which lags behind economic and monetary union.

In a wider framework the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering has refined its analyses of the phenomenon and has defined criteria enabling non-cooperative countries and territories, and loopholes in the systems of cooperative countries to be identified.

Stemming from universal suffrage, the national parliaments must necessarily contribute to directing and stimulating the harmonisation of legislation and the cooperation of European Union Member States.

Following a debate bringing together many European experts, MP’s and also academics and practitioners, the Conference of European Union Parliaments privileged four working subjects and adopted a series of concrete proposals in an attempt to improve efficiency in the fight against money laundering.

Subject n° 1 : The transparency of capital movements

An efficient fight against money laundering and financial crime means being able to reconstruct the history of capital movements. The traceability of transactions and order makers is therefore a priority objective, but it comes up against several obstacles, including :

The impenetrableness of certain legal entities (trusts, institutions, foundations and limited partnerships) ;

Objection to investigators with regard to different professional secrets including banking secrecy ;

The existence of international financial services (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers) which do not always enable the order maker to be identified.

Provide for a systematic report to the financial intelligence unit of transactions carried out using trust or assimilated funds whenever it is impossible to identify the beneficial owner.

Control the form of trusts (standardised documents and ban of suspect clauses).

Provide for the obligation to register trusts in a central register in addition to the identification of the beneficiaries.

Harmonise professional secret release procedures

Generalise access to information held by financial agencies for financial intelligence units.

Create a central bank account register.

Standardise the order maker’s identification in international financial messages (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers).

Provide for the identification of financial transaction originators on the Internet by access providers.

Subject n° 2 : Sanctions against non-cooperative countries and territories

The identification of non-cooperative countries and territories in the fight against money laundering falls within the scope of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) whose 40 recommendations are the international reference standard. This process must guarantee objective assessment.

Determining and applying sanctions depends on the States. A coordinated action by the European Union in this field can only increase the efficiency of these sanctions.

Strengthen the obligations of financial agencies to identify beneficial owner before establishing relations with individuals or entities in these countries and territories.

Strengthen reporting mechanisms or provide for a systematic report to the financial intelligence unit of financial transactions with these countries and territories.

Strengthen the prudential ratios applicable to financial transactions carried out with these countries and territories.

Impose conditions on, restrict, overtax or ban transactions with individuals or entities located in these countries and territories.

Ban European Union member country institutions from opening subsidiaries, branches or representative offices in these territories or from holding dealers’ accounts there.

Ban financial institutions whose head office is located in one of these countries or territories from opening subsidiaries, branches or representatives offices in the European Union.

Subject n° 3 : Legal, police and administrative cooperation

The fight against money laundering and financial crime necessarily involves legal, police and administrative cooperation due to the systematic globalisation of this type of crime.

The Egmont group has laid the foundations for operational cooperation between financial intelligence units and the setting up of the European Anti-Fraud Office is an initial community response. Nevertheless, police and legal cooperation lags behind somewhat.

Several international instances (UN, Council of Europe, European Union) have proposed States sign conventions aimed at improving this cooperation. Beyond the necessary ratifications of these texts, their application, often full of reserves, is not optimal.

The European Union has regularly endeavoured to encourage this cooperation. With this in mind, the European Council’s summit meeting in Tampere namely announced the creation of Eurojust.

This process is however still too long and must be accelerated by measures which are well-known since they have been discussed for several years.

Ratify, apply and strengthen the consistency of international conventions aimed at facilitating legal cooperation.

Harmonise incriminations in terms of financial crime.

Harmonise criminal sanctions namely by favouring the confiscation of revenue from crime and the instrument of money laundering.

Mutually recognise decisions to freeze, seize and confiscate illicit assets.

Provide for a mechanism for sharing between States credits confiscated as a result of international cooperation.

Introduce financial crimes including laundering on the list of offences at the basis of the European warrant for arrest.

Institute a European public prosecutor’s office which initially has jurisdiction over community fraud and for offences which fall within the scope of the European warrant for arrest.

Subject n° 4 : Prudential rules

The world deregulation of capital markets has complicated the prevention of money laundering and financial crime, namely due to the acceleration and the growth in international financial flows that is has generated. The sophistication of techniques and trades which has accompanied financial globalisation needs the reinforcement of capital-adequacy standards and ethical obligations of markets.

This widening of controls and financial regulations should include all providers of financial and legal services, and also international networks, whether traditional and informal (‘‘Hawala’’ type) or, on the contrary, very well integrated in the international capital markets (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers).

Restrict cash payments beyond a given amount.

Provide for the compulsory licensing by the financial services regulatory authority of:

Agents belonging to a cash or security transfer network, including traditional, informal and parallel networks;

Company formation agents.

Foreign exchange offices.

Strengthen prudential rules and, as necessary on an international level, the regulation of the activities of clearing companies, and fund and security payment-delivery companies.

Match the breach of their obligations to supervise the professions subject to them with criminal sanctions.

I – Minutes of the Steering Committee

List of Participants:

Parliaments Represented

Bundesrat

Dr Marcus WENIG, Brandenburg Representative in Brussels

Chamber of Representatives

Mr Hugo COVELIERS, President of the Flemish Liberal Group (VLD)

Senate

Mr T. DEWAELE, Civil Servant

Congress of Deputies

Mrs Soledad BECERRIL, Vice President of Congress

Senate

Mr Alfredo PRADA PRESA, First Vice President of the Senate, accompanied by José-Manuel BRETAL VASQUEZ, Legal Advisor

National Assembly

Mr Vincent PEILLON, President of the Investigation Committee on Obstacles to the Control and Repression of Financial Crimes and Money Laundering in Europe

Senate

Mr Bernard ANGELS, Senate Vice President, accompanied by Mr Christian OUDIN, Civil Servant

Hellenic Parliament

Mrs Maria ARSENIS, Deputy, and Mrs Eleni CONSTANTINIDOU, Civil Servant

Chamber of Deputies

Mr Donato BRUNO, President of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, accompanied by Mr Rodolfo CILLOCO and Mr Fabrizio CASTALDI, Civil Servants

Senate

Mr Roberto CENTARO, Senator, accompanied by Mr Sebastiano CARDI, Diplomatic Counsel to the President of the Senate and Mrs Laura BOEZIO, Civil Servant

Mr Laurent MOSAR, Deputy

Chamber of Commons

Mr John McFALL, Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, accompanied by Dr Christopher WARD, Administrator

Other Experts

Mr Olivier de BAYNAST, Magistrate Representing France at Pro-Eurojust

Mr Paolo BERNASCONI, University Professor, Lawyer

Mr Harlem DESIR, Author of a Report on the European Parliament

Mr Dominique GARABIOL, Former Head of Inspection, Council on Financial Markets

Mr Gilles LECLAIR, Deputy Director, Europol

Mr Jean de MAILLARD, Magistrate, High Civil Court, Blois

Mr Jean SPREUTELS, President of the Financial Information Processing Unit (Belgium)

Mr Jean-François THONY, Counsel, Appellate Court, Versailles

Observers from Candidate Countries and Russia

Mr Nicolay TRIFONOV, First Secretary

Mrs Gita KALMET, Chargée d’affaires

Mr Jozsef OROSZ, Counsellor

Mrs Agnija RASA, First Secretary

Mrs Ramune PETRAUSKAITE, Second Secretary

Pr Salvino BUSUTTIL, Ambassador

Mr Slawomir CZARLEWSKI, Plenipotentiary Minister

Mr Bremslav KALUSEK, Counsellor (Trade and Economic Affairs)

Mr Nicolas BROUSNIKINE, Deputy, accompanied by Mr GRICHANKOV, Deputy, Mr Wladimir MATCHABELLI, sofarus, and Mr Vladimir OUSTINOV, Civil Servant

Mr Stanislav VALLO, Chargé d’affaires

Mrs Darja GOLEZ, First Secretary

Mrs Ayse SEZGIN, Counsellor, accompanied by Mrs Sebnem CENK, First Secretary

Observers from Union States

It is never easy to incorporate ideas suggested on a previous occasion, all the while maintaining the overall equilibrium of the text, along with the sometimes conflicting ideas expressed by various representatives. I suggest that we open the debate using the new text as a foundation, either to bring up certain points that you feel were not given sufficient attention, or to add new proposals.

The second issue concerns legal, administrative and investigative co-operation. In this regard, we note the recommendation for the establishment of a European public prosecutor. However, this recommendation was rejected by the member-states at the last inter-governmental conference. We feel the differences between the common law system in United Kingdom and the various law systems in France and elsewhere suggest that we remain to be convinced before making any movement. On the issue of trusts, the relevant law in the United Kingdom represents a very complicated system. We feel that the solution is not to abolish trusts, which some feel could be a consequence of the proposal. Instead, we need to ensure transparency by means of empowering investigators to overcome any obstacles in an individual investigation. Such a solution should provide investigative forces and others with the tools to pierce through any veils of confidentiality created in a trust relationship. As trust law underpins all United Kingdom property law, rather than the fundamental approach that is being suggested, we prefer the idea of empowering the investigators.

Secondly, it seems to me that a great number of highly effective measures have been included in the text. However, some of them are difficult to implement. More importantly, whatever the case, they seem to be in contradiction with the Community’s measures on free movement of goods and services. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to come back to this topic later. Thirdly, some of the measures appear to be in contradiction with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. It will therefore be necessary to look at these various aspects, as we would be doing poor parliamentary work if we adopted measures that were not respectful of human rights.

The principle of the European warrant for arrest was eliminated from the declaration that we were presented, due to the ongoing negotiations. Spain hopes that this warrant will be adopted because it is a very effective tool. We must not let this opportunity to engage in debate over the European warrant for arrest, which, thanks to its breadth and characteristics, is expected to make it possible to go beyond the limits of the venerable extradition process and establish an appropriate legal procedure for fighting against global crime. In our view, it would be fitting to work toward a memorandum of understanding between Member States on the warrant for arrest, as it is a fundamental tool in the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. For this reason, we request that the following sentences be added, to strengthen the Preamble: "It is therefore fitting to fight terrorism and money laundering using the most effective tools, in order to deal with organised crime and its financial mechanisms. This implies the full adoption and proper enforcement of the European warrant for arrest in the near future."

Regarding the Preamble, I share in the comments made by the Spanish delegate on the reinforcement of the fight against terrorism and the creation of a Community-wide judiciary system that is given access to effective means. This point will be more and more important in the future, in particular where the European warrant for arrest is concerned. We must use effective means in the fight against terrorism in order to foster stability within European boundaries. In the third paragraph, the term "mobilisation" calls forth images of armies and unions. The term "action" seems more appropriate to States and governments. In the fifth paragraph, I would refer to the insufficiency of the legislation, the sluggishness of system and the absence of sanctions against non-cooperative States. This can no longer be tolerated because these States benefit from the deficiencies of the legal system. Lastly, I have doubts about the investigative forces and the magistrate mentioned in the sixth paragraph. We now have a common currency and I hope that we will have a common judiciary authority.

I am in full agreement with the German delegate’s comment regarding the first theme. All fiduciary transactions should be reported without exception, regardless of whether the recipient of the funds can be identified. There is no need for that condition, as it is always possible to identify the customer. I believe it would be preferable to require reporting under all circumstances and whatever the conditions. The central register of bank accounts will be difficult to establish, but it will most certainly facilitate access to accounts. The identification of the accountholder is not always reliable, as it is possible for people to lend their identity. I am not against this measure, but I do have doubts as to its effectiveness.

Regarding the second topic, the new terms are well suited and helpful. However, the legislation enforced by certain countries requires full transparency when subsidiaries or offices are to be opened. This transparency must be guaranteed in all situations. The scenarios described are nonetheless of interest. On the third topic, it will be necessary to implement and reinforce investigative and judiciary co-operation, using all of the measures which that entails, so as to harmonise systems in all countries and, in particular, penal procedures. The measure on shared confiscation, however, appears difficult to implement insofar as the legislation of the various Member States must be taken into account, whether in terms of confiscation itself, or regarding the presence of goods. I do not see how we can proceed and I do not know whether such measures would be easy to apply.

The establishment of a European public prosecutor would have to take into account national legislation. In Italy, for example, the public prosecutor is totally independent from the Executive branch and is, by no means, subject to inspection, whether direct or indirect. This is not true in other countries. For the time being, a European public prosecutor would be inefficient and premature. There is no use in creating it as long as the systems used by the Member States are so different from one another. As a first step, we might broaden Eurojust’s jurisdiction by putting it in charge of co-ordination of Community-wide action. This body could ease the exchange of information between the investigative forces of different States. That is one of the first measures we can take to reinforce the fight against terrorism. We must not give the impression that we are building up our institutions by implementing tools that are difficult to use. We must first do whatever is possible to strengthen co-operation between investigative and judiciary forces, and identify the most effective tools.

Lastly, we should include one point in the Preamble. It is important that we foster co-operation and harmonise judiciary methods. This could be the first step in reinforcing the judiciary system—an initial clause that would guarantee that the declaration would be adopted and implemented. It is important that the provisions included in the text be concretely implemented.

As concerns judiciary, investigative and administrative co-operation, the Commission proposes that the three adjectives be listed every time the text mentions co-operation. In the fourth paragraph of page 5, the text refers to various international bodies. The Commission would like to include the work carried out by the OECD in that listing. Lastly, regarding the proposal on page 6, which suggests that financial offences be included in the list of violations covered by the European warrant for arrest, the Commission feels that the 11 December 2001 agreement, relating to the European warrant makes this a moot point. The laundering of proceeds from crime is already one of the 32 major violations that do not require the agreement of both involved countries on the definition of the crime in order for extradition to take place. This point remains to be discussed.

Regarding subject number three, we suggest adding the following sentence at the end of the first proposal: "In particular, the immediate and effective application of the provisions concerning the European order of detention would be very fruitful for this purpose." I believe this addition does not need a protracted explanation. On the same subject, proposal three poses us some doubts. We agree with the comments made by the Bundestag representative. Whether it due to the translation or the interpretation, we are not sure this paragraph is expressed in correct terms. It could sound to some people as if we were trying to overturn the burden of the proof on the criminal origin of money. As such a measure contradicts a principle of our constitution, as I am sure it does for other European parliaments, we could not accept its passage. Perhaps the paragraph is not clear enough. We are not trying to do something illegal. I would also suggest a new proposal with the following content: "Increase the exchange of information among the European financial intelligence units". The financial intelligence units are the organisations in charge of receiving and analysing information on suspected money laundering. In the fight against money laundering, it is extremely important to demand and encourage the exchange of information between these units.

Concerning the sanctions against non-co-operative countries, we repeat our position that the obligation to impose severe sanctions is absolutely necessary. However, one must ensure an objective and fair procedure of characterising a non-co-operative country. The text itself is satisfactory. Regarding subject number three, we would like to stress the importance of establishing the share of the burden of proof concerning the legality of the origin of assets. In the case of laundering, we are happy to see that the relevant proposal is in the text. We would also like to state that our country will actively participate in the intense effort needed to establish this principle within the limits allowed in our constitution and the basic principles of our legal system.

Secondly, the European Public Prosecutor was originally intended to fight against fraud at the Community level, meaning mainly misappropriation of subsidies. Do we need to go further and add the crimes that are covered by the various penal laws, and not only by European law? Thirdly, I do not see how Eurojust can co-ordinate investigative action. I thought it was in charge of co-ordinating court actions at the European level. Let us hope that Europol will someday co-ordinate investigative action as well. You have the difficult task of choosing between proposals that are sometimes contradictory.

Secondly, regarding the modification of the burden of proof, I would call to your attention that this is not the first proposal of this kind. You may recall the directives on the fight against discrimination, which were adopted on Commissioner Vitorino’s initiative in 2000. They stated that, where a number of agreeing factors indicate that discrimination has occurred in hiring procedures, for instance, it is up to the accused to demonstrate that the factors behind his decision were legal. There exist cases involving sudden increases in income or capital movements. The mere fact that these have not been justified is suspicious in itself. The establishment or person implicated must show that the movement could not have been suspected and that his trust was violated. Likewise, an establishment must be able to prove that the funds did not result from fraud.

Firstly, as regards the topic of transparency, I do not know of a single case of economic crime in which the perpetrators did not make use of forged documents or accounts. You must emphasise the importance of the connection between transparency and truth in accounting. We will not be able to fight modern forms of crime if we do not ensure maximal protection of accounts, including bills, regardless of whether the forgery caused direct or indirect damage. I suggest that you highlight the revolutionary step that was recently achieved through the mandatory identification of the customer. In that area as well, it is necessary to provide protection and clear new hurdle by agreeing that a document that lists the name of the customer, when drawn up by a financial institution, holds up in a court of law. As a result, anyone who knowingly draws up or uses a forged document must be punished.

As an expert from Eurojust, I fully support these comments. Eurojust needs you to put an end to what has truly become the piling up of measures and systems. In the development of its judiciary and investigative systems, Europe has been trying to outrun its problems for the past few years. Creating new institutions without going the full distance does not make it any easier to solve one’s problems. The European public prosecutor should not come as an addition to the European Anti-Fraud Office, Europol and Eurojust. Through the Treaty of Amsterdam, Europol has just been given the possibility to have access to operational powers. The problem is that the various States do not supply it with the information needed to fulfil its duties. I do not think that the European public prosecutor will be a magic formula that makes political will be followed through in reality. We will not be excused from making the efforts needed to be taken seriously.

I have compiled a list of all of the relevant legal instruments on the topic at hand today. The list of conventions awaiting ratification is very long. In the interest of consistency, we need to ensure not only that the institutions created can work, but also that the conventions negotiated can be enforced. For this reason, the Strasbourg Convention is particularly relevant. This appeal could have a more technical and, therefore, a stronger character if these components were mentioned. Similarly, the Convention on Mutual Aid in Criminal Matters (May 2000), which is a response to the authors of the Geneva appeal and which was regretfully eliminated from the declaration, has still not been ratified by a single Member State.

Regarding sanctions against non-cooperating countries, the section that covers the entry of such establishments inside Union borders does not mention the dealings of their correspondents. Yet therein lies a very real concern, one that is also part of the proceeding point. On the subject of the third topic, it would be easier to reach a consensus if financial crime and the harmonisation of financial offences were limited to the Union’s main objectives. In conjunction with the former Head of the French Judiciary Investigation Force, I drew up a report intended for the Minister of the Interior, which suggested that Europol should serve to foster the involvement of European institutions. Europol has since been endowed with a specific responsibility in the area of money laundering and would be capable of effectively co-ordinating European financial intelligence efforts.

The last point in the fourth topic involves the introduction of a penal sanction against professionals that fail to report suspicious activity. In certain countries, heavy sanctions already exist. Harmonisation appears to be one way to improve overall effectiveness. It should be added that the failure to report must be intentional and that the requirements relate to money laundering performed by criminal organisations. Lastly, the exchange of professional information between countries within the Union is currently being slowed down by the various national provisions. For instance, one banking firm is having the hardest time in determining the financial standing of its various European branches. This point is in contradiction with the prudential requirement to perform monitoring on a consolidated basis.

PREAMBLE

I – DRAFT PARIS DECLARATION AGAINST MONEY LAUNDERING

PREAMBLE

II – MINUTES OF THE Working Session

A - Opening Address

Vincent PEILLON

B - Round Table 1:

Transparency of Capital Movements

C - Round Table 2

Sanctions against Non-co-operative Countries and Territories

I now give the floor to Mr Hofmann, German parliamentarian and co-chairman of the present round table, which deals with sanctions against non-co-operative countries and territories.

Just like my colleagues from Italy and Germany, I would like to point out that I am not a representative of the German Parliament. I am simply a highly committed German MP who wishes to work in close conjunction with you in the fight against the laundering of illegal funds. The FATF is a very important tool that has established a number of recommendations, in particular as concerns non-co-operative countries and territories. I hope that progress will be achieved in the near future. Sometimes, it is more effective to proceed in a non-diplomatic manner. Consequently, it is important that we call a cat a cat. We will need to discuss, loud and clear, the topic of sanctions. This will make it possible to move ahead on the issue. Certain countries must commit to carrying out a number of actions so as to enable true financial and administrative control of certain financial transactions. Within the EU, progress needs to be made, in particular in our respective Parliaments. International financial crime encompasses a large number of grey areas. It is such that we cannot allow ourselves to do nothing.

I do not know whether we will be able to name certain non-co-operative countries outright. However, we can refer to the FATF’s recommendations. It will certainly be important to take up the issue of sanctions against non-co-operative countries and territories. Point 24 is very important. It calls for true co-ordination within the EU in this area. It also mentions reinforcing the effectiveness of sanctions.

Thank you, Dear Colleague, for having provided the introduction to the Round Table. You indicated the necessity to reflect on sanctions where non-co-operative countries and territories are concerned. Who would like to contribute at this stage?

Lastly, at two of the European Ecofin Councils, in October 2000 under the French presidency and in October 2001 under the Belgian presidency, each of our governments committed to implementing, jointly and in a timely manner, the counter-measures that the FATF had adopted, and to adapt, if necessary, their legislation. At the last Council, the Member States committed to ensuring that their legislation would allow them to apply the counter-measures by 1 January 2002. Meanwhile, the FATF met one week ago in Hong Kong in order to continue its work on the topic of non-co-operative countries and territories. I am the head of the Belgian delegation within the FATF. We once again examined the black list, which includes 19 countries and territories. Although real progress has been accomplished, we felt that none of the territories were worthy of being removed from the list. As far as candidate countries to the EU are concerned, Hungary is the only country affected. On that topic, the FATF was pleased with the rapid and significant progress achieved by the country, in order to remedy the shortcomings identified. Nonetheless, we decided to fully adhere to the strict procedures that govern inclusion in and removal from the list, in particular regarding Hungary. However, it is possible to imagine that the country might be removed from the list at the next plenary meeting, in June 2002. We are in the process of verifying that all of the laws voted are truly enforced.

In conclusion, I would never have thought that the international community would take action so energetically and unanimously in order to fight against non-co-operative countries and territories. Enormous progress has been achieved over the last two or three years.

In addition, we need to move toward a more operational definition of the instruments to be used in judiciary and investigative co-operation – Europol and Eurojust – and work toward progressively harmonising penal sanctions within the European Union so as to prevent criminality from being able to extend its scope of action. If it achieves this, Europe will at last be able to fully play its part in combating organised crime within the context of globalisation.

There exist two types of financial havens. Sanctions have different effects, depending on the type of financial haven involved. As pertains to financial havens that are major international financial centres, they will be intent on rapidly adapting their legislation, as it is in their interest to focus more on legal money, which involves greater volumes than illegal funds. In contrast, some countries or territories, like Nauru, have no history of financial engineering and do not have structures that are suited to controlling the offshore banks or shell corporations that are based within their borders. No one knew of these countries before they became true modern-day pirates. They must not be allowed to integrate the international financial system. In other words, we will have to find a way to close such offshore centres. In addition, economic alternatives will have to be found for those countries.

What should the sanctions target? The 1998 UN report established a list of 70 States that fulfil the definition of financial haven. The FATF, in the meantime, has drawn up a list of 19 non-co-operative countries or territories. It should be said that the countries identified by the FATF are not necessarily those traditionally included on the map of money-laundering channels. The FATF’s task is not an easy one. It has attracted a certain amount of criticism, in particular vis-à-vis those States that would have taken up the role of censors of the fight against money laundering, having some hidden agenda. It is believed that the said States are not without ulterior motives. The problem is now to determine how States should be named to the list and who should be responsible for that. It is important that solutions be found so that the establishing of such a list no longer comes up against such criticism.

Some countries do not comply with the rules on transparency. It is difficult to determine what is going on in those territories or countries. Should they be on the black list? What kinds of pressure can we exert on them? Using what instruments? Should we equip ourselves with new sanctions? I think we are capable of achieving results.

All of the proposals in the Draft Declaration are useful and interesting in my eyes. I would like to lay emphasis on Points 28 and 29. They make it possible to complicate the financial workings of non-co-operative countries and territories by cutting them off from the international financial market. That is a good way to pressure them into changing their attitude and modifying their laws and regulations in this area.

Our colleague also indicated that we are not in a position to influence our Parliaments. This needs to be taken into account in our deliberations, as it is important to respect both parliamentary debate and the various jurisdictions that exist in Europe. In the United Kingdom, the principles of Common Law prevail in Wales and in England, while Roman law reigns in Scotland. Thus, within the United Kingdom alone, there exist several jurisdictions. The same is true elsewhere in Europe. We also need to take into consideration the political impact of these proposals on our various countries. Until now, we have not really lingered on this question. Nor have we taken up the question of cost-benefit analysis, which it would be appropriate to carry out in certain countries. As far as I am concerned, I am wary of proposals that do not have a cost. We must take into account the impact that these measures will have on taxpayers. Moreover, these proposals will have an impact at the administrative level as well. I am aware of these issues as I head the British Parliament’s Finance Committee, which is in the process of studying the United Kingdom’s new financial agencies. As you may know, a law passed in November 2001 has led to the regrouping of the various agencies in charge of regulations in the United Kingdom under a single entity. This raises the question of the statutory environment. In the United Kingdom, we will have to change our legislation. We must also avoid creating too much bureaucracy in order to allow the financial markets to continue their operations.

I am very pleased with Paragraph 24, which mentions co-ordinated action within the EU on this subject. This can only make sanctions more effective.

We have forgotten to mention the United States, which make up the largest financial market. I recently went to the United States as Chairman of the British Parliament’s Finance Committee to discuss the need for harmonisation and co-ordination between American and British regulations. I was highly aware of this.

Ms Becerril talked about the need to provide technical assistance to certain countries. A few years ago, I was concerned with what was happening in Ireland, which does not have good image in this field. Irish politicians emphasised that they wanted to comply with international standards in this area, but also stated that they needed our support. The "carrot and stick" policy is the best suited response in this situation.

Lastly, it appears that this forum is slated to become a standing forum, with periodical meetings. I would be delighted to welcome all of the delegates at this conference to London, so that we might carry out our present undertakings, with the assurance that Mr Brard will help us through Customs.

In conclusion, we will not put an end to financial crime unless we take a global approach to the phenomenon and its causes.

As regards the financing of terrorism, we need to reflect on the role of tolerant States. It is important that we make a number of distinctions where terrorism is concerned. There exist several types of terrorism. Terrorism is sometimes financed through means that are specific to organised crime. In other cases, terrorism can be financed using legal money that is made illegal, as was the case with the events of September 11. Certain tolerant States should be placed under surveillance with respect to that. It is the duty of EU States to do away with a number of political and economic obstacles to the listing of certain States in the index. It should be emphasised that certain terrorist actions are financed using misappropriated funds from NGOs.

As part of the broadening of its mandate, the FATF implemented a system to fight against terrorist financing at the Washington meeting, held in October 2001. The procedure regarding non-co-operative countries and territories targets the failings of anti-money laundering systems, as opposed to the failings of measures to fight against terrorist financing. On this topic, I would like to call your attention to the fact that the Member States have committed to initiate a process, starting with the next plenary session in June 2002, intended to identify countries that do not co-operate in the fight against terrorist financing, meaning countries that do not have appropriate measures for combating this phenomenon. In the next stages, we will discuss, in particular, possible counter-measures for the jurisdictions affected.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my turn to extend an invitation to come to my country. It is always better to see what is happening by oneself. I am a good citizen of the world, of Europe and of Hungary. I therefore know how you feel as we proceed in this exercise. I am convinced that Hungary will come out of this difficulty. Its name will be entirely cleared. I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to voice my comments on the spur of the moment. I would have regretted remaining silent.

As regards the rest of the declaration, I am in support of all of the recommendations.

The session is suspended until 12:55 PM. It resumes at 2:30 PM.

D - Round Table 3 :

Prudential Rules

Altogether, we are faced with a quite extraordinary accumulation of capital and financial transactions in all countries of the world. Very few countries are protected from this kind of activity. By all appearances, organised crime is using the new technologies to the best effect while governments have great difficulty keeping on their track. In fact, the build-up of transactions may well produce a serious international financial crisis.

It is essential that rules are drafted that permit financial transactions to be undertaken only by registered persons and those recorded on the financial registers approved by governments. In addition, the ever increasing number of organisations conducting these transactions throughout the EU must be reduced so that only a single organisation is left within the Union. Otherwise, the numerous divergences between the various national legislation will create a breach in which organised crime will proliferate. This would prevent us from effectively combating this kind of wrongdoing.

Each of these questions will have to be looked at seriously within the EU in due course, while other operators in the world often make for the unregulated areas, which offers organised crime an inestimable advantage, so it becomes ever more entrenched and ever richer.

This is only a comment. In fact, we are totally satisfied with the present wording of the point.

With regard to point 53, I support Monsieur Garabiol’s suggestion. He used the adjective " wilful " in connection with the failure. In fact, the text uses the word " manifest ". I fear that the adjective " manifest " may be too vague and will prevent a common term from being adopted in the various countries. The term " wilful " is also too restrictive. In fact, it is difficult to show negative proof, i.e. negative proof of the intention of a desire that does not exist. I therefore feel that " manifest " could usefully be replaced with " typical ", even though this is still not quite the right word.

As we see it, the international characteristic incorporates the idea of regulation at multi-lateral and European level in due course. This provision was debated at length during the preliminary meetings. Besides, the experts have long argued in favour of this wording. That is why, on behalf of the French delegation, I suggest that the wording be left as it is.

Does anyone wish to speak on the manifest nature of an omission in point 53? In national law and in case law, the manifest nature of an omission seems to be the more broadly accepted.

Besides, we also wonder who is guilty of the omission in question. The text in fact says nothing about the person responsible for the omission. It seems to me, therefore, that we should refer, rather than to an omission, to failure to discharge an obligation. I believe that we must be more precise in the terms used from the criminal aspect.

Recourse to desire or intention means that there can be no objective liability. In such a case, we are limited to the desire to harm. I believe that this is not necessary. In fact, even in cases of negligence, a criminal sanction must be imposed to ensure that the duty of vigilance is steadfastly and meaningfully discharged.

On the other hand, it is true that limiting cash payments will depend on the use of payment instruments of a different kind (cashless). I would remind you in this connection that it is not necessary to have a bank account for this purpose. In fact, there are many payment systems that make use of approved bodies and that allow the operations to be traced. The purpose of the provision is to trace operations.

In Italy, I believe that the authorised threshold for payments in euros is EUR 10 000. However, this threshold is not necessarily that which makes notification necessary. I should like clarification on this difference.

I must thank you for the quality of the work done and your comments which reflect the strong desire of the national parliaments to combat dirty money. This work shows how difficult it is to achieve harmonisation having regard to the various legal cultures, especially in the criminal law. However, common denominators can be arrived at in co-operation provided we agree on the philosophy, which can be summarised under three points:

The question of judicial and police co-operation was initially raised by the judges who signed the Geneva Appeal 6 years ago. The discussion has progressed and has gone its way within the European institutions. The European Council at Tampere in 1999, which presided over the formation of Eurojust, is one example. It is true that the national parliaments, which left it to their governments to negotiate the diplomatic agreements within the European framework or within various multilateral arrangements, are not used to dealing with these questions directly.

The Egmont group has done groundbreaking work in connection with co-operation in the area of policing and information units. This is an initial Community response. Nonetheless, judges of all nationalities continue to report a large number of obstacles to us. They have time and again mentioned the difficulties in arranging judicial co-operation on combating organised crime and financial wrongdoing. Certainly, a whole range of agreements of a multilateral nature and a certain number of conventions exist. They were put forward for signature by the states and ratification by the national parliaments. Their ratification is necessary. However, the delays and the progress still to be made on this project must be mentioned. We must, moreover, go further by affirming our collective and concrete political desire and uphold a number of proposals. Following the events on September 11, 2001, political agreement was recently reached on the European arrest warrant. This is a fundamental stage following the setting up of Eurojust in Tampere which was incorporated into the Community framework during the meeting of the European Council in Nice. It is a fundamental stage in the arrest of criminals and in providing evidence to EU Member States who ask for it.

In its initial version, the declaration was aimed solely at judicial and police co-operation. From the start of the work it became apparent that it had to be extended to administrative co-operation for the sake of efficiency. The international dimension of financial crime in fact requires an improvement in judicial, police and administrative co-operation if we are to make any meaningful progress in combating this scourge. One of the guiding principles during discussion was to seek to improve existing structures rather than advocate the formation of new institutions or the preparation of new laws. That is why paragraphs 33 and 34 refer to certain existing structures (OLAF) and the work undertaken on international bodies (UN, EU, OECD, etc. This will enable national parliaments to strengthen their constitutional role in combating money laundering, without rejecting the contribution and achievements of other actors.

Proposal 37 advocates the ratification, implementation and strengthening of the international conventions intended to facilitate judicial co-operation and to combat money laundering and criminal organisations. Many experts have drawn the attention of members of the Steering Committee to the risk of becoming overloaded. In fact, the laws have been passed but they have not been ratified. Other laws require complex and highly integrated facilities to be set up, entailing very long implementation periods during which nothing happens on the ground. Finally, other laws lack cohesion, which makes them difficult to apply. Recommendation 37 integrates these various comments.

Proposal 39 argues for the introduction of an adjustment to the burden of proof as to the criminal origin of funds. The proposal has given rise to much discussion. In fact, a number of delegations wondered whether this measure was compatible with the presumption of innocence. I feel that these fears are based on a misunderstanding. In fact, the proposal is intended to introduce a splitting of the burden of proof, which is not the same as reversing it. The accused will not be forced to justify his actions if the prosecution has no hard facts. The latter must show proof of a bundle of factors that permit the existence of the offence of money laundering to be presumed. If the accusation can provide such proof, it is then up to the accused to justify his standard of living and the legal origin of his funds. As a number of members have stressed, the technique of splitting the burden of proof has already been applied under the European Directives aimed at preventing discrimination. Besides, the European Court of Human Rights has pronounced on a number of precedents in accordance with article 6 (2) concerning the presumption of innocence.

In addition, the Steering Committee is convinced that the European arrest warrant is particularly important if we wish to combat money laundering more effectively at European level. The wording of the proposal was adopted at the Laeken Summit in December 2001. However, Committee members favoured keeping up the " pressure ", despite the undoubted political advances made on this point, stressing the need for the rapid and specific enactment of this political consensus, which requires laws to be made for its application in our various countries. This is the object of recommendation 42.

I agree with the Co-Chairman on the scope of the new European instruments which were agreed on two years ago. The text does not quite do justice of the progress made at this level within the European institutions. As you are aware, the European Council at Tampere on 1999 made a far reaching change in the implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty, by opening up a wide range of possibilities for co-operation in the areas of police and justice. Tampere for the first time united the heads of government of the 15 states on questions of justice and home affairs. This Summit allowed real progress to be made in this area.

Paragraph 37 argues for the ratification, application and strengthening of international conventions. I feel a distinction must be made between what concerns Europe and what is international. Besides, paragraph 33 stresses that police and judicial co-operation is less advanced. This is true but the progress made in this connection in the course of 2 years is quite considerable. By way of example, at the time of the 1998 Summit, member states did no more than express reservations on joint action on confiscating the proceeds of crime. Subsequently, giant strides were achieved with, in particular, the framework decision of June 2001. This is now truly rooted in the EU treaty. In fact, as an example, prison terms of three years are provided for proven cases of money laundering. Here we have gone beyond a purely international system. We have been able to create a favourable political climate for change of this type.

Finally, the decision on mutual assistance of May 2000 has still to be ratified by the national parliaments. On the other hand, there is an additional protocol on access to information on bank accounts and banking transactions.

If you would like further information, I suggest you listen to what Mr Nikoloudis, our national public prosecutor, has to say. He has been working on this question for many years.

The Egmont group has worked successfully but it includes members that do not belong to the EU, which considerably limits co-operation and exchange of information. The laws of all EU countries protect European citizens with regard to personal data and their use. The police and judicial authorities of EU countries are able to cooperate under the aegis of these laws. However, this type of police and judicial co-operation is not possible with countries that do not belong to the EU, insofar as this mutual trust does not exist and the protection for and use of personal data is not governed by the same laws. That is why we should perhaps limit ourselves to the frontiers of the EU and not depend on the Egmont group. On the other hand, we must extend co-operation within the EU. I should like to see more effective co-operation, going beyond the remit and the powers of the Egmont group. However, the ideas developed within this group are worthwhile. In fact, they should permit a reply with regard to what is no more than a first stage in police, judicial and administrative co-operation. The Egmont group had the following idea: all units should cooperate and exchange information independently of the nature of the units concerned, in the area of money laundering and financial crime. By way of example, the Greek financial information unit is legal, financial and administrative by nature. This should not prevent it from cooperating in full trust and on an equal basis with a unit in another country that also seeks to combat money laundering, even if its characteristics are different. It must be able to cooperate with a foreign police or administrative unit. We must adopt a constructive attitude. This idea of the Egmont group is altogether constructive. We must set up co-operation beyond the differences and at all levels (administrative, police and judiciary). I have noted on numerous occasions, at international forums, that trust is lacking between units of different kinds and different countries. I feel that the same obstacles also exist between purely administrative units. In the case of co-operation with a view to combating money laundering, it is important that the units are properly chosen and their powers carefully defined. Altogether, this idea of the Egmont group is entirely positive and should be encouraged.

The European arrest warrant will permit the police services of the 15 to obtain essential information quickly. At the present time, this information takes at least a year, sometimes 18 months, to reach the appropriate services following the arrest of a person who has committed a serious offence. This information, which is late in reaching other member states, loses its effectiveness during this long procedure. The result is that the country in question is prevented from taking the necessary steps to prevent a subsequent offence that could have been avoided if the information had been obtained faster. Consequently, I entirely agree with the comments made by the Greek Public Prosecutor.

Otherwise, I did not entirely understand the last proposal by the British delegate. What is the difference as against the existing system? Can Mr McFall reword his proposal?

Finally, we have amongst us countries seeking to join the EU. It is very important that they are here. Some of them are here as observers, others wish to join us soon. I must say to them that police and judicial co-operation in Europe is important in order to ensure our states are governed by the rule of law and to ensure that the proper administration of justice at European level. I hope that enlargement will enable us to go even further in police, judicial and administrative co-operation.

As far as co-operation is concerned, it has been said that the logic of Eurojust and the logic of setting up a future European public prosecutor’s office are not compatible. I feel that these two logics are not identical. However, they are not opposing but complementary. We should not limit ourselves to binary reasoning and we must take the recoil. A European public prosecutor, were he to exist one day, would meet this kind of need and would not be opposed to other bodies. The European public prosecutor has been demonised in the debate. In fact, it was said that this sovereignty must remain national. However, since the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the European States have not ceased to delegate parts of their sovereignty. We are living in a European system of sharing sovereignty at all levels. We should remember this in the judicial field. There can be little doubt that a European public prosecutor will be appointed one day. That is why in my view it should be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The EU has a wider vocation of political integration. It is not merely a free trade area. The European public prosecutor’s office will be one of the elements that will give shape to this political will. Eurojust can only be regarded as a step towards a form of greater integration with regard to Community fraud, and we are at the starting point. An effort must be made towards integration.

It is not unusual for conflicts to exist between European courts as to who should consider cases of Community fraud. In fact, there is no rule allowing these conflicts of jurisdiction to be settled. As an example, we had still to negotiate with the director of OLAF a week ago in order to resolve a conflict of jurisdiction between London, Luxembourg and Munich. As it happens, the case will be handled by the public prosecutor in Brussels. If we do not act, the public prosecutor in Brussels will be de facto the European public prosecutor. Is that what we really want? Can such an important task be entrusted to national representatives who have no real legitimacy at European level, who do not have the material resources and who are subject to the hazards of national political considerations, which still exist? There is a risk of our keeping our eyes closed to this kind of future. The European public prosecutor does not imply an abdication of national sovereignty. On the contrary, it will permit national sovereignty to be enriched and a step forward to be taken at qualitative level.

I shall ask the German delegation to speak. I shall then call on Mr Leclair, Deputy Director of Europol and Mr Vuelta-Simon, a judge and member of the European judicial network. The request for clarification from the British delegation is legitimate but it should not give the impression of a lack of will on our part. We should not draft a proposal that goes back on what our national governments have already signed. As far as this is concerned, I share Ms Ludford’s view.

From the German point of view, the amendment of the burden of proof presents an enormous constitutional problem (point 39). There is no need to reverse the burden of proof. In any event, this would be completely unacceptable under the German Constitution. That is why I call for some caution on the wording of this point so that we do not come up against substantial constitutional obstacles.

With regard to the countries applying for membership, I suggest that you stress that these countries should before joining be able to participate in all administrative and operational measures. They should be able to participate in Europol as soon as possible and in the work of Eurojust, as observers. If we really wish to set up an area of freedom, security and liberty in Europe, it is clear that the countries applying for membership should be able to participate in our work as soon as possible.

The events of 11 September 2001 have shown us that very close links existed between terrorism and organised crime, especially money laundering. I feel that we would be well advised to stress how important it is, in combating terrorism, that we direct ourselves at the interface between terrorism and organised crime, namely money laundering.

I have set up a unit in the Land of Brandenburg, that occupies itself exclusively with the interface between terrorism and organised crime, namely money laundering and drug trafficking as in Afghanistan.

Finally, point 43 will prove an excellent barometer, allowing us to judge how serious we are in our approach. As it stands, this point is clearly inadequate. I think we are on the point of making the same mistake as we did with Europol. When we negotiated the Europol Convention in 1994 I was State Secretary. During the German presidency of the EU, we fell out about the powers of Europol. The Spanish delegation exhorted us to make sure that Europol would be able to combat terrorism. It was thinking of ETA. The British delegation for its part, wanted Europol to having nothing to do with terrorism, because of the IRA. These differences made us lose a lot of precious time, forcing us to make lame compromises. Finally, the events on 11 September 2001 allowed Europol to engage in the fight against terrorism.

As far as Eurojust is concerned, we should not make the same mistake as we did with Europol. If we really want to make progress, if we want Europol to play a real operational and practical role, we cannot do without a European public prosecutor. This would not mean some kind of loss of national sovereignty. In fact, as a German, I am familiar with the subtleties of federation.

I hope that we shall make an effort to ensure our proposal has teeth, especially on point 43, by going to the limits of the acceptable in order to do justice to the aims underlying Eurojust.

Besides, we should not forget that Europol and Eurojust must work in parallel. We are complementary. But I feel it is too early to speak of monitoring. In fact, we are only an information service and not a police force, endowed with investigatory powers. While the intensification of our role on the information collecting side may be stressed, it is too early to talk of monitoring Europol since Europol has no direct investigatory role.

I have prepared a paper setting out the complementary roles of Europol and Eurojust. It is at your disposal.

Eurojust has been functioning on an operational footing since March 2001. This unit solves problems and coordinates enquiries within the EU. Eurojust will soon – as from next month – be able to ask the national authorities to initiate proceedings. That is why I feel that the wording of proposal 43 falls short of reality. In fact, the co-ordination unit will be able to ask Member States to initiate proceedings and to conduct enquiries. Such a request will not be binding but, if the state refuses, it must give its reasons.

Finally, consolidating the operational nature of Eurojust requires Eurojust to be transposed into domestic law to give its national representative the status and the powers that will enable him to work.

I agree with the comment made by the Greek Public Prosecutor. The Italian property-based system of prevention which ends up with the confiscation of Mafia assets is based on a reversal of the burden of proof and also on the fact that the person concerned is dangerous and that the person cannot be dissociated from the assets that he has improperly acquired having regard to his normal income. This system based on the reversal of the burden of proof has functioned satisfactorily in Italy. It allows a severe blow to be struck at the very heart of organised crime. It also allows us to get our hands on the property of the person concerned while he is in prison. Certain countries of the EU have constitutional objections to reversing the burden of proof. This problem should therefore be resolved within each country. Besides, the preamble refers to the need to harmonise national systems. An escape clause is always possible.

With regard to point 43, we cannot get away with a simple declaration of principle. To say that we want to set up a European public prosecutor’s office would be to take our hopes for reality. Action of this kind is simply a non-starter. In fact, we are up against the different way in which European public prosecutors’ offices are organised. For example, in Italy, the Prosecution forms part of the judiciary. It is entirely independent of any political authority, whether executive or legislative. In other countries, there is a dependent link between the public prosecutor and the executive. In Italy, there is no alternative to bringing criminal proceedings. There are, moreover, many differences between the constitutional law and the law of procedure that applies in most of the countries of the EU. In view of these differences, the formation of a European public prosecutor’s office would be too difficult. A European public prosecutor who did not take these differences into account would risk encroaching on national sovereignties, which would lead to conflict and undesirable competition. Nonetheless, a European public prosecutor should be an ultimate aim of us all. As one of the previous speakers said, the work of Eurojust must be consolidated. Once we have harmonised organisations and procedures, we can consider the European public prosecutor.

I do not think that national and international enquiries can be automatically co-ordinated. Otherwise, a specific body would have to be set up to handle international investigations. It would be up to the national authorities as to whether they wanted to participate in this or that enquiry. That would have a limiting effect. In fact, Eurojust is the place where information obtained from Europol’s activities is concentrated. Eurojust should be able to provide governments with information and very useful help. To strengthen Eurojust’s role, we could interpret the term " assist ". Eurojust could provide the pointers, even an inducement, permitting the national authorities to proceed on the basis of the information received from Eurojust. I do not think we can go much further. In fact, if we were to do so we would be likely to infringe national sovereignty.

If the term " assist " in point 43 means that Eurojust provides useful information for the conduct of an enquiry, that would be acceptable.

Furthermore it has been suggested that Eurojust should be able to ask the national authorities to initiate proceedings. I feel that this proposal allows us to meet the British requirements for clarification of the role with regard to the national sovereignty of member states that have judges within Eurojust.

Finally, I think that we can all agree on the European public prosecutor as an objective. Knowing whether this can be achieved or not is, to my mind, beside the point. In fact, no one really knows what can be achieved as to the objectives that we have laid down for ourselves. History will be the judge. Be that as it may, we at least have a desire to work towards setting up European public prosecutor’s office and, in the meantime, strengthen the resources of Eurojust through the proposal by the member of the European network.

I would ask you to give your views on this compromise proposal in order to obtain a stronger wording indicating the desire for a European public prosecutor.

Eurojust’s aim is simply to assist national public prosecutors with their enquiries and legal proceedings, especially by exchanging information. Eurojust cannot demand anything from member states in connection with criminal proceedings. Member states lay down the prerogatives for members of Eurojust. When Eurojust was formed, Denmark felt that Eurojust should have no operational functions. That remains the Danish point of view.

On the European public prosecutor, I support the analysis by the Public Prosecutor of Brussels. We must keep this discussion separate from that about Eurojust. If we assume there is a connection between the two, we shall distort the discussion. With regard to the European public prosecutor, the EU must have the legal means for dealing with a number of omissions from the laws within the area of Community competence. In fact, the European institutions have no means of action in relation to their own area of competence. It is with this in mind that we must argue for a European public prosecutor and that a paragraph should be included on this subject.

With regard to paragraph 33, it is true that the Egmont group has laid down a basis for co-operation between the financial information units but it is not true to say that only co-operation of an administrative nature is concerned. In fact, these units are essentially different as to their legal nature (administrative, judicial and police). Amongst other things, the Egmont group aims to overcome the legal obstacles created by this legal diversity. That is why I suggest deleting the word " administrative ".

With regard to OLAF, a Convention exists concerning the combating of fraud within the financial interests of the Communities. The protocols to this Convention refer expressly to the laundering of money obtained from Community fraud. Consequently, it is logical for OLAF to be mentioned in the conclusions from this conference. Furthermore, a Directive aimed at enlarging its scope in this connection and at introducing co-operation between OLAF and the appropriate national organisations is in preparation. It would also be in order to refer to Europol in the conclusions we arrive at today.

With regard to point 39, several speakers have indicated that they would like to see article 6 of the ECHR mentioned. I have no objection if this makes the text more clear. However, the wording of the text is debatable. We all know quite well what we want to say. We know what spirit we are working in, but those who have not participated in all our work may find it harder to create the link with the Convention.

I believe that this proposal allows all points of view to be covered. In fact, the comment by Eurojust is satisfactory and the responsibilities of each should be clearly established.

I feel that the proposal concerning the European public prosecutor is on the provocative side. The European Commission’s green paper of December 2001 concerning a European public prosecutor seeks to protect Community finances from fraud and corruption. Be that as it may, I do not think that this reference is of vital importance in a document on money laundering. Eurojust, in your compromise proposal, is likely to jeopardise the consensus. Paragraph 43 should indicate that the operational character of Eurojust should be strengthened. It is right that Eurojust should be able to start working.

The prospect of a European public prosecutor should be seen in the longer term. This reference to the European public prosecutor can therefore be withdrawn. It would create too many problems. We should perhaps mention harmonisation of the rights of the prosecution. Rather than bring proceedings, we should perhaps find a different wording. In fact, bringing proceedings implies allocating enforcing powers. On the other hand, a reference to facts would permit known information to be provided to initiate proceedings. If the request is refused, the request need not be reasoned since Eurojust is not answerable to a national public prosecutor. Bringing criminal proceedings is a matter for the national public prosecutor. It would be sufficient to say, " providing facts to initiate proceedings ". Consequently, the national public prosecutor’s office decides for itself on whether to proceed.

III – PARIS DECLARATION AGAINST MONEY LAUNDERING

Final declaration of the Conference of European Union Parliaments against money laundering
of 8^th February 2002.

PREAMBLE

Criminal money laundering and financial crime have been on the constant increase over the last few years exploiting the potentialities given by the globalisation of financial markets; they represent a direct threat to the stability of the global economy and also for the security of our democratic societies.

The financing of terrorism uses very different systems and some of these use the legal economy, although it also resorts to the same instruments as all organised crime.

Without the global and coordinated action of States, crime prevention and law enforcement services and authorities will not be able to fight efficiently against those they pursue.

In the fight against money laundering and the use of the financial system by criminal networks, Europe’s exemplary behaviour must be without fault even if the efficiency of its action also depends on the awareness and support of all developed countries.

The persistence of legal mechanisms which lead to impenetrability in financial transactions, the use of ‘‘black holes’’ in the international financial system, and deficiencies in co-operation between European Union member states can no longer be tolerated.

The European Union has however not been inactive since it has updated the directive against money laundering and it has constantly worked on strengthening the European police and legal system which lags behind economic and monetary union.

The recent political agreement on the European warrant of arrest should also enable greater efficiency in the fight against terrorism and financial crime, provided it is quickly applied.

In a wider framework the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering has refined its analyses of the phenomenon and has defined criteria enabling non-cooperative countries and territories, and loopholes in the systems of cooperative countries to be identified.

Stemming from universal suffrage, the national parliaments must necessarily contribute to directing and stimulating the harmonisation of legislation and the cooperation of European Union Member States in compliance with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and differences between national legal systems.

Following a debate bringing together many European experts, MP’s and also academics and practitioners, the Conference of European Union Parliaments privileged four working subjects and formulated proposals for concrete measures in an attempt to improve efficiency in the fight against money laundering.

10b. In order to follow up and update the measures which it recommended during its opening meeting, the Conference of European Union Parliaments against money laundering has agreed to meet periodically.

An efficient fight against money laundering and financial crime means being able to reconstruct the history of capital movements. The traceability of transactions and order makers is therefore a priority objective, but it comes up against several obstacles, including:

12. The impenetrability of certain legal entities (trusts, institutions, foundations, limited partnerships) and numbered accounts;

13. Objection to investigators with regard to different professional secrets including banking secrecy;

14. The working of certain international financial services (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers) which do not always enable the order maker to be identified.

Provide for a systematic report to the financial intelligence unit of transactions carried out using trust or assimilated funds, if the economic beneficiary cannot be identified.

Control the form of trusts (standardised documents and ban of ‘‘suspect’’ clauses).

Provide for the obligation to register trusts in a central register in addition to the identification of the beneficiaries.

Harmonise professional secret release procedures

Generalise access to information held by financial agencies for financial intelligence units.

Create a central bank account register.

Internationally standardise the order maker’s identification in international financial messages (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers).

Provide for the identification of financial transaction originators on the Internet by access providers.

The identification of non-cooperative countries and territories in the fight against money laundering falls within the scope of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) whose 40 recommendations are the international reference standard. This process must guarantee objective assessment.

Determining and applying sanctions depends on the States. A coordinated action by the European Union in this field can only increase the efficiency of these sanctions.

Strengthen the obligations of financial agencies to identify economic beneficiaries before establishing relations with individuals or entities in these countries and territories.

Strengthen reporting mechanisms or provide for a systematic report to the financial intelligence unit of financial transactions with these countries and territories.

Strengthen the prudential ratios applicable to financial transactions carried out with these countries and territories.

Impose conditions on, restrict, overtax or ban transactions with individuals or entities located in these countries and territories.

Ban European Union member country institutions from opening subsidiaries, branches or representative offices in these territories or from holding the accounts of correspondents there.

Ban financial institutions whose head office is located in one of these countries or territories from opening subsidiaries, branches or representative offices in the European Union or from holding the accounts of correspondents there.

The fight against money laundering and financial crime necessarily involves cross-border legal, police and administrative cooperation due to the systematic globalisation of this type of crime.

Money laundering depends on cross-border economic and financial deals.

The Egmont group has laid the foundations for administrative cooperation between financial intelligence units and the setting up of the European Anti-Fraud Office is an initial community response. Nevertheless, police and legal cooperation lags behind somewhat.

Several international instances (UN, OECD, Council of Europe, European Union) have proposed States sign conventions aimed at improving this cooperation. Beyond the necessary ratification of these texts, their application, often full of reserves, is not optimal.

The European Union has regularly endeavoured to encourage this cooperation. With this in mind, after the creation of Europol which laid the foundations of police cooperation, the European Council’s summit meeting in Tampere namely announced the creation of Eurojust which was confirmed by the European Council’s summit meeting in Nice. Likewise, the recent political agreement on the European warrant of arrest is an important step which must be consolidated over the coming years.

Develop information exchanges between financial intelligence units.

Ratify, apply and strengthen the consistency of international conventions aimed at facilitating legal cooperation and fighting against money laundering and criminal organisations.

Harmonise incriminations in terms of financial crime.

Introduce the sharing of the burden of proof with regard to the criminal origin of money, in compliance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Harmonise criminal sanctions namely by favouring the confiscation of revenue from crime and the instrument of money laundering.

Mutually recognise decisions to freeze, seize and confiscate illicit assets and provide for a mechanism for sharing between the States confiscated assets stemming from international cooperation.

Ensure that the European warrant of arrest is quickly applied, namely in terms of financial crime.

Consolidate the operational nature of Eurojust by enabling it, beyond exchanging information, to request national authorities of competent jurisdiction to instigate and enforce action, to assist them within this framework and to coordinate investigations.

The world deregulation of capital markets has complicated the prevention of money laundering and financial crime, namely due to the acceleration and the growth in international financial flows that is has generated. The sophistication of techniques and trades which has accompanied financial globalisation needs the reinforcement of capital-adequacy standards and ethical obligations of markets.

This widening of controls and financial regulations should include all providers of financial and legal services, and also international networks, whether traditional and informal (‘‘Hawala’’ type) or, on the contrary, very well integrated in the international capital markets (remittance of funds, compensation and interbank transfers).

Restrict cash payments beyond a given amount.

Provide for the compulsory licensing by the financial services regulatory authority of :

48. agents belonging to a cash or security transfer network, including traditional, informal and parallel networks;

49. company formation agents;

50. foreign exchange offices;

51. active financial intermediary dealers on the Internet.

Strengthen prudential rules and, as necessary on an international level, the regulation of the activities of clearing companies, and fund and security payment-delivery companies.

Match the evident breach of their obligations to supervise the professions subject to them with criminal sanctions.

Friday 8 February 2002

Mr Sebastiano CARDI, Diplomatic Adviser to the President of the Senate

Mr Janos HORVATH , MP, Chairman of the European Integration Sub-committee

Raymond FORNI (President of the National Assembly – France)

It is a pleasure for me to open this last day of the European Conference on Money Laundering and to welcome today the Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Jospin, the Presidents of the Parliaments of Greece and Portugal, and members of Parliament of the 33 assemblies from 25 Member States of the European Union and countries applying for membership, and representatives of the European Parliament. It was of particular interest to us that countries wishing to join us within the European Union told us of the commitments that they were ready to make to combat money laundering. We are also pleased at the attendance of the Russian Federation which passed an important act against money laundering a few days ago.

I must pay tribute to the work done by all the delegations and European experts over the past three months at the two meetings of the Steering Committee. The fruitful exchanges that were made on these occasions allowed us to complete the text which will be put to you today, while taking account of your suggestions to the full extent possible.

Let me remind you why we are here. Money laundering is a sickness of our democracies that has long affected our economic life. This perversion of international financial channels facilitates the development of serious crime linked to fraud, drug trafficking, mafia activities and corruption. The attacks on 11 September have, moreover, led to an international rethink, making us aware of the urgent need to combat terrorism, which sometimes makes use of the same outlets and similar methods to those for money laundering to finance itself. Combating money laundering is also combating terrorism. Consequently it is not enough to track down a few hundred suspect accounts, but we must re-examine the rules globally that govern the movement of capital. The statistics show the extent of the sickness and the work to be done. Dirty money accounts for more than USD 500 billion. As for tax havens, where more than 4 000 offshore banks and more than 2 million post-box companies have been identified, these drain off more than half of the assets held beyond frontiers.

Faced with this menace, we as members of parliament must fully play our role, but we can do so only by working in concertation with governments, the European Union and the international bodies such as the Council of Europe. Whether this means ratifying international conventions as quickly as possible or drafting specific, mutually compatible rules within the Union, we have the responsibility within our parliaments of fashioning the essential instrument for the battle against money laundering: the law.

Our approach follows the line taken at the Laeken Summit, where the objectives spelled out at Tampere were reaffirmed. This Summit also made us realise the importance of launching new initiatives. Today's conference is an illustration of this. It has enabled us to take note of the delay occurring in this connection, calmly and without being side-tracked. As Europeans, we must show the way. We must assume our part of the responsibility: more than half of direct or indirect laundering of capital occurs within Europe and in its associated territories. We can no longer tackle this problem in isolation as it requires the traditional political splits to be left behind, to be dealt with at a European level in the hope of building the widest possible consensus. The diversity of the views that have been put to us today shows it. If we so desire, we can address other countries and multi-national organisations speaking with a single voice, in order to forge together the instruments for new regulations.

We need a basket of measures involving all sectors and all the actors affected by money laundering. That is why we are now suggesting that within your parliaments and in your respective countries you become the spokesmen of this challenging message set out in the "Declaration of Paris on money laundering". We also suggest that you take up the suggestion of the Dutch delegation, namely that you now already take steps to evaluate the impact of our commitments and our decisions within the framework of our national policies and then meet regularly to take stock of the progress with our work and our ideas.

The meeting that you are attending today shows that we were right to rely on the determination of the more committed of the parliamentarians in the European Union and in "Greater Europe". Through this commitment, we can in fact translate the hopes you have raised today and which are shared by all of us today into action.

Lionel JOSPIN, Prime Minister - France

We have met today to consider a challenge that concerns all of our planet: the battle against money laundering. This concern is already a long-standing one for the international community. Originally, it was aimed at preventing the recycling of considerable sums of money, drained off by drug trafficking. The battle was then broadened to include the laundering of funds obtained from other crime: organised gangsterism, pimping, trafficking in human beings and corruption. In fact, globalisation now allows several hundreds of millions of dollars to be circulated around the globe within the space of a few seconds by electronic transfer, during which the perpetrator and the beneficiary are able to adopt a range of identities. The battle against money laundering must therefore change its dimension. A number of declarations have been made to this effect and the combat against laundering is now recognised as one of the essential aspects of international financial regulation.

Are we doing enough? There can be no doubt that we cannot hope for sustainable economic development without a healthy, robust and upright financial system. The integrity of financial systems constitutes a world public good, it therefore requires joint public action to regulate it. Europe is situated at the forefront of this action and today's meeting shows our resolve. Faced with money laundering, Europe must speak with one voice and assert its views on the world stage.

Fighting against organised crime and strengthening international rules are part of the European project. Europe is more than just an internal market, making use henceforth of a single currency. It also symbolises a community of values in which freedom, social progress and personal integrity are essential. As Europeans, we regard finance as serving the economy, which itself serves mankind. We cannot therefore permit our financial systems to be used as a means for allowing the proceeds of crime to prosper. European must set an example. That is why I am delighted with the unprecedented progress made in European law between 1999 and 2001, in three essential areas: crime prevention, law enforcement and judicial co-operation. The call from Geneva has not remained unheeded and the Tampere Summit marks a major step in the mobilisation of Europe against cross-border crime, especially with the creation of Eurojust.

Europe cannot tolerate the existence of impenetrable or anonymous entities such as trusts, nominees, anonymous foundations and non-resident companies, through which considerable financial flows pass without any true relationship with economic exchange, the only object of which is to prevent the identification of their economic beneficiaries. These entities frequently form a highly efficient vector for laundering operations. They are also open to financial manipulation, as we have seen in connection with the Enron crash. This company excelled in displaying a profitability which soared as its losses were concealed in "special vehicles", namely subsidiaries more often than not located in offshore financial centres. It is still possible today to set up a "letter-box" in certain territories, with less than 100 dollars and in 15 minutes, which allows the most reprehensible financial activities to be concealed behind the screen of anonymity, banking secrecy or the absence of administrative or judicial co-operation. We must put an end to these facilities which permit all kinds of wrong-doing, by taking action first of all at home, in Europe. The introduction of a minimum standard of transparency was, in particular, seen as a priority for action at the Tampere Summit. The Commission must issue a report on this question and come forward with specific measures but little progress has so far been made, as the last JHA/ECOFIN report has confirmed. France will ensure that progress with this vitally important work, on which FATF (The Financial Action Task Force) is also engaged, is not further delayed.

This fight must also be conducted on a world scale, the quality of international regulation still depends on the weakest link. Faced with increasing integration of financial markets, it is now crucial that we ensure that all participate in this combat. No country must base its development on "half-hearted" regulatory strategies. An approach of this kind is in fact indefensible since it makes the system as a whole pay the price of the actions of a few. Let us cease to be permissive towards the financial centres that deliberately turn their backs on jointly agreed measures. If an offshore centre continues to ignore them despite being repeatedly called to order, we must take counter-measures as my government recently did towards the Republic of Nauru. In fact, I today signed a decree to this effect. The combat must be conducted at world level since the destabilising and perverse effects of financial crime are universal and hit the developing countries still harder than other countries. You will know that the battle in this connection against financial wrongdoing is a struggle between lawfulness and lawlessness and not between rich and poor. Because they are shown proof of their common desire for solidarity between the North and South, Europeans must together ensure that the battle against secret financial flows is fully integrated into development policy.

I would like Europe to suggest strategies of the "win-win" type to the countries of the South, firstly by associating them with international thinking on the standards of security against money laundering. Collective disciplines are in fact always more easily accepted if they have been the subject of collective debate. Besides, Europe should offer its support to countries that act in conformity with the international rules, especially by offering the technical assistance that they need. Europeans must then decide whether to maintain public development aid for countries or territories which, after having received the necessary warnings, continue to infringe the group discipline. What is in fact needed is a cohesive approach. The French Government intends to suspend the funding granted to developing countries that may be placed in this situation, unless the funding is destined for projects that directly benefit the people. My government is similarly taking action to ensure that international financial institutions, especially the IMF and the World Bank, incorporate the struggle against money laundering and terrorist financing into their activities and offer technical assistance to the countries concerned. When devising its strategy in favour of a country, the World Bank must henceforth examine the steps to be taken to strengthen the soundness and integrity of the financial system in the country concerned. By working in this direction, the IMF and the World Bank will contribute both to financial stability and to development, which is precisely in line with their mandate.

The progress achieved in recent years has shown the importance of the political desire for and the strength of closely co-ordinated multilateral action. We must in no event underestimate the extent of the task awaiting us in tackling new risks, but also so that the combat is conducted everywhere with equal determination. The world today offers innumerable possibilities for recycling the proceeds of crime. Certain financial centres would barely prosper but for the anonymity that they guarantee for doubtful money. General declarations of participation in the battle against money laundering are sometimes barely followed up if economic interests are threatened.

Today, together with yourselves, I am calling for a general mobilisation against money laundering by putting forward as a priority three lines of specific action aimed at:

strengthening the transparency of the financial system;

associating new professions in the battle against financial crime;

extending international co-operation.

We must first of all improve the transparency of the international financial system, even if such transparency is not an end in itself. Confidentiality is necessary to protect the private sphere or certain important data in economic competition, but these legitimate worries have all too often served as an excuse for maintaining an opacity that in actual fact favours criminal activities. Everyone is aware that the recycling of dirty money thrives on a lack of transparency, which concerns a fundamental principle, namely knowledge of the customer and the economic beneficiary, a condition not only for crime prevention, the detection of suspect transactions and traceability, but also for strengthening international co-operation in the face of the globalisation of crime. FATF is at present engaged on these problems and France is participating very actively in its work.

What I now expect of you is that you lay down a standard of transparency which will serve as an international benchmark. The objective in view is clear: the public authorities engaged in the battle against money laundering must have access to information concerning economic beneficiaries. Such information must also be accessible to the financial institutions carrying out their inspection duties. In this fight for transparency, we must nonetheless keep our sense of proportion. Parliaments can legislate, governments can form financial information units (like TRACFIN in France), courts can issue international warrants. However, all these measures will only have limited effects if the use of intermediary structures allows the investigatory thread to be cut, as is the case at present. That is why France is seeking to make traceability of financial flows an absolute political priority. Let us start by abolishing anonymity of certain international transfers, as FATF has suggested since October 2001. We must at the same time combat excessive banking secrecy. Although progress has been made to ensure that this cannot be used as a weapon in financial crime or in financing terrorism, such secrecy in a great many countries still places a brake on international co-operation and the discharge of the duties of vigilance. I would like the Basel Committee to make rapid progress on the French proposals aimed at permitting parent companies of banking groups to undertake direct monitoring of the situation at their subsidiaries in third countries. In fact, the risk of money laundering should henceforth be assessed not branch by branch but at group level. The mechanisms for internal control should be able to work on this scale.

The second line of action in our campaign must be to involve the professions concerned with our fight against money laundering. Every country has, according to its own legal traditions and its own political choices, spelled out the nature of the obligations imposed on financial intermediaries: a precise listing of the checks to be made in certain cases, supervisory obligations in others, as in France. I know that the banking and financial professions in our country are very aware of this. Nonetheless, the internationalisation of financial flows and resort to new technologies are making it ever more difficult to detect suspect movements. Checks must therefore be adapted to make them more efficient. Our Minister of Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry, Laurent Fabius, has recently sat down with the banking professions to work out a proper code of conduct, especially with regard to the honouring of cheques. I hope that these thoughts will quickly take tangible form and that a minimum standard of security to be observed by the banks will be laid down. Obviously, such a standard cannot form a substitute for a general level of vigilance, which will remain essential and embracive. Its application will nonetheless be made easier if we stipulate correct practice. I am convinced that the financial professions, against whom no general suspicions can be levelled and of whose dedication to the struggle against money laundering in my country I am well aware, will support this approach which seems to me to meet their needs.

The results obtained through the vigilance of the financial system has allowed new money laundering schemes that were jeopardising other occupations, likely to become embroiled in financial scams or to be used as smokescreens by criminals, to be brought to light. There are plenty of examples of these new practices which have necessitated the progressive broadening of crime prevention and the participation of further professions. The accountancy and law professions are at the heart of the debate and I welcome the recent adoption of the review of the European Directive on Combating Money Laundering since the result obtained reconcile the respect for fundamental rights, such as the privileged relationship between the client and his lawyer within the framework of legal proceedings, and the efficiency of the struggle against money laundering. Europe has taken great strides in the matter and I would like our international partners to follow the same road in due course.

The third line of our mobilisation is to strengthen international co-operation. Combating money laundering demands the dedication and co-operation of the public authorities worldwide. The same applies to action undertaken to eradicate terrorism and put down international crime in all its forms, whether it is drug trafficking or arms trafficking.

This dimension of co-operation makes me broaden my thoughts for a moment. On the day following the attacks on 11 September, we showed unfailing solidarity with the United States and contributed on their side towards a response called for by the aggression of which they were a victim. We are in fact determined to continue to participate in this joint action against terrorism.

However, we must think carefully about the lessons that must be drawn from the events on 11 September. We cannot in fact reduce the world's problems to the single dimension of combating terrorism, however important that might be, nor count exclusively on the predominance of military resources to overcome it. Our conception of the world is aimed at building a more balanced international community, a safer and more just world. In fact, this idea is based on a multilateral approach and is aimed at all forms of co-operation permitting members of the international community to deal together with the underlying problems, since none of them can hope to resolve them on its own. Whether this concerns negotiations on armaments, agreements on environmental protection or drawing up the necessary rules so that globalisation will benefit all through development, France with Europe and with its partners throughout the world has set its sights on the future. We hope that the United States will not give way to the strong temptation of unilateralism and will join with us again on this path, since without them the new balances that we are looking for will be more difficult to achieve. As far as we are concerned, we shall continue to endeavour to expand our ideas.

The spirit of co-operation is particularly pertinent to the battle against money laundering. Acting together requires joint principles of action. We have them: they are the forty recommendations of FATF. Acting together also comes down to our clearly expressing our determination, which implies a refusal to engage in double-speak. International regulation and co-operation have progressed greatly in recent years, thanks to three lists of names drawn up by FATF, the Forum on International Financial Stability and the OECD. By publicly mentioning the countries that refuse to play the game, the international community has obtained its first great success. We must now firmly stay on course. I would like in particular for the IMF to speed up its evaluation of the more problematical offshore centres, already identified by the international financial community, that it reports on the findings of its analyses, and that the conclusions are drawn, since the delay in this area has lasted too long.

Combating money laundering means remembering that the freedom of financial flows, while useful from the economic aspect, is not a value in itself. Transparency and traceability are the necessary counterparts of this fluidity. Regulating the financial system is therefore indispensable. The race for maximum profitability, easy dissimulation, the absence of control and the arrangements with the controllers have led to spectacular bankruptcies such as those of BCCI, LTCM and Enron. These bankruptcies illustrate the drift to which free play on the market without ultimate control can lead. Despite real advance recently, a great deal of effort must still be put into making it materially impossible on an international scale for funds of criminal origin to make use of our financial system. The international community cannot embark on further stages of the battle against crime without tackling the problem of opaque structures head on. We must therefore introduce complete traceability of financial flows and eventually attack this real "machinery of opacity" which has infected our financial systems. This difficult task will take some time since multilateral negotiation proceeds at its own pace, but I hope that we shall act faster than in the past because of the dangers threatening our companies.

We know we can rely on the parliaments of Europe and on public opinion to help us move forward. In this connection, I wish to pay tribute to the considerable work of research and analysis undertaken on these points by the French parliamentary information mission on money laundering, presided over by Vincent Peillon, assisted by Michel Hunault and Jean-Claude Lefort, and for which Arnaud Montebourg is the rapporteur. I regard your work today as a very important stage. It is in fact remarkable, even historic, that you have together managed to draw up a joint declaration, precise and specific, that the future may in fact come to know under the name of the "Paris Declaration". You are therefore giving a strong political signal of our common desire to act against the scourge of money laundering and to introduce better international financial regulation. On these subjects, as on others, when Europe is united its voice is heard.

Raymond FORNI

Prime Minister, we thank you for coming here and appreciate your having visited us. We also thank you for the things that you have said, which are not simply words for the occasion, but which have contributed to our joint reflection. Our work will be concluded only if close co-operation exists between the executive authorities of each of our countries and the legislative authorities that we represent. That is why I regard the presence of the Prime Minister as an encouragement for us to continue with our work.

I now invite the speakers of the parliaments of the countries of the European Union or their representatives, and those of the parliaments of countries applying for membership, to give their views. We shall end these statements by one from the representative of the Duma, followed by that of the representative of the European Parliament before passing on to adoption of the Paris Declaration.

Frank HOFMANN (Germany – Bundestag)

Mr President, I congratulate you for having had the idea of organising a conference of parliamentarians from the European States to discuss the battle against money laundering. Last year, I got to know French Parliamentarians who are deeply engaged in this work, such as Mr Montebourg. I admire their dedication to this cause and I would like to help them with their efforts. We have already organised three conferences. The Paris Declaration for combating money laundering rests on a great many European shoulders. Thanks to you, Europe has made progress on the question of a joint approach. We shall defend this European Declaration within our respective parliaments and we shall act as the spokesmen for our colleagues from the other parliaments who have given their approval to this Declaration.

Dr Kurt SCHELTER (Germany – Bundesrat)

I would thank you all for this conference and congratulate you on its success. I am speaking on behalf of the Bundesrat, the Assembly of German Länder. The latter have expressed themselves in favour of strengthening law enforcement. In fact, the Paris Declaration includes some extremely specific points in this connection. We have resisted the temptation to pad the text with platitudes. One or two points I do not find entirely satisfactory. I would, in particular, have liked us to have given more prominence to the phenomenon of terrorism, the role that Europol and Eurojust are playing, and what the candidate countries can do with regard to crime prevention and judicial pursuit in combating money laundering. However, I am convinced that this conference has been a resounding success and that it will allow an important signal to be sent since it reflects the political desire of the parliaments of the European Union and the countries applying for membership. This signal should not be underestimated within the global framework of the fight against money laundering. The Bundesrat and members of the national and European Parliaments will therefore continue to stand by your side, as they have already done.

Ms Maria-Theresia FEKTER (Austria – Nationalrat)

Austria, as a member of the United Nations, the European Union and the FATF, strongly supports the combat against financial crime and organised criminality. Thus we welcome all efforts which improve and increase the efficiency in the fight against money laundering, provided that all these measures are compatible with the Austrian Constitution, the United Nations Convention, Human Rights and other European Instruments.

With regard to the content of the Paris Declaration, Austria wishes to voice criticism in two respects. First, based on constitutional considerations we strongly oppose the lifting of professional secrecy advocated under item 18. Particularly in criminal proceedings this measure is in contradiction to the principle of a fair trial as laid down in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Moreover, Austria is against the establishment of a central register of bank accounts as provided under item 20. Such an instrument would give rise to mistakes and could easily be misused and would, above all, be disproportionate from a cost-profit point of view. We accept, on the one hand, the intention aimed at by such an instrument, but, on the other, we are convinced that a speedy access to information concerning bank accounts containing criminal funds, fund transfers as well as the identity of beneficiaries can also be achieved by other means. Such a system of information is already implemented in Austria without recourse to a central register.

I am pleased about the broad consensus reached on the declaration against money laundering. This was in particular possible because of the determination that all measures to shift the burden of proof with regard to the origin of criminal funds and as contained in item 39 would have to be in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. I expect that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights will have considerable impact on the implementation of such regulations concerning the burden of proof.

Finally let me express my and my colleague’s gratitude for this invitation. It was interesting to participate in these discussions. However, I have to ask for your understanding that we are not able to commit the Austrian Parliament by our positions. I can assure you that the Austrian Parliament is in favour of all measures undertaken in the fight against money laundering. In addition I can promise that we will bring this declaration to the knowledge of all Austrian parliamentarians and that we will strongly support the principles contained therein in all our discussions.

Raymond FORNI

With regard to the desire expressed by means of this declaration to harmonise procedures for lifting professional secrecy, it goes without saying that it is a point for reflection so that each country can adopt an identical strategy in order to facilitate the battle against crime. Furthermore, I would remind you that this declaration is in no way "binding" by nature, unlike a treaty or a convention ratified by a number of States, but it represents in a certain way a commitment to defend the attitudes that it lays down within the framework of their national efforts. I welcome your final proposal, namely your commitment to support this declaration amongst your colleagues when it has been adopted.

Hugo COVELIERS (Belgium – Chamber of Representatives)

I thank you for your welcome and your hospitality. In the course of these two days we have had sufficient time to respond to the initial proposals and so prepare a compromise text. It is of course very tempting to re-embark on discussion, after the statements already made, but I shall not give in to this so as to respect the speaking time for my colleagues. I am pleased to note that the text of the Declaration again sets out the basic principles for combating money laundering: to determine the identity of a person ordering the transfer of funds, estimating the amount of money concerned, verifying what it relates to, identifying the beneficiary of the transfer and knowing the reason why he is receiving this money. These basic elements should permit us to deal with the problem. It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish interests of the community. It is up to our parliaments to watch for any departure. In the Belgian parliament, we have already incorporated most of these measures into our legislation, some of which are still at the stage of parliamentary bills. We will revise these bills in order to incorporate any additional measures put forward by the Paris Declaration. In fact, the struggle against money laundering is an essential factor in the battle against organised crime and terrorism. By acting in this way, we shall be able to preserve our society and defend the freedoms that it represents.

Hugo VANDENBERGHE (Belgium – Senate)

We shall in a few minutes adopt a joint declaration whereby our parliaments undertake to strengthen the battle against money laundering within the European Union. I must thank you and congratulate all who have contributed to the success of this initiative which I enthusiastically support. I particularly have our Chairman Mr Forni in mind, the organiser of this conference. I must also congratulate Mr Peillon on the way in which he put life into the discussions of the Steering Committee.

The laundering of dirty money has long been regarded as a widespread phenomenon, linked especially to drug trafficking. During the 1980s, a general awareness of the breadth of the problem and of organised crime and its multiple ramifications led to a series of initiatives aimed at co-ordinated and effective combating of money laundering. The formation of the FTFI at the G7 Summit in Paris in 1989 is the most telling illustration of this. However, now that structures are being set up for surveillance and for law enforcement, the techniques of laundering are evolving, obtaining maximum benefit from the efforts of financial globalisation and the development of new technologies. As Prof. François Chenais has shown in his study of the laundering of dirty money and financial globalisation, the removal of barriers and internationalisation of our financial systems have permitted dirty money to hide itself more effectively, to move more freely and to be put to use, sometimes far from its geographical location and social origin. In the circumstances, there are many who feel that business crime has reached such a stage that it now represents a serious risk not only to the economic and social stability of many countries, but also to the pre-eminence of the law and of democracy itself. Faced with this threat, democratic societies must respond with firmness and find the answer. The Declaration that we shall adopt consequently outlines a series of specific measures to be implemented. The Belgian Senate supports it with all the greater conviction since combating organised crime and money laundering has been one of its major concerns for many years. Our Senate in fact set up a parliamentary committee in July 1996 to enquire into organised crime in Belgium. It produced a real x-ray of the phenomenon. In its final report of December 1998, the committee in fact stressed the role that Parliament should play by ensuring ongoing attention to and systematic control of the trend in organised crime. A monitoring commission on organised crime was consequently formed. The Belgian Senate has in fact set up a permanent unit whose task is to study the problem of organised crime and systematically, in conjunction with the executive arm, to monitor the effectiveness of steps taken to combat this scourge. This experiment has many similarities with the approach that we have been discussing today.

I must remind you that the struggle against financial wrongdoing must also be accompanied by the creation of increased awareness amongst public opinion as to the extent of this scourge. As political agents, we therefore have before us a real educational task in the face of a phenomenon whose particular nature is to proceed almost unperceived. Today's conference has been a particular advance in this respect.

Talleyrand wrote, "Financiers do their work properly only when the State does them harm". We all of us here are conscious of the difficulties associated with implementing the recommendations set out in the final declaration. However I feel that the strong political signal that we are giving today witnesses the intention of the parliaments of European countries to ensure that our States do not permit illegalities that threaten the security of our people.

Karsten NONBO (Denmark – Folketinget)

We are satisfied and happy that this conference has been held as it provides us with an opportunity to deal with serious subject. The positive result of this conference, which is oriented on the future, is perfectly reflected in the declaration that we shall be adopting. Mr Sorensen and I myself do not represent the Danish government, but the opinions that we express reflect those of the two largest Danish parties in the Folketinget, the Danish Parliament. In our country, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour is responsible for administering the rules for combating money laundering, but the Ministry of Justice deals with the criminal aspect. A Money Laundering Secretariat, answerable to the public prosecutor-general concerned with economic crime, acts as a national contact point for the prevention of and the fight against use of the financial system for money laundering. From the Danish point of view, combating money laundering is a question of prime importance. That is why we intend to pass the necessary laws within the next few months to ensure success in the battle against crime. We are very satisfied with the Paris Declaration and we promise to contribute actively toward the success of the work we are undertaking.

Ms Soledad BECERRIL (Spain – Congress of Deputies)

The countries of the European Union have speeded up their work in the past few years in the battle against money laundering. Tax laws of the various countries, enacted in isolation, have not so far proved an adequate weapon in this fight. Today, we are working happily together with the financial institutions. The Member States of the Union, and FATF have made tremendous progress, thanks to the adoption of new laws, new directives and new recommendations, and thanks to the co-ordination and harmonisation of efforts made towards identification, follow-up and transparency. However, removing the barriers between countries, introducing the free circulation of goods and persons, and the extreme speed at which financial systems operate are forcing the European Union to strengthen its actions to combat the movement of capital of unlawful origin. Such capital is in fact continuing to circulate with impunity and often lies at the origin of acts perpetrated against public security and democratic institutions. We in Spain have had to cope with terrorism for dozens of years. These terrorists use funds of illegal origin, as they are chiefly obtained by extortion. Some of these funds also come from organisations pursuing cultural aims. I think, therefore, that you will understand how strongly we feel that the wordings of the resolutions from this conference should mention the procedures and methods for combating the financing of terrorism. This knows no national boundaries. Consequently, it is a threat to all countries. The European Union has crossed an important bridge, providing for police and judicial co-operation at European level in the case of serious crime, thanks to the creation of Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant.

Spain, which is assuming the Presidency of the European Union gives priority to combating terrorism, doing so by virtue of such documents as the United Nations International Convention, the Security Council Resolution and the European Union Plan of Action against Terrorism. The Spanish government is therefore preparing to issue a parliamentary bill to block the movement of capital and freeze fund until their origin and destination have been proved as not linked to terrorism. The work of this conference is of particular interest and great value, since it is a way of stimulating the member countries of the European Union and, I hope, the countries applying for membership, to strengthen their measures for combating serious crime committed against their inhabitants and legally established states. We thank the French National Assembly, Messrs Forni, Peillon and all participants who have made such an effort to ensure that we can finally approve this declaration.

Alfredo PRADA (Spain – Senate)

I must first congratulate Mr Forni and Mr Peillon for arranging this conference. Europe is engaged in a process of globalisation. This process is an ambivalent one as it promises enrichment and progress but it also represents a danger to our democratic values, values that we are unwilling to abandon. As politicians, we have the duty to improve the functioning of institutions that uphold these important values and our way of life, and to take action against individuals and groups of individuals who undermine these values. These groups have the particular feature of abusively using modern technical resources that are typical of our society in the 21^st century. They are a real threat. That is why we must form a common front, as we are doing today, together give careful thought and adopt rule to improve the international battle against crime. In assuming the presidency of the Council of the European Union, Spain has opted from amongst various priorities to place emphasis on the problem from which it has suffered for a number of years and which is now recognised by all as a particularly serious one: terrorism. Other countries suffer from this, but less directly so. Nonetheless, they are aware that to maintain a free society we must adopt an organised, co-ordinated approach to eradicate this evil that terrorism entails and which, unfortunately, has taken on a universal dimension. That is why we have asked for recourse to the European Arrest Warrant to be included in the declaration.

When the Berlin Wall fell, a great many of us thought that threats against our democratic systems were a thing of the past. In fact, the attacks on 11 September have proved the contrary. We can no longer continue to live and ignore terrorism. The world has now woken up to this situation, with which we are all too familiar in Spain. The struggle against terrorism should represent a daily concern for our statesmen. Terrorism in fact represents the sole threat against law and freedom. It is a deadly disease that saps all democratic systems and which requires great perseverance on the part of all our peoples to find a solution. We cannot place life and death, tyranny and freedom, terrorism and the state governed by the rule of law in the balance at the same level. These values cannot be balanced. Combating organised crime should be implemented in a number of environments. In Spain, we voted in specific laws to combat drug trafficking and money laundering and a Joint Committee of our two Houses is working on extending the battle against drug trafficking. It is my hope that today's meeting will be one further defence of our freedoms and states governed by the rule of law, for all peoples of Europe.

Raymond FORNI

Before asking Vincent Peillon to speak, I will take this opportunity to thank him for the work done during the preparatory stage and during today's discussions. I would also thank Arnaud Montebourg. Both have initiated thinking within the French Parliament without which this meeting could never have taken place. I am also particularly proud to preside over the National Assembly, an institution that represents the people as directly as possible.

Vincent PEILLON (France – National Assembly)

I was glad that our Prime Minister mentioned the Geneva Appeal of 1996, an appeal that was originally isolated and initiated by judges who felt that they should demonstrate that globalisation favoured or was capable of favouring crime as much as law and freedom. By raising this concern within our parliaments, we are doing useful work. We in fact desire globalisation that respects our fundamental values, freedom and justice. Each of us knows that Europe has a destiny and a responsibility of its own. We will defend common democratic values, which must surpass terror, barbarity and crime, provided that we do not give up and we are able to work together, as we have been able to do during these past two days. That is why I must thank all those who have ensured that the Paris Declaration and this Conference of Parliaments exist and can continue to exist. Of course, I thank President Forni for having stressed this essential concern with our European colleagues. I also appreciate the work done by his staff and the offices of the National Assembly. We have chosen an original method of work but we have found that the presence amongst us of public prosecutors and judges from the four corners of Europe, the heads of the financial markets, the directors of Europol and Eurojust, and persons concerned with the control bodies and the financial information units, has allowed a text to be drawn up of particular technical value and to enrich our discussions. My thanks also go to all the delegations. We set the challenge a few years ago of working at European Union level, convinced that we would in future be European citizens as much as citizens of each of our countries, and that it was indispensable that we should unite in combating trans-national crime, and the warmth and goodwill that you have shown throughout all this show that Europe really exists, that beyond our geographical origins and, sometimes, political ones, we share in a platform of sound values. On the four points that we have chosen, this declaration exceeds most of the international agreements. Some of you feel that this document does not provide for sufficient measures, while others feel it is too audacious. Our duty was to establish a "reference frame" for the battle to come. In particular, I was pleased to see today that this Paris Conference will be repeated and I thank in this connection John McFall for his invitation to the United Kingdom. It is important that we abandon the hypotheses that all too often create a hiatus between what we say and what we do. In fact, we have committed ourselves to meet again to note the progress of our work within our respective parliaments, compared with the objectives that we have set ourselves and to draw up new points. For all this, I thank you.

Bernard ANGELS (France – Senate)

On behalf of the French Senate I fully subscribe to the Declaration of the Conference against Money Laundering. In our capacity as representatives of the peoples of Europe, it is in fact our duty to ensure that we are aware of the danger that lies in inadequate monitoring of suspect movements of capital. On the day following the attacks of 11 September, no-one can pretend that a permissive attitude towards control of tax and banking ethics does not harbour any risk. Europe is required to set an example. Both Member States and the candidate countries, none of which should still appear on FATF' blacklist, must work towards setting up or strengthening the necessary measures for transparency of financial flows. Besides, we remain optimistic as to the implementation of the directive concerning the taxation of savings. We know that combating money laundering also extends to the sanctioning of tax offences, as the history of the battle against major financial wrong-doing in the United States has shown. We must at all times bear in mind that the main object of capital movements is to finance the real economy and not to feed speculation. The instruments to achieve this are certainly not lacking: OLAF, Europol, Eurojust, FAFT, etc. Furthermore, a number of agreements have been drawn up on the initiative of the UN, the OECD and the Council of Europe. I am therefore convinced that this conference will enable us to express a common desire to recognise, ratify and make use of the existing instruments. The financial intermediaries for their part must recognise their responsibilities and must throw themselves into the pursuit of this work forcefully and with conviction.

Apostolos KAKLAMANIS (Greece – President of the Hellenic Parliament)

I thank you for organising this conference and congratulate you on this initiative, which is a first for our Parliaments. Our presence shows that our people and our national parliaments are seeking to consolidate our democratic institutions and to combat corruption and economic crime. Today's Declaration against money laundering is proof of this. I feel that it will be accepted by public opinion in my country and the Parliament, where committees have been working for some years in the struggle against organised crime and drug trafficking and towards obtaining greater transparency. Money laundering is not an isolated economic crime but lies at the heart of a network of multiple criminal activities. Combating money laundering comes up against major political difficulties as it gnaws at the heart of our political representative systems and saps the confidence of our peoples in the political world and its representatives. Nowadays, corruption threatens all our democracies, trying to hide behind legitimate interests of the business world and the economy, thus forcing States to dependency situations. As parliamentarians, we are trying to heed our citizens' worries and we should take the necessary steps to protect our political institutions, especially by improving transparency for everything to do with the operation of the State, such as the financing of political parties, the press, etc. Money laundering cannot be efficiency combated without real international co-operation. That is why we are convinced that sanctions against countries and territories that do not cooperate are an essential condition. The application of these sanctions of course depends on secure and objective procedures and the monitoring and careful evaluation of the threats that these countries may present. With regard to the reversal of the burden of proof, we feel that some adaptation is necessary of the criminal procedures against money laundering while respecting the rights of the individual.

Al Capone is said to have stated, "Corruption is omnipresent in American life. Today it is the supreme law. The Chicago deputies that are not corrupt can be counted on the fingers of one hand". Corrupt people of this kind still exist. They are strong and represent a serious danger to our democratic institutions. It is therefore up to us to find a very strong response to this threat. We must pick up this challenge and unite against all those who undermine our democratic systems.

Michael AHERN (Ireland – Dail Eireann)

I would like to pay tribute to the French National Assembly for the initiative it has taken in arranging and hosting this conference of European Union parliaments against money laundering. Up to now the initiative in the area of action against money laundering has tended to come from the international arena, whether through the original initiative of the G7 in setting up the FATF or through directives at European Union level. While this is understandable in view of the globalisation of financial markets and the particular need for international co-operation, it is timely that national parliaments and parliamentarians should begin to take a more active interest in these issues.

Accordingly, the delegation of the Irish Parliament is happy to welcome this declaration. As the preamble to the declaration notes, money laundering and financial crime have increased over recent years and pose a direct threat to the stability of the global economy and also for the security of our democratic societies.

The four areas which are highlighted in the declaration are central to the fight against money laundering. In particular, the question of transparency of capital movements is fundamental if money laundering is to be seriously tackled at the international level. I am aware that this is one of the areas which the Joint Council of EU Justice and Finance Ministers has discussed and that the Commission is working on proposals to establish transparency criteria to deal with mechanisms used for money laundering. We should encourage the Commission to accelerate its work in this area.

On the question of non-co-operative countries and territories, we should welcome the work of the FATF in this area. While much more needs to be done considerable progress has been made in encouraging these territories to bring their anti-money laundering regimes to an acceptable international standard. At EU level, it is essential that we fully support the work of the FATF in this area and the Irish Parliament has recently passed legislation which will allow for the fullest implementation of the FATF countermeasures against countries and territories which fail to take appropriate action against money laundering.

It is evident that the fullest co-operation between the law enforcement authorities in each Member State should be encouraged. The declaration refers to the recent establishment of Eurojust which is designed to encourage co-operation in this area. Given that Eurojust has yet to begin operating under its existing remit, consideration of any extension of that remit might best await experience of its practical operation. While the declaration rightly emphasises the importance of co-operation between law enforcement authorities across national borders, co-operation between relevant authorities at the national level can be just as critical.

Responding to the problem of drug trafficking is one of the most difficult problems faced by law enforcement agencies worldwide. Experience has shown that the major players tend to distance themselves from day-to-day operations. This has produced a situation in many countries where persons involved in drug trafficking, and other serious crime, can openly enjoy the proceeds of their suspected crimes. In the mid-nineties in Ireland, a number of terrorist and drug-related murders took place. On 26 June 1996, a well-known journalist, Veronica Guerin was shot dead in Dublin. Arising from the considerable public concern on these issues, the Irish Parliament enacted legislation aimed at the identification and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) was established and was charged with the primary responsibility for the enforcement of these laws and brings together relevant police, tax and social security personnel together with relevant technical experts.

The critical element in the operations of the CAB is that it may confiscate the proceeds of crime even where the person involved has not been convicted of a criminal offence; it is required only to establish, on the balance of probability, that property is the proceeds of crime. Since its inception in 1996, the CAB has obtained "freezing orders" on property to the value of more than 19 million Euro. In the same period, the CAB has demanded over 47 million Euro, and has collected almost 13 million Euro, in taxes and interest. Given the relatively small size of the Irish economy in EU terms, these figures represent a considerable success in bringing the full force of the State machinery to bear on persons engaging in drug trafficking and other serious criminal activity.

Finally, let me repeat the support of the delegation of the Irish parliament for the continued success of the work of the EU parliaments against money laundering.

Donato BRUNO (Italy – Chamber of Deputies)

I must thank President Forni both personally and on behalf of my colleagues. We all have the future and the correct functioning of the European economy and justice at heart. The Italian Parliament has always attached particular importance to the co-operation set up between the parliaments of the European Union and has always worked to strengthen and promote this co-operation. We are in fact convinced that an exchange of ideas and experience and that the creation of a kind of parliamentary network can contribute towards strengthening the role played by the representative Assemblies of the Union and to promote the opening up of avenues for joint action. Inter-parliamentary co-operation can also result in joint documents being adopted. I would remind you that if documents of this kind can be adopted, they cannot be regarded as binding on parliamentarians, who speak on their own behalf within different bodies. The principle is in fact explained in the protocol appearing at the head of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Nonetheless, we regard this declaration as a good start to make our Parliaments more aware and to force them to consider combating money laundering as one of their future priorities.

Roberto CENTARO (Italy – Senate)

I give you the kind regards of the Italian Senate and thank Mr Forni for this highly worthwhile initiative. As a senator I have taken part in this work since the start and have contributed towards drafting this declaration. In the face of organised trans-national crime, we have to cope with an immense accumulation of funds which threatens the operation of our economies and our democratic institutions. If we are to ban tax havens from society, we must also identify the necessary steps to combat financial wrongdoing. Crime cannot and must not pay. The contents of the Paris Declaration represent an appropriate starting point in this connection to guide our work within our respective Parliaments. It is essential that we adopt these measures and reach out for other through the reinforced legal integration of the Parliaments of the European countries, aware that this process is an indispensable stage towards true political integration.

Lucien WEILER (Luxembourg – Chamber of Deputies)

Luxembourg expresses its satisfaction at the fairly large consensus obtained for this conference text, a text to which it has fully subscribed. After the excitement provoked by the contents of the report of the Information Mission on money laundering, I feel it is important to confirm the desire of the Luxembourg Parliament to put an end to international financial criminality. Luxembourg and its Parliament would in fact feel it foolish to do otherwise. The Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies welcomes the greater parliamentary involvement in the fight which forms the subject of this conference. Our Parliament and our Government are fully aware of the challenge in this connection. The legal "cordon sanitaire" that we have set up around the activities at the Luxembourg financial centre has already stood the test. No account connected with terrorist activity has been discovered in Luxembourg following research into terrorist financial networks made following the attacks on 11 September.

Another prospect for parliamentary co-operation could also be to tackle the roots of the evil that we have been discussing today. We are convinced that the European Parliaments must in future show greater determination in combating operations and transactions that generate flows of dirty money, namely drug trafficking, paedophilia, trafficking in human beings and arms trafficking. We must not underestimate our adversary or the subject of our fight. We must therefore take a close look at operations that lie at the origin of the phenomenon that concerns us today. Financial crime is more often than not collateral with an underlying criminality, frequently connected with arms trafficking. That is why I hope that the Parliaments of the European countries will give new impetus to combating arms trafficking. Having regard to the volume and extent of arms trafficking on our Continent, the challenge is substantial. This being so, Luxembourg welcomes the strong political signal that the French Prime Minister has mentioned and which has gone out from this meeting.

Ms Timeke WITTEVEEN-HEVINGA (The Netherlands – Chamber of Representatives)

I am pleased that in so little time we have been able to put together an efficient joint declaration, thanks to the excellent work undertaken by the Steering Committee and the initiative of Mr Forni. The agreements arrived at at European level to combat money laundering will allow this evil to be efficiently tackled. We must now respect the principle of a state governed by law, but this declaration strengthens the role of the European Union. The multinationals must face up to their responsibilities on the question of integrity and transparency and the banks must examine their consciences. Even if certain provisions may well jeopardise our competitive position at world level, respect for democracy is primordial. It is important now to finalise the agreements made. We must in my opinion revise item 43 of the Declaration as far as the role of Eurojust is concerned. I shall nonetheless defend this declaration in the Dutch parliament since it should persuade our parliaments to make every effort to combat money laundering together.

Antonio de ALMEIDA SANTOS (Portugal – President of the Assembly of the Republic)

I thank you for the excellent organisation of this meeting and your warm welcome. The Declaration has my support. The effort made has been worthwhile. I pay tribute to the Chairman Mr Forni, for the initiative for this project, as we shall henceforth have a new instrument to combat money laundering. The value of an instrument of this kind is the spirit that underlies it. The representatives of the parliaments of the European Union will let their counterparts in other democracies know that they consider it indispensable that a crusade is conducted against the inaction, tolerance and even connivance from which the actors in money laundering have benefited so far. No person in politics can pretend not to know that if organised crime and terrorism represent such a threat and enjoy such success, the reason is the funds that they generate, often exceeding the national budgets of the States. We also know that this dirty money not only finances criminal organisations acting at world level but also invades the legal economic sector, which is thereby converted into an instrument of domination, especially political. Orwell's "Big Brother" could become a reality. Unless we act upstream, enforcement downstream will have little effect. Fighting on our own within the enclosed space of our countries against the "parasites" that can move unapprehended in a space open to all means opening the door to impunity. That is why I am glad that steps are being taken to provide a response at supra-national level, a response that must in due course become universal. We must let countries that remain permissive towards this scourge know that the European Union is disinclined to stand by inactively while the values of its civilisation are being destroyed.

To come back to the wording of the final declaration, I must say I trust in the future. In fact, the moment will come when the objections of principle still raised today will eventually be dispelled in the face of the growth in the risks with which we are faced. Organised crime and terrorism are aimed precisely at destroying the principles that we hold dearest and respect for which compels us to reject recourse to certain measures to combat them. But does this approach still make sense if it helps the criminals responsible for them, whose objective is to destroy these principles, to escape? We are therefore opposed to reversing the burden of proof, by providing for an adjustment to the burden of proof at the origin of financial crime. As a lawyer and law-maker, I have always been faithful to the principle according to which the burden of proof lies with the accuser. However, the present activities of organised crime and the serious risks that attach to it persuade me to doubt whether it will be possible for much longer, without providing for a salutary exception. Without effective judicial and legal resources, we will be unable to stop the new enemies of our civilisations and we shall perhaps have to go back to war - an alternative that we must at all cost avoid.

John McFALL (United Kingdom - House of Commons)

I congratulate the Prime Minister, Mr Forni and Mr Peillon, for holding this meeting after the attacks of 11 September. I feel that the suggestions made are not "restrictive" as you have said, but that we are all obliged to seize the opportunity to spread the message in our respective parliaments. The United Kingdom feels fully committed to the spirit of this declaration. There is no greater threat to the economic prosperity and stability of our countries than money laundering, since it is perpetrated to the detriment of whole communities and at the price of immense suffering on the part of the individuals and families caught up in this atrocious business. We cannot limit this message to Europe but must broadcast it world-wide. We must work hand-in-hand with the United States and FATF. I look forward to the day when these hopes are realised. We shall then have shown proof that working together, in a spirit of solidarity, will have made a difference and that we will remember that the seeds of our success will have been sown at this conference.

Ms Kamelia KASSABOVA (Bulgaria – National Assembly)

I would like to thank our host, the French National Assembly. We greatly appreciate that we were able to participate in a discussion of this kind. Our Parliament will adopt a very positive attitude towards the Paris Declaration, which will form a legal basis for combating money laundering. In 1997, our Criminal Code was amended to include provisions against money laundering. We supplemented this legislation in 1998. Furthermore, our statute law is compatible with the laws of other countries. We set up an international information office in 1998 to conduct enquiries and provide information on money laundering. The countries of the European Union congratulated Bulgaria for the steps taken in June 2001. We have already ratified the Palermo Convention and will this year have ratified the New York International Convention concerning the fight against terrorist financing. The Bulgarian government has set up a specific programme with the priority aim of amending the Criminal Code and criminal procedures, against those responsible for money laundering and their accomplices. The programme also includes measures to combat drug trafficking, based on the provisions of the Vienna Convention, such as the seizure and confiscation of certain property and earnings. This approach is in line with the commitments that we have made in connection with the Strasbourg Convention. We therefore intend to contribute to the joint efforts made by the European States in order to combat organised crime, terrorism and money laundering.

Marcos KYPRIANOU (Cyprus – House of Representatives)

I must congratulate the French National Assembly and its President for tackling a subject so worrying to all democracies and which is the scourge for the economic and financial systems of all countries. Parliaments must ensure that the laws and international agreements are applied. The House of Representatives has amended, on its own initiative, several bills related to money laundering, rendering these even stricter than relevant international conventions. An ad hoc Committee has also been set up to tackle issues related to organised crime, as well as money laundering. For example, upon the decision of the Ministerial Council, Supervisory Authorities over certain professions, i.e. lawyers and auditors, have been appointed. Supervisory regulations are soon expected to be issued. Moreover, a threshold for crash transactions has been set and the reversal of the burden of proof, as to the source of funds, has been adopted, based on the civil and not the criminal procedure. Our presidential system allows Parliament to play its full role of parliamentary control. With subjects of this kind, government policy and the actions of parliament converge. Cyprus fully supports the Paris Declaration and reiterates its political desire to apply it. We shall pass the message on to our government and we will supervise its application. By attacking money laundering we are attacking the heart of organised crime.

Rein VOOG (Estonia – Parliament)

I thank Mr Forni and the French National Assembly for organising this conference and I was delighted that my country was invited to attend. Most of the proposals entered in the Declaration are already applied in my country but it remains for us to do a considerable amount of work. Estonia has entered a new stage in combating money laundering. Certain laws have been adopted or improved in order to make them conform to the international rules. The Estonian authorities have actively collaborated with the international organisations, especially by making certain recommendations within the FATF framework. In fact, we already have some experience of this subject. That is why I welcome the proposal by the German delegation, that the countries applying for membership should as from now participate in the activities of Europol and Eurojust. After having introduced measures against money laundering, we have paid increasing attention to this aspect. The banks and financial institutions are now taking their responsibilities very seriously. We are now trying to train our staff and make the public more aware of our actions. In addition, international co-operation is essential. We should coordinate the various actions taken by numerous organisations and institutions concerned more effectively. Finally, we must closely monitor the general trend connected with money laundering at international level. We feel we can make a considerable contribution to international combating of money laundering.

Janos HORVATH (Hungary – Parliament)

I bring you cordial greetings from the Hungarian Parliament. I am ready to defend the Paris Declaration within my Parliament. We passed an act against money laundering back in 1994 and since the attacks on 11 September our government has taken further steps in this connection, such as unhesitatingly adopting the declaration of the Heads of State and Government of the European Union, the introduction of a plan of action to speed up the enforcement system at European level and the formation of an inter-ministerial committee to adopt the necessary measures for judicial and police co-operation. In addition, the Hungarian government on 2 October submitted a bill to Parliament on combating money laundering and terrorism. The bill was approved and is now effective. In addition, we are setting up a system for combating international terrorism by applying restrictive measures in the economic, financial and commercial fields. Furthermore, the scope of the act will henceforth cover the professions, such as those of lawyers and estate agents, likely to benefit from the system of trusts. Besides, any person crossing our frontier with a sum equal to at least 4,000 Euros must declare it. Finally, a stricter control system will be applied at the foreign exchange offices. FATF has recently studied all the measures introduced by Hungary and felt that they could allow it to be deleted from the list of non-co-operative countries. I personally thank a number of my colleagues, especially Mr McFall and Ms Becerril, for their unfailing support.

Aleksandrs KIRSTEINS (Latvia – Parliament)

I thank you for having given me the opportunity to attend this conference. In 1996, when Mario Monti came to Riga, he acknowledged that our country was combating money laundering. Our prime minister at the time reaffirmed his commitment to do battle with this scourge. We are making it a priority and we intend to work together with other countries fighting the same battle. We welcome the setting up of a central register which will allow information on money laundering to be collected and certain training programmes to be set up. We abide by the United Nations programme combating drug addiction and are cooperating with FATF and the European Union and intend to do so with the other Baltic States to combat money laundering. We wish to assist them with the necessary technology in this connection. We long ago passed suitable laws to prevent and counter money laundering. The Bureaux de Change must in particular declare their currency transactions where the sum exceeds 10,000 Euros. Following 11 September, we set up a plan of action against terrorism, providing for a closer check on visas, a reduction in bilateral contacts between States that support terrorism, stricter control of immigration flows, civil aviation, the carrying of mail, the transport of freight, etc. We have also ensured that all necessary information is being gathered to reassure the population. Of course, we shall support the Paris Declaration and are committed to continuing to cooperate with the countries of the European Union and those seeking membership.

Ms Giedré PURVANECKIENÉ (Lithuania – Parliament)

I must express my particular gratitude at being able to participate in the preparation of the text against money laundering. Lithuania supports this action and has always devoted its efforts to combat wrongdoing and money laundering. An act was voted in to this effect in 1997, then amended in 1998, 1999 and 2001. New amendments are still being considered, allowing arrangements for the free circulation of capital and the introduction of an intelligence system for combating money-laundering operations. The three Baltic states have some experience in cooperating in the fight against money laundering. Our colleague in Latvia has mentioned the Riga Declaration: this was signed by the Presidents of the three Baltic States in 1996. The declaration resulted in co-operation between our parliaments and the Council of Ministers of the Baltic States. We therefore support the Paris Declaration.

Victor GALEA PACE (Malta – House of Representatives)

I thank the French National Assembly for having organised this conference. I am pleased to be able to explain my country's position regarding money laundering since it has produced some problems on the international and diplomatic scene. Malta does not seem faced with serious problems with money laundering. However, our government has paid particular attention to the subject. Numerous changes have therefore been made at legislative level and in the financial environment. As a financial centre, Malta is responsible for granting licences to all financial institutions in the country and for monitoring financial flows that pass through Malta. We passed a law on money laundering in 1994. The maximum sanction is a fine of 2.5 million Euros and 14 years' imprisonment, in addition to confiscation of the money and property of the persons convicted. Furthermore, the Maltese Central Bank has adopted certain measures against money laundering which apply to the financial institutions, investment companies and exchange agents. The latter are in fact required to identify their customers, keep the books up to date, notify doubtful transactions and train their staff in money laundering techniques. Banking secrecy has been suppressed following an investigatory order made by the courts at the request of the Minister of Justice.

Malta is a member of the Council of Extra-Territorial Centres, the Council of Europe and the latter's Restricted Expert Committee on combating money laundering. Malta has also participated in the Vienna Convention, having signed but not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on organised crime at trans-national level. The organised crime unit has had to deal with a number of cases under the act of 1994 against money laundering. The police, in particular, set up a specialist unit in 2001, whose staff will examine all matters put to it by the financial registration unit, also set up in 2001. The persons responsible for this unit come from the Ministry of Justice, the Central Bank and the police forces. All doubtful cases can therefore be examined. The unit can also proceed to exchange information with foreign institutions undertaking similar functions and will be authorised to act not only in Malta but also abroad. Generally speaking, all legislation concerning money laundering has benefited from support both by the Government and the Opposition and the Labour Party. The development of new technology permits financial flows to cross the globe very rapidly. It is therefore more urgent than ever to combat money laundering. That is why Malta will continue to cooperate at European and international level to attack this modern phenomenon of organised crime decisively.

Aristide ROIBU (Romania – Senate)

It is a great honour for me to attend this Conference of Parliaments of the European Union against money laundering. Against the background of globalisation there are no boundaries to organised crime, drug trafficking or money laundering. While acting with a view to achieving the standard required for integration into the European Union, Romania has made efforts to harmonise its laws in this connection. Consequently, in 1999 it enacted a law on the prevention of and sanctions against money laundering, especially harmonised with the provisions of the European Council Directive concerning the use of the financial system for this purpose. In addition, Romania passed an act in 2000 against corruption. Our act against money laundering sets out explicitly and in detail the categories of offences connected with money laundering, with special reference to the ways in which this crime is committed and the unlawful sources from which these funds originate, such as drug and arms trafficking, the various forms of contraband, fraudulent bankruptcy, games of chance, and offences committed with credit cards or computers. The act also sets out the obligations of financial institutions and banks, insurance companies and bureaux de change. For this war to be waged effectively, our government has recently prepared a national programme for the prevention of corruption and set up a national crime prevention committee. Romania remains open in this connection for co-operation with the specialist institutions in developed European countries in order to benefit from their experience and transfer the Community provisions into its national legislation.

Jozef BERNIK (Slovenia – National Assembly)

I am delighted and honoured to represent the Slovenian Parliament and I send you the good wishes of the President of the Parliament of the Republic of Slovenia Mr Borut Pahor and of my colleagues. Slovenia is a young country which has been unable to avoid certain scourges, such as money laundering. In 1995 we therefore passed an act specifically against money laundering, which was updated in 2001. The European agencies have helped us considerably in our struggle against this financial wrongdoing and I congratulate the participants of this conference on their combined approach to this danger, which is becoming ever more of a threat to our values and our financial systems. The document that we shall adopt today will be extremely welcome in my country and we shall do our best to apply its provisions. Mr Jospin mentioned two other problems: conflicts of interest and corruption in both private life and public life, both nationally and internationally. These problems poison the foundation of our societies. That is why we must try to combat the common enemy hand in hand. True, we all have divergent interests and systems, but we are all obliged to combat systems of corruption. In fact, our present weapons are inadequate. The Enron case in fact shows that self-regulation is not a perfect mechanism. We therefore need international bodies, as "guardians" of our societies, as it were. I conclude by assuring you of our support.

Janoslav PETRIK (Czech Republic – Senate)

The Czech Republic also supports the fight against money laundering and wishes all participants at this conference every success in combating this scourge.

Ahmet TAN (Turkey - Parliament)

I send you the thanks of the President of Turkey's Grand Assembly to the authors of this initiative. The results obtained have required dedication on the part of all concerned. That is why we wish to be associated with the contents of the Declaration put to us today, which reflects the political desire of all participants present to combat money laundering in all its forms. Turkey has already ratified the Vienna Convention, the United Nations International Convention concerning the fight against terrorism, the conventions of the Council of Europe, and the FATF recommendations. In addition, Turkey is at present strengthening and harmonising its legal system with regard to the fight against money laundering. Our financial crime unit is at present overseeing the application of the recommendations and the use of international instruments by the administration. One of the main sources of terrorist financing is achieved through money laundering. Turkey has suffered a great deal from terrorist acts and is therefore more than willing to cooperate with you to eradicate this threat. We regard the member countries of the European Union and the countries seeking admission as indispensable partners, given that terrorist organisations, especially those established in Turkey, maintain relations abroad. This conference is an effective way of combating money laundering. Another meeting on money laundering and terrorism will be held in Vienna next week, while the session of the Inter-parliamentary Assembly in Berlin will make the fight against terrorism in all its aspects a priority. We are delighted to be here to demonstrate our support to you and we assure you of our entire co-operation.

Raymond FORNI

Before I ask the representative of the State Duma of the Russian Federation to speak, I must thank the President Mr Seleznev who agreed to send a delegate to take part in our meeting. I regard this decision as a token of Russia's interest in our work and a sign of friendship and trust.

Vladimir LUKIN (Russian Federation – State Duma)

On behalf of the State Duma of the Russian Federation and its president, I express my gratitude to the French party and especially to Mr Forni for having taken the initiative in organising this meeting and for inviting a Russian delegation to participate in this joint work, with a view to preparing general and European principles for combating money laundering, thus fighting against terrorist activity. Russian deputies have recently passed a law against laundering of illegal revenues. Furthermore, a presidential decree has been signed, following the measures for applying the UN Security Council Resolution No. 13-73 of 28.9.01. In addition, a financial monitoring committee began to operate in our country in February 2002. It now consists of 40 persons and cooperates at international level, especially to ensure training of personnel and the purchase of the appropriate equipment. The directorate of this Committee intends to suppress the obstacles preventing my country's membership of the FATF. Information concerning suspect financial activities will be passed to the police services in my country between now and the end of February.

We feel that the Paris Declaration will have crucial repercussions in many countries, including ours, by contributing towards the preparation of rules of European law and, more broadly, universal law. Legal provisions differ from one country to the other, but we believe that the enactment of universal criminal and financial legislation will be a decisive step forward. Europe must express itself in one voice with regard to the fight against money laundering. It is important that a clear and precise classification is made of the offences and the system of sanctions for criminals and financial institutions that have fallen short of vigilance. We feel it equally important that sanctions are imposed for abuse of power regarding control structures. However, we must deal very cautiously with the notion of non-co-operative country and territory. The rules preventing correspondence accounts to be held there or branches or subsidiaries to be opened in them may in fact provoke the anger of the financial elite in those countries. In my view, the problem should rather be resolved within the framework of existing law, simply by making every effort to make investment in offshore centres less and less attractive. Finally, the lifting of professional secrecy conflicts with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It might perhaps be correct to regard this declaration and the provisions for its implementation as an extraordinary measure, under conditions where the terrorist threat is growing. We could even contemplate introducing firmer measures, as the situation develops. Be that as it may, Russia will continue to cooperate actively in this area with the European Union. It has already taken useful steps in this direction. Concluding, I must say that, in parallel with the problem of money laundering, my country is facing other serious problems, which I have attempted to mention.

Ms Sarah LUDFORD (European Parliament)

I must remind you that the members of the European Parliament represent some 360 million persons and will soon, I hope, represent some 500 million. We are acting in partnership with the national parliaments of Member States, whose activities we are furthering. In the years to come, we shall gather the fruit of the progress made in the past two years in the sectors of domestic affairs and justice to assist member countries to combat financial wrongdoing and money laundering. The Councils of Ministers of Justice and of Ministers of Economic Affairs take concerted action to fight against unlawful financial transactions. At the Tampere Summit, the European Union undertook to enact joint laws to counter cross-border transactions, and common bodies of law, allowing a certain margin of manoeuvre to permit interaction between the various legal systems. I am convinced that we shall be able to complete the Paris Declaration at the next meeting in London. The quality of the work undertaken is in fact excellent, since certain sanctions are provided in the event of non-application of these laws. We adopted a new Directive on money laundering in December 2001, while Europol's mandate was strengthened in 2000. We formed Eurojust, a permanent body, and we concluded a political agreement, adopted by the European Parliament two days ago, concerning the European arrest warrant and we are arranging for a series of measures to combat terrorism, which will include the freezing of assets. The next meeting of the participants here today should be able to take stock of progress made by Member States and National Parliaments.

In an exercise of this kind, points of detail and minor differences will unavoidably occur. I would remind you that I cannot commit the European Parliament, as I have no mandate to adopt this text. I would nonetheless assure you of the total commitment and the political will of the European Parliament, under the leadership of Pat Cox, our new President, to cooperate with you in your fight against crime, terrorism and the laundering of dirty money, which pose a serious threat to our societies.

Raymond FORNI

We can now proceed to adopt the final document of this conference. I would stress that doing so amounts to personal approval. This particular method of expression is no doubt the best means of ensuring that its adoption will encourage us to maintain the approach taken. This action is not only a personal expression but is a token of a strong political message, since after a fashion we are representing our respective peoples. That is the definition of a parliamentarian. He must assume responsibility for the decisions that he takes, before the people that appointed him. It is important to remember that we possess a common desire, which is to combat financial wrong-doing and money laundering, despite the adjustments here and there to take account of the situation in each country. Even though other problems remain to be settled and other questions to be dealt with, this mobilisation of the European parliaments on this subject is important in my view, not only because financial wrong-doing is a running sore but also because the attacks on 11 September revealed to the world how dangerous these activities are and the fragility of our democracies. It remains for me now to confirm that you have no further objections to the text of the Declaration that you have jointly prepared, subject to the comments made.

I now invite the observer countries to give their view, since their support for this declaration will be highly symbolic. In their progress towards membership of the European Union, they must in fact take account of this scourge. Moreover, by permitting us to broaden the base of this declaration, they are giving us a valuable advantage. I have always felt that the membership of new countries in the European Union is not only an opportunity for these countries but also an additional advantage for ourselves. In fact, as Ms Sarah Ludford has stressed, the Europe of today will, thanks to them, have achieved considerable weight at international level.

I am pleased with the idea and the method that have led to this excellent result. I was very happy to welcome you today, as Vincent Peillon did yesterday. I thank the parliamentarians who participated in this conference, the experts to have assisted us, our respective collaborators, the members of my staff and the officers of the National Assembly who have made such a worthwhile contribution. Finally, I thank the press who have already broadcast the message from this international conference in France.

Our policy comes down to this ongoing struggle in which each of us is engaged to transform the dream that drives it into daily reality for all of us who have placed their trust in it. You have participated in your own way in this arduous work and I am convinced that our democracies have gained by it, as has the European idea.