Activities of Julia PITERA related to 2018/2006(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on protection of the EU’s financial interests – Recovery of money and assets from third countries in fraud cases PDF (353 KB) DOC (53 KB)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
– having regard to the Eighteenth report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the year 2017,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
– having regard to the Commission report of ...3 September 2018 entitled ‘Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Fight against fraud – 2017 Annual Report’ (COM(2018)...553) and the accompanying staff working documents (SWD(2018)...381-386),
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12
Citation 12
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union7 introduces minimum EU standards on the freezing of property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation and on the confiscation of property in criminal matters; _________________ 7 OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 39.
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Commission proposal 2016/0412 (COD) of 21 December 2016 for a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders introduces standardised means of cooperation among Member States;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 on the f 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), and particularly Article 104 thereof, envisages means of cooperation with third countries;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas Article 3(4) of the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No 198) requires its States Parties to adopt measures which would introduce the reversed burden of proofstates that in respect of a serious offences, therefore requiring the or offences as defined by national law, an offender to demonstrates the origin of the alleged proceeds; whereas States Parties are, however, required to implement this provision only to the extent to which i or other property liable to confiscation to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of theirits domestic legal systemsaw;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas at regional and global level several treatieconventions and mechanisms in relation to confiscation and asset recovery have been developed by the UN and UN-affiliated bodies, but for varCouncil of Europe i.e. the United Nations Convention against Corruption of 31 October 2003, the United Natiouns reasons, including the absence of political will to cooperate,Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of 15 November 2000, the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 16 May 2005, the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of 8 November 1990, but for various reasons they do not always allow an effective and timely recovery of stolen assets;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas in accordance with Article 14 of the Parliament and the Council Regulation 883/2013, the European Anti- Fraud Office hascan entered into some bilateral agreements that allow investigations to be carried out in certain third countries Administrative Cooperation Arrangements with competent authorities in third countries, following prior coordination with the competent Commission services and the European External Action Service;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that funds from third countries may also be fraudulently transferred to the EU; underlines that the results of the pEU funded Preparatory aAction implemented by UNICRI on ‘Support to EU Neighbourfor Supporting Arab Spring countries to Iimplement Aasset Rrecovery’ carried out by UNICRI should lead to a broader and permanent EU programme to implement asset recovery;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Strongly encourages the EU to become part of thCalls for the EU to advance its application for membership to the Council of Europe Group of States Aagainst Corruption (GRECO) as soon as possible, and to keep the Parliament up to date;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights the need to create mechanisms allowing freezing of assets in third countries when they have been acquired by breaching EU law, inspired by the existing EU directives on mutual recognition and recoveryUnderlines that the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 16 May 2005 and the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of 8 November 1990 constitute important instruments facilitating cooperation with third countries related to assets freezing and asset recovery; welcomes successfully concluded negotiations on the proposal for a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders; notes that its main elements could be a useful basis to cooperate with third countries in the context of international conventions and bilateral agreements concluded by the European Union;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets the fact that not all EU Member States have agreed to be part of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); stresses the importance of the EPPO becoming the key element of any future mechanism of recovery in third countries, requiring that it be recognised for that purpose as a competent judicial authority, in accordance with Article 104 of the EPPO Regulation, in existing and future treatieagreements on mutual legal assistance and asset recovery, whether bilateral or multilateralin particular Council of Europe and UN Conventions;