Activities of Axel VOSS related to 2022/0167(COD)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (13)
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to perform effective asset tracing investigations, and to swiftly respond to cross-border requests, asset recovery offices should have access to the information that allows them to establish the existence, ownership or control of property that may become object of a freezing or a confiscation order. Therefore, asset recovery offices should have access to the relevant data such as fiscal data, national citizenship and population registries, commercial databases and social security information. This should include law enforcement information in so far as data such as criminal records, vehicles stops, property searches and previous legal actions such as freezing and confiscation orders or seizures of cash can be of value to identify relevant property. Access to information should be subject to specific safeguards that prevent the misuse of the access rights., including a court authorisation where required by national law These safeguards should be without prejudice to Article 25 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council 23 . The direct and immediate accessaccess without delay to this information does not prevent Member States from making access subject to procedural safeguards as established under national law, such as a court authorisation, while taking due account of the need for asset recovery offices to be able to swiftly reply to cross- border requests. The implementation of the procedural safeguards for access to databases should not affect the ability of asset recovery offices to respond to requests from other Member States, especially in case of urgent requests. Access to relevant databases and registries under this Directive should complement access to bank account information pursuant to Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council24 and to beneficial ownership information pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . _________________ 23 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89). 24 Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 122). 25 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 (OJ L 141 5.6.2015, p. 73).
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) Confiscation should also be possible where a court is satisfied that the instrumentalities, proceeds, or property in question is derived from criminal conduct but where a final conviction is not possible because of illness, or absconding or death of the suspected or accused person, or because the suspected or accused person cannot be held liable because of immunity or amnesty as provided for under national law. The same should be possible where the time limits prescribed under national law have expired, where such time limits are not sufficiently long to allow for the effective investigation and prosecution of the relevant criminal offences. Confiscation in such cases should only be allowed where the national court is satisfied that all the elements of the offence are present. For reasons of proportionality, confiscating property without a prior conviction should be limited to cases of serious crimes. The right of the defendant to be made aware of the proceeding and to be represented by a lawyer should not be affected. The burden of proof should be on the prosecution.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Due to the intrinsically opaque nature of organised crime, it is not always possible to link property derived from criminal activities to a specific criminal offence and confiscate such property. In such situations, confiscation should be possible under certain conditions including in particular: the property is frozen based on suspicion of crimes committed within the framework of a criminal organisation, these criminal offences are liable to give rise to substantial economic benefits and the court is satisfied that the frozen property is derived from criminal activities carried out within the framework of a criminal organisation. These conditions should ensure that confiscation of property not linked to a specific offence for which the owner has been convicted is limited to criminal activities of criminal organisations that are serious in nature and liable to generate substantial benefits. When determining whether the offences are liable to give rise to significant benefits, Member States should take into account all relevant circumstances of the offence, including whether the criminal activities were committed with the intention to generate regular substantial profits. While it should not be a precondition for the national court to be satisfied that a criminal offence has been committed, tThe court must be satisfied that the property in question is derived from criminal offences. When determining whether or not the property in question derived from criminal activities, the national courts should take into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including the fact that the property is substantially disproportionate to the lawful income of the owner. Member States should then require and award an effective possibility for the owner of the property to prove that the property in question derives from lawful activitiesThe burden of proof should be on the prosecution.
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purposes of performing the tasks referred to in Article 5, Member States shall ensure that asset recovery offices have immediate and direct accesswithout delay access in accordance with national law, including where necessary by a court order if required by national law, to the following information to the extent that information is necessary for the tracing and identification of proceeds, instrumentalities, and property:
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Where the information referred to in paragraph 1 is not stored in databases or registers, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that asset recovery offices can swiftly obtain that information by other means in accordance with national law, including where necessary by a court order if required by national law.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The direct and immediate accessaccess without delay to the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the procedural safeguards established under national law, including where necessary a court order if required by national law.
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point b a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point b a (new)
(b a) fundamental principles of national law, including Member State’s obligations under Article 6 TEU
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point f
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Confiscation without a prior conviction shall be limited to criminal offences liable to give rise, directly or indirectly, to substantial economic benefit and only insofar as the national court is satisfied that all the elements of the offence are present. The burden of proof shall be on the prosecution.
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. When determining whether the frozen property is derived from criminal offences, account shall be taken of all the circumstances of the case, including the specific facts and available evidence, such as that the value of the property is substantially disproportionate to the lawful income of the owner of the property The burden of proof shall be on the prosecution.