1 / 12

Sebastiano Tiné DG Justice Freedom and Security European Commission

A COHERENT EU STRATEGY TO MEASURE CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE The EU Action Plan 2006-2010 and Money Laundering statistics. Sebastiano Tiné DG Justice Freedom and Security European Commission EUROSTAT Working Party meeting, 20 February 2009. Overview.

jennifermbutler
Download Presentation

Sebastiano Tiné DG Justice Freedom and Security European Commission

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A COHERENT EU STRATEGY TO MEASURE CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICEThe EU Action Plan 2006-2010 and Money Laundering statistics Sebastiano Tiné DG Justice Freedom and Security European Commission EUROSTAT Working Party meeting, 20 February 2009

  2. Overview • Background – The Financial Crime Subgroup • Drivers for expediently collecting statistics on money laundering and confiscation • A proposal for a possible way forward

  3. The Financial Crime Subgroup • Established in July 2007 • Membership: FIUs (EE, LU, LV, SV) Law Enforcement Agencies (FR, UK) Asset Recovery Offices (BE), international bodies (Europol, Moneyval) the academic sector and the Commission (DG JLS, Eurostat and DG MARKT) • 3 meetings (September and November 2007, February 2008) • Reported to Crime Statistics Expert Group on 3 December 2007

  4. The Financial Crime Subgroup Background • Difficult to estimate the scale of money laundering due to different factors (different definitions of money laundering, money flows between countries, etc.) • Statistics used in the Mutual Evaluation Reports carried out with the relevant international bodies (FATF, Moneyval Committee) • EU 3rd AML Directive (to be transposed by 15.12.2007) foresees obligation for MS to publish national money laundering statistics in order to review the effectiveness of their AML systems. • Art. 33 foresees list of minimum data to be collected (Number of STRs made to FIU; Follow up given to STRs; Number of cases investigated per year; Number of persons prosecuted per year; Number of persons convicted per year; Amount of property frozen, seized or confiscated per year)

  5. The Financial Crime Subgroup Approach • If statistics should assess effectiveness, then the methodology should be based on "effectiveness indicators" rather than definitions • Proposes an 'effectiveness' framework devised from a policy maker perspective and identifies short-term and longer-term objectives • Indicators not limited to those for currently available data. Development of innovative indicators if consistent with policy needs. • Assessing effectiveness per Member State. Statistical reporting weighted according to demographic and economic criteria • Short term: develop common data collection standards to support the comparability of data collected in EU MS on AML actions (definitions, “efficiency” indicators) • Longer term: address effectiveness of AML systems by harmonised effectiveness indicators. Looks at proportionality of AML response by comparing its costs to the threat (indicators)

  6. The Financial Crime Subgroup Subgroup reported to Expert Group asking to • endorse the methodology proposed and the list of “efficiency” indicators • Asking EU AML/TF Committee, Informal EU FIU Platform) for informal views (short and longer term objectives) • provide methodology and indicators to the Eurostat Working group of Producers for consideration (short-term objective); • endorse preparation of a matrix identifying "who does/has what" in terms of (potential) data provision • consider whether Subgroup should continue work on AML effectiveness indicators and encourage further research to fine-tune proposed methodology

  7. The Financial Crime Subgroup • Expert Group endorsed Subgroup conclusions and proposed creation of a Task Force to further work • Some feedback on the indicators provided by EU AML/TF Committee and Informal EU FIU Platform • Eurostat Working Party meeting in February 2008 (some concern on indicators) • Indicators streamlined in 3rd Subgroup meeting (February 2008) to meet these concerns • Some information collected on “who does/has what” to prepare data collection • Pilot collection over summer 2008 • Task Force meeting November 2008: fairly good response from MS, but some indicators need better clarification (relatively little/non-homogeneous data collected) and some counting units need to be agreed

  8. Drivers to move forward quickly • Member States are asking for tangible results • JLS Expert Group of Policy Users • EU Police Chiefs’ Task Force Recommendations • Endorsement of JHA Coordinating Senior Officials Committee (CATS) • Interest in possible statistical contribution to the evaluation of the 3rd AML Directive (Commission report due November 2009) • Possible interest of Moneyval/FATF in the feasibility of this methodology

  9. Drivers to move forward quickly • Trailblazers in the Crime Statistics Action Plan (first instance of moving from the identification of indicators to the production of data) • Legal obligation under Art. 33 AMLD needs to be implemented by MS • Most of data required are regularly produced for FATF or Moneyval Mutual Evaluation Reports • A limited data collection could be started in 2009 as pilot toward a more comprehensive collection in 2010

  10. A possible way forward No revision of indicators, but better guidance: • Better explain the rationale for data collection • Improve contact points in the various national administrations involved • Agree on a common interpretation of the indicators (notably on counting units) • Work more closely with existing networks (CARIN, ARO Platform, FIU Platform, €STR) to collect data or identify contact points • Second data collection and publication in 2009 only of clear and comparable data

  11. JLS Expert Group meeting (5.2.2009) • Acknowledged progress made in developing indicators and in the initial collection of data • Recognised importance of this work as establishing a precedent for future work within Action Plan • Recognised increasing policy prioritisation of the need of data • Recommended to continue work towards the publication of viable data by end year • Recommended to focus on those indicators which present the greatest potential, given • current data availability • the need of additional guidance from users • the need of producing workable data in the short-term. • Proposed a step-wise approach, gradually expanding data collection on other indicators and from more MS

  12. An example: statistics on asset freezing, confiscation and recovery • Number of freezing procedures (based on a court order) • Number of confiscation procedures • Ratio between requests received for freezing orders to be executed in another MS and value of frozen assets • Ratio between requests received for confiscation orders to be executed in another MS and value of confiscated assets • Amounts recovered Sebastiano.Tine@ec.europa.eu

More Related