LeX-Ray

The main motive for cross-border organised crime, including mafia-type criminal organisation, is financial gain. As a consequence, competent authorities should be given the means to trace, freeze, manage and confiscate the proceeds of crime. However, the effective prevention of and fight against organised crime should be achieved by neutralising the proceeds of crime and should be extended, in certain cases, to any property deriving from activities of a criminal nature.

Organised criminal groups operate without borders and increasingly acquire assets in Member States other than those in which they are based and in third countries. There is an increasing need for effective international cooperation on asset recovery and mutual legal assistance.

Among the most effective means of combating organised crime is providing for severe legal consequences for committing such crime, as well as effective detection and the freezing and confiscation of the instrumentalities and proceeds of crime.

Although existing statistics are limited, the amounts recovered from proceeds of crime in the Union seem insufficient compared to the estimated proceeds. Studies have shown that, although regulated by Union and national law, confiscation procedures remain underused.

The adoption of minimum rules will approximate the Member States’ freezing and confiscation regimes, thus facilitating mutual trust and effective cross-border cooperation.

The Stockholm Programme and the Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions on confiscation and asset recovery adopted in June 2010 emphasise the importance of a more effective identification, confiscation and re-use of criminal assets.

The current Union legal framework on freezing, seizure and confiscation of assets consists of Joint Action 98/699/JHA ( 4 ) , Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA ( 5 ) , Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA ( 6 ) , Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA ( 7 ) and Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA ( 8 ) .

The Commission implementation reports on Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA, 2005/212/JHA and 2006/783/JHA show that existing regimes for extended confiscation and for the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders are not fully effective. Confiscation is hindered by differences between Member States’ law.

This Directive aims to amend and expand the provisions of Framework Decisions 2001/500/JHA and 2005/212/JHA. Those Framework Decisions should be partially replaced for the Member States bound by this Directive.

Member States are free to bring confiscation proceedings which are linked to a criminal case before any competent court.

There is a need to clarify the existing concept of proceeds of crime to include the direct proceeds from criminal activity and all indirect benefits, including subsequent reinvestment or transformation of direct proceeds. Thus proceeds can include any property including that which has been transformed or converted, fully or in part, into other property, and that which has been intermingled with property acquired from legitimate sources, up to the assessed value of the intermingled proceeds. It can also include the income or other benefits derived from proceeds of crime, or from property into or with which such proceeds have been transformed, converted or intermingled.

This Directive provides for a broad definition of property that can be subject to freezing and confiscation. That definition includes legal documents or instruments evidencing title or interest in such property. Such documents or instruments could include, for example, financial instruments, or documents that may give rise to creditor claims and are normally found in the possession of the person affected by the relevant procedures. This Directive is without prejudice to the existing national procedures for keeping legal documents or instruments evidencing title or interest in property, as they are applied by the competent national authorities or public bodies in accordance with national law.

Freezing and confiscation under this Directive are autonomous concepts, which should not prevent Member States from implementing this Directive using instruments which, in accordance with national law, would be considered as sanctions or other types of measures.

In the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime following a final decision of a court and of property of equivalent value to those instrumentalities and proceeds, the broad concept of criminal offences covered by this Directive should apply. Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA requires Member States to enable the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime following a final conviction and to enable the confiscation of property the value of which corresponds to such instrumentalities and proceeds. Such obligations should be maintained for the criminal offences not covered by this Directive, and the concept of proceeds as defined in this Directive should be interpreted in the similar way as regards criminal offences not covered by this Directive. Member States are free to define the confiscation of property of equivalent value as subsidiary or alternative to direct confiscation, as appropriate in accordance with national law.

Subject to a final conviction for a criminal offence, it should be possible to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds of crime, or property the value of which corresponds to such instrumentalities or proceeds. Such final conviction can also result from proceedings in absentia. When confiscation on the basis of a final conviction is not possible, it should nevertheless under certain circumstances still be possible to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds, at least in the cases of illness or absconding of the suspected or accused person. However, in such cases of illness and absconding, the existence of proceedings in absentia in Member States would be sufficient to comply with this obligation. When the suspected or accused person has absconded, Member States should take all reasonable steps and may require that the person concerned be summoned to or made aware of the confiscation proceedings.

For the purposes of this Directive, illness should be understood to mean the inability of the suspected or accused person to attend the criminal proceedings for an extended period, as a result of which the proceedings cannot continue under normal conditions. Suspected or accused persons may be requested to prove illness, for example by a medical certificate, which the court should be able to disregard if it finds it unsatisfactory. The right of that person to be represented in the proceedings by a lawyer should not be affected.

When implementing this Directive in respect of confiscation of property the value of which corresponds to instrumentalities, the relevant provisions could be applicable where, in view of the particular circumstances of the case at hand, such a measure is proportionate, having regard in particular to the value of the instrumentalities concerned. Member States may also take into account whether and to what extent the convicted person is responsible for making the confiscation of the instrumentalities impossible.

When implementing this Directive, Member States may provide that, in exceptional circumstances, confiscation should not be ordered, insofar as it would, in accordance with national law, represent undue hardship for the affected person, on the basis of the circumstances of the respective individual case which should be decisive. Member States should make a very restricted use of this possibility, and should only be allowed to provide that confiscation is not to be ordered in cases where it would put the person concerned in a situation in which it would be very difficult for him to survive.

Criminal groups engage in a wide range of criminal activities. In order to effectively tackle organised criminal activities there may be situations where it is appropriate that a criminal conviction be followed by the confiscation not only of property associated with a specific crime, but also of additional property which the court determines constitutes the proceeds of other crimes. This approach is referred to as extended confiscation. Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA provides for three different sets of minimum requirements that Member States can choose from in order to apply extended confiscation. As a result, in the process of transposition of that Framework Decision, Member States have chosen different options which resulted in divergent concepts of extended confiscation in national jurisdictions. That divergence hampers cross-border cooperation in relation to confiscation cases. It is therefore necessary to further harmonise the provisions on extended confiscation by setting a single minimum standard.

When determining whether a criminal offence is liable to give rise to economic benefit, Member States may take into account the modus operandi, for example if a condition of the offence is that it was committed in the context of organised crime or with the intention of generating regular profits from criminal offences. However, this should not, in general, prejudice the possibility to resort to extended confiscation.

Extended confiscation should be possible where a court is satisfied that the property in question is derived from criminal conduct. This does not mean that it must be established that the property in question is derived from criminal conduct. Member States may provide that it could, for example, be sufficient for the court to consider on the balance of probabilities, or to reasonably presume that it is substantially more probable, that the property in question has been obtained from criminal conduct than from other activities. In this context, the court has to consider the specific circumstances of the case, including the facts and available evidence based on which a decision on extended confiscation could be issued. The fact that the property of the person is disproportionate to his lawful income could be among those facts giving rise to a conclusion of the court that the property derives from criminal conduct. Member States could also determine a requirement for a certain period of time during which the property could be deemed to have originated from criminal conduct.

This Directive lays down minimum rules. It does not prevent Member States from providing more extensive powers in their national law, including, for example, in relation to their rules on evidence.

This Directive applies to criminal offences which fall within the scope of the instruments listed herein. Within the scope of those instruments, Member States should apply extended confiscation at least to certain criminal offences as defined in this Directive.

The practice by a suspected or accused person of transferring property to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and increasingly widespread. The current Union legal framework does not contain binding rules on the confiscation of property transferred to third parties. It is therefore becoming increasingly necessary to allow for the confiscation of property transferred to or acquired by third parties. Acquisition by a third party refers to situations where, for example, property has been acquired, directly or indirectly, for example through an intermediary, by the third party from a suspected or accused person, including when the criminal offence has been committed on their behalf or for their benefit, and when an accused person does not have property that can be confiscated. Such confiscation should be possible at least in cases where third parties knew or ought to have known that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation, on the basis of concrete facts and circumstances, including that the transfer was carried out free of charge or in exchange for an amount significantly lower than the market value. The rules on third party confiscation should extend to both natural and legal persons. In any event the rights of bona fide third parties should not be prejudiced.

Member States are free to define third party confiscation as subsidiary or alternative to direct confiscation, as appropriate in accordance with national law.

Confiscation leads to the final deprivation of property. However, preservation of property can be a prerequisite to confiscation and can be of importance for the enforcement of a confiscation order. Property is preserved by means of freezing. In order to prevent the dissipation of property before a freezing order can be issued, the competent authorities in the Member States should be empowered to take immediate action in order to secure such property.

Since property is often preserved for the purposes of confiscation, freezing and confiscation are closely linked. In some legal systems freezing for the purposes of confiscation is regarded as a separate procedural measure of a provisional nature, which may be followed by a confiscation order. Without prejudice to different national legal systems and to Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA, this Directive should approximate some aspects of the national systems of freezing for the purposes of confiscation.

Freezing measures are without prejudice to the possibility for a specific property to be considered evidence throughout the proceedings, provided that it would ultimately be made available for effective execution of the confiscation order.

In the context of criminal proceedings, property may also be frozen with a view to its possible subsequent restitution or in order to safeguard compensation for the damage caused by a criminal offence.

Suspected or accused persons often hide property throughout the entire duration of criminal proceedings. As a result confiscation orders cannot be executed, leaving those subject to confiscation orders to benefit from their property once they have served their sentences. It is therefore necessary to enable the determination of the precise extent of the property to be confiscated even after a final conviction for a criminal offence, in order to permit the full execution of confiscation orders when no property or insufficient property was initially identified and the confiscation order remains unexecuted.

Given the limitation of the right to property by freezing orders, such provisional measures should not be maintained longer than necessary to preserve the availability of the property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. This may require a review by the court in order to ensure that the purpose of preventing the dissipation of property remains valid.

Property frozen with a view to possible subsequent confiscation should be managed adequately in order not to lose its economic value. Member States should take the necessary measures, including the possibility of selling or transferring the property to minimise such losses. Member States should take relevant measures, for example the establishment of national centralised Asset Management Offices, a set of specialised offices or equivalent mechanisms, in order to effectively manage the assets frozen before confiscation and preserve their value, pending judicial determination.

This Directive substantially affects the rights of persons, not only of suspected or accused persons, but also of third parties who are not being prosecuted. It is therefore necessary to provide for specific safeguards and judicial remedies in order to guarantee the preservation of their fundamental rights in the implementation of this Directive. This includes the right to be heard for third parties who claim that they are the owner of the property concerned, or who claim that they have other property rights (‘real rights’, ‘ ius in re ’), such as the right of usufruct. The freezing order should be communicated to the affected person as soon as possible after its execution. Nevertheless, the competent authorities may postpone communicating such orders to the affected person due to the needs of the investigation.

The purpose of communicating the freezing order is, inter alia, to allow the affected person to challenge the order. Therefore, such communication should indicate, at least briefly, the reason or reasons for the order concerned, it being understood that such indication can be very succinct.

Member States should consider taking measures allowing confiscated property to be used for public interest or social purposes. Such measures could, inter alia, comprise earmarking property for law enforcement and crime prevention projects, as well as for other projects of public interest and social utility. That obligation to consider taking measures entails a procedural obligation for Member States, such as conducting a legal analysis or discussing the advantages and disadvantages of introducing measures. When managing frozen property and when taking measures concerning the use of confiscated property, Member States should take appropriate action to prevent criminal or illegal infiltration.

Reliable data sources on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime are scarce. In order to allow for the evaluation of this Directive, it is necessary to collect a comparable minimum set of appropriate statistical data on freezing and confiscation of property, asset tracing, judicial and asset disposal activities.

Member States should endeavour to collect data for certain statistics at a central level, with a view to sending them to the Commission. This means that the Member States should make reasonable efforts to collect the data concerned. It does not mean, however, that the Member States are under an obligation to achieve the result of collecting the data where there is a disproportionate administrative burden or when there are high costs for the Member State concerned.

This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’), as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. This Directive should be implemented in accordance with those rights and principles. This Directive should be without prejudice to national law in relation to legal aid and does not create any obligations for Member States’ legal aid systems, which should apply in accordance with the Charter and the ECHR.

Specific safeguards should be put in place, so as to ensure that as a general rule reasons are given for confiscation orders, unless when, in simplified criminal proceedings in minor cases, the affected person has waived his or her right to be given reasons.

This Directive should be implemented taking account of the provisions of RITICPD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 9 ) , RIICPD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 10 ) and Directive 2013/48 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 11 ) which concern procedural rights in criminal proceedings.

Since the objective of this Directive, namely facilitating confiscation of property in criminal matters, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union ( TEU ). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

In accordance with Articles 3 and 4 a(1) of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU ), Ireland has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive. In accordance with that Protocol, Ireland is to be bound by this Directive only in respect of the offences covered by the instruments by which it is bound.

In accordance with Articles 1, 2 and 4 a(1) of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Subject to its participation in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom is to be bound by this Directive only in respect of the offences covered by the instruments by which it is bound.

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application,