Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-279"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-04-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Money laundering2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010404.11.3-279"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-04-04-Speech-3-2802
lpv:speaker	lp:Gerhard Schmid2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3 vice-president; European Parliament (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; PES (2000-03-08--2002-01-16)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-12-16--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, money laundering means concealing the origin of the proceeds of crime so that they can be presented as the income of a legitimate company. Anyone who can hinder, interfere with or prevent money laundering hits organised crime – I agree here with the previous speaker – right where it hurts, i.e. in its quest for profit. The European Community adopted a directive to fight money laundering very early on and this triggered laws in the Member States, which previously had no such legislation. At the time, this was a good law; now it needs renovating, like any old building, because nothing is as inventive as the criminal mind. If the directive is adopted as Mr Lehne and the Committee have drafted it, we shall have the best, most modern and strictest anti-money laundering law in the world, the implementation of which in fact only gives rise to two problems. The first problem is a degree of uncertainty in the House as to how to deal with the special relationship between lawyers and their clients, because we are calling for a reporting obligation if money laundering is suspected. The proposal developed by Mr Lehne and the Committee is a good proposal. It is a simpler and more manageable proposal. It basically runs as follows: if a lawyer is giving legal advice, then the confidential relationship between the lawyer and the client continues to be protected. If he is somehow involved in the transfer of money – buying, investing or whatever – then he no longer enjoys this protection and has a full reporting obligation. This both protects the confidential relationship and meets the demands of the fight against crime. The second problem is the Council and, at present, there is no solution to it. The Council has rejected fundamental proposals. The reason may be – as Mr Lehne indicated – that the finance ministers are responsible and have too little experience in legislating under the codecision procedure and absolutely no experience in fighting crime. The only way left open to Parliament is as suggested, namely to maintain the amendments proposed at first reading. We shall have a conciliation procedure. As Council representatives are here, I say to you: dress warmly for this conciliation. We have no intention of allowing an excellent bill to be ruined for the sake of an amateur law in the fight against crime!"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph