sou · H0B312 · 2012-05-30 00:00:00 — har tillträtt konvention om penningtvätt, efter- forskning, beslag och förverkande av av brott och den trädde för svensk del i kraft . Som en uppdatering och komplettering av konvention antogs 2005 en ny förverkandekonvention som är tillämplig även i förhållande till finansiering av terrorism och som i vissa delar innehåller mer långtgående regler. undertecknade den senare konventionen . Vi föreslår att ska tillträda förverkandekonven- tion eftersom den syftar till att underlätta och förbättra möjlig- heterna till internationellt samarbete för att komma åt brottsvinster och motverka allvarlig brottslighet i allmänhet och penningtvätt och finansiering av terrorism i synnerhet. Vår bedömning är att svensk lagstiftning i huvudsak stämmer överens med bestämmelserna konvention. I vissa av- seenden krävs emellertid att i samband med tillträdet gör reservationer eller förklaringar om hur konventionen ska tillämpas här i landet och i några fall fordras lagändringar för att uppfylla konventionens krav. En nyhet konvention är att – förutom utbyte och hjälp- medel – även egendom som har varit föremål för penningtvätt ska kunna förverkas. Enligt gällande rätt är det inte möjligt att förverka egendom som har varit föremål för penninghäleri genom en för- verkandeförklaring riktad mot gärningsmannen för penninghäleri- brottet eftersom egendomen inte ägs av denne. uppfyller således inte kraven i konventionens artikel 3.1. Med det förslag vi har lämnat till bestämmelse om förverkande av egendom som har varit föremål för penningtvättsbrott hos den som är gär- ningsman eller som har medverkat till penningtvättsbrottet, även om egendomen i fråga tillhörde annan, kommer dock svenska för- verkanderegler att motsvara konventionens krav. Vi bedömer vidare att lagstiftningsåtgärder är nödvändiga för att uppfylla åtagandena i artikel 14 respektive artikel 47. Genom det förslag vi lämnar om att införa en möjlighet för (Finanspolisen) att belägga egendom med dispositionsförbud anser vi emellertid att dessa åtaganden kommer att uppfyllas. Sådant be- slut ska enligt vårt förslag kunna fattas av (Finans- polisen) även på begäran av en utländsk finansunderrättelseenhet. Som nämnts ovan är det oklart huruvida penning- häleri kan anses omfatta också åtgärder med egendom som härrör från en gärning som utgör brott mot utländsk lag men som, på grund av nationella begränsningar, inte utgör brott mot svensk lag. Med vårt förslag till bestämmelse i lagen om penningtvättsbrott (att även brott som har begåtts utomlands och som inte utgör ett svenskt brott, men som motsvarar ett svenskt brott, ska kunna utgöra förbrott till penningtvättsbrott) kommer det emellertid att stå klart att svensk rätt uppfyller förverkandekonventionens krav i detta hänseende. What is meant by money laundering in general is measures de- signed to conceal or spend the proceeds of criminal activities. The means available to combat money laundering are administrative regu- lations, on the one hand, and provisions making money laundering a criminal offence, on the other hand. The Inquiry has been instructed to review the criminal regu- lations on money laundering and consider whether it is possible to achieve more effective and accessible regulations, providing clearly defined criteria for penal liability while continuing to meet the demands of due process and predictability. Our terms of reference specify that the penal liability for money laundering is to target the actual final goal of the criminal activity, namely, being able to use the proceeds of crime. Our remit has also included assessing whether any changes in the criminal regulations on money laundering entail a need to ex- pand powers to confiscate laundered property. We have also been asked to take a position on whether it is neces- sary and appropriate to make changes to the system for temporarily stopping suspicious transactions. Finally, our remit has included taking a position on whether should accede to the 2005 on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, and analysing how Swedish law would need to be amended in that case. Criminal provisions on money laundering In order to make the penal law regulations on money laundering clearer and easier to apply, we propose separating the provisions on penalties for money laundering from the Penal Code and placing them in a separate law, the Money Laundering Offences Act. The offences of money receiving and petty money receiving will be replaced by money laundering offence and petty money launde- ring offence. It is already the case that all types of offences can constitute predicate offences for receiving stolen money. This fulfils international commitments. We see no reason to limit the group of predicate offences to the lowest necessary level based on the international conventions and other requirements in the area. The current system taking an all crimes approach should therefore be retained. The provisions on receiving stolen money have had limited application. One factor to which this has been attributed is the difficulty of proving which predicate offence has been committed. In order to improve the possibilities of demonstrating a link be- tween certain property and its origin in an offence, we therefore propose that the reference to the predicate offence be broadened and expressed in the form that the property must derive from an offence or criminal activity. It should not be necessary to specify any concrete actions in order to verify the concept of criminal activity. Having said that, some knowledge of the type of crime involved in the activity should normally be required. However, no exact details or information need to be given about the scope of the activities. The standard of proof for linking the property to criminal activities should be the same as normally applies in criminal cases. We propose that the criminal area be defined by making the criminality of a money laundering act depend, as a general rule, on its purpose. To define the criminal area more closely, we propose the inclusion in the legislative text of an enumeration exemplifying and standardising the types of acts that are criminal. This means that an act will be a criminal money laundering offence if it involves someone transferring, acquiring, converting, transfor- ming or taking another such action with money or other property derived from crime, if the act is intended either to conceal the origin of the property or to promote the possibility of someone appropriating the property or its value. The same will apply to a person who provides, acquires or draws up a document that may give a false explanation for possession of money or other property derived from crime, a person taking part in transactions that are carried out for the sake of appearances, a person who acts as a front or who takes another such measure, if the measure has the purpose stated. If such a measure as has now been stated is taken and the measure is intended to conceal that someone has benefited finan- cially from crime (e.g. a tax or customs offence), this shall also be judged as a money laundering offence. The purpose is tied to the act, not to the perpetrator of the act. This means that the perpetrator himself or herself does not need to have the purpose stated; it is enough if another person involved has such a purpose. However, the perpetrator must know or suspect and be indifferent in relation to the fact that the other person, e.g. a client, has such a purpose. The proposed regulations also mean that the person who has committed the predicate offence can be found guilty of a money laundering offence; thus, self-laundering will be criminalised. How- ever, general penal law principles concerning concurrent offences apply in adjudging criminal liability. It is proposed that criminalisation should also cover measures that, while not taken for money laundering purposes, involve the improper promotion of a persons opportunities to convert money or other property derived from crime. We also propose that the criminal area for money laundering be broadened to make it possible in certain circumstances to find a person guilty of a money laundering offence, even though the pre- dicate offence has not been substantiated. This applies when a person involved in business activities or in the context of activities that are conducted on a habitual basis or otherwise on a sizeable scale, takes part in a measure that can reasonably be assumed to be taken for money laundering purposes. For a person to be found liable, he or she must act with intent in relation to the circumstances under- lying the assessment that the act can be assumed to be undertaken for such purposes. A person who similarly participates in a measure that can reasonably be assumed to have been taken for money laundering purposes, without this having happened in business activities or the like, shall instead be found guilty of a petty money laundering offence. As is the case at present, there should be different scales of sanctions for gross offences and for minor offences and offences due to negligence. The proposed scales of sanctions are unchanged relative to the sanctions for money receiving, gross money re- ceiving and petty money receiving. We propose that attempted crimes also be subject to sanctions when the attempt concerns a money laundering offence of normal seriousness, not just in the case of gross offences, as is now the case. On the other hand, we consider that liability for preparation and conspiracy should continue to apply only to gross money laundering offences. As it may be considered unclear whether the reference to crime in the current provision on money receiving necessarily refers to an offence under Swedish law or whether an offence in another country suffices, we propose the introduction in the Money Laundering Offences Act of a provision to the effect that crimes committed in another country and not constituting an offence in , but equivalent to a Swedish offence, may constitute a predicate offence for money laundering. Under the current regulations, property that has been subject to the offence of receiving stolen money cannot be confiscated from the perpetrator of this offence. We consider this a failing. More- over, the 2005 Convention on Confiscation contains a requirement that laundered property should be subject to confiscation. In the light of this, we propose that laundered money or other laundered property should be subject to confiscation, unless this is manifestly unreasonable. A provision about this will be included in the Money Laundering Offences Act that we propose. The act will also pre- scribe that a person who is a perpetrator or who has been involved in the money laundering offence can face such confiscation, even if the property belonged to someone else. The proposed provision on confiscation will not be applicable with relation to money laundering offences or petty money laundering offences where a predicate offence has not been proved. Property involved in such an offence or petty offence should instead be taken into safekeeping. As previously, gains of all types of money laundering offences and petty money laundering will be subject to confiscation, as will receipts in compensation for costs associated with such offences (if such receiving constitutes an offence under the Money Laundering Offences Act) and property used as an aid in committing such an offence or petty offence. Prohibition on disposals of property To improve the chances of getting to grips with illegal proceeds and property intended to finance terrorism we propose the intro- duction of a short-term prohibition against the disposal of such pro- perty by the customer, a prohibition on disposals of property. Under our proposal (through the Financial Intelligence Unit), if grounds exist to suspect that property held by an institution or person covered by the Money Laundering and Terrorist is involved in money launde- ring or intended to finance terrorism, will be able to decide that the property or an equivalent value may not be moved or otherwise disposed of until further notice. The prohibition on disposals of property may refer to property to the value equivalent to what may be subject to confiscation. A decision on a prohibition on disposals of property may, how- ever, only be issued if it can reasonably be feared that the property would otherwise be removed and the reasons for the measure out- weigh the intrusion or other detriment this may otherwise entail. To meet the requirements of the 2005 Convention on Confiscation we propose that it should also be allowed to impose a prohibition on disposals of property at the request of a foreign financial intelligence unit if the conditions specified here are met. Even though – based on the aim of being able to trace and re- store illegal proceeds as far as possible – it would be valuable to be able to impose a prohibition on disposals of property for cash that appears to be suspicious already when it is paid to an institution, we consider that the drawbacks and costs of a system that captures such transactions is not in reasonable proportion to the gains that would be achieved. Thus a prohibition on disposals of property could only refer to property already held by an institution when grounds for suspicion of money laundering or financing of ter- rorism arise. When an institution provides information to (Financial Intelligence Unit) it must specify if the property which is or has been the subject of a suspect transaction is held by Since the effectiveness and success of the measure depends on the information reaching (Financial Intelligence Unit) quickly, it is important both that the reporting is prompt and that a report in these cases can be made through a special channel to enable it to be processed with the highest priority by the Financial Intelligence Unit. In cases when an institution provides information to (Financial Intelligence Unit) after refraining from executing a requested transaction that refers to property held by the institution we consider that there is a heightened risk that the money or property will disappear from the control of the authori- ties, which justifies the introduction of an automatic block on the use of assets in these cases. This means that in the four hours from the time the report is made the customer may only use the pro- perty if (Financial Intelligence Unit) has given its consent by declaring that no prohibition on disposals of property will be imposed. If the four hours pass without (Financial Intelligence Unit) having decided on a prohibition on disposals of property, the customer is free to use the property. The decision of (Financial Intelligence Unit) shall as soon as possible be submitted to a prosecutor who must promptly decide if the measure is to remain in force. No appeal may be made against the decision of the prosecutor. As soon as there is no longer any reason for the measure it must be lifted, or, if the necessary conditions exist, the measure is to be converted into a decision on retention, seizure or attachment. A prohibition on disposals of property may never apply for longer than a maximum of two working days. The institution shall be informed immediately that a measure has been ordered or lifted. The person for whose property a prohi- bition on disposals of property has been ordered shall be informed of the decision, though only if it can be assumed that the purpose of the decided or intended measure will not be counteracted and the future investigation will not be harmed if the information is disclosed. The prosecutor must decide if the information can be communicated in the individual case. Under the present provisions of the Tort Liability Act the State is to be liable for pure financial loss caused to private individuals through incorrect or negligent exercise of public authority. The intrusion to which the individual is exposed as a result of a prohi- bition on disposals of property is typically not such that we con- sider it justified to introduce a more far-reaching right to damages than is provided for under these provisions. Accession to the 2005 Convention on Confiscation has acceded to on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of 1990 and it came into force in on . As an update and supplement to the 1990 Convention a new Convention on Confiscation was adopted in 2005, which also applies to financing of terrorism and which in some respects contains more far-reaching regulations. signed the latter Convention in 2005. We propose that accedes to the 2005 Convention on Confiscation since it aims to facilitate and improve the opportuni- ties for international cooperation on tackling proceeds from crime and combating serious crime in general and money laundering and financing of terrorism in particular. Our assessment is that Swedish legislation on the whole is in agreement with the regulations in the 2005 Convention. However, when acceding to the Convention, in some respects it will be necessary for to enter reservations or explanations on how the Convention is to be applied in and in some cases legisla- tive amendments will be necessary to meet the requirements of the Convention. New in the 2005 Convention is that it will be possible to con- fiscate laundered property as well as proceeds and instrumentali- ties. Under present law it is not possible to confiscate property that has figured in money receiving by means of a confiscation order directed at the perpetrator of the money receiving offence, since the property does not belong to this perpetrator. Thus as things stand now, does not meet the requirements of Article 3.1 of the Convention. However, with the proposal we have submitted for a provision on confiscation of laundered property held by the perpetrator or a person who has been involved in the money laun- dering offence, even if the property in question belongs to another person, Swedish confiscation provisions will meet the requirements of the Convention. Further, we consider that legislative measures are necessary to fulfil the obligations of Articles 14 and 47. Through the proposal we submit on introducing the possibility for (Financial Intelligence Unit) to impose a prohibition on dis- posals of property we consider that these obligations will be ful- filled. Under our proposal, such decisions could be made by (Financial Intelligence Unit) also at the request of a foreign financial intelligence unit. As mentioned above, in the present situation it is not clear whether money receiving can also be considered to include opera- tions with property derived from crime that constitute an offence under foreign law but which, due to national limitations, do not constitute an offence under Swedish law. However, with our pro- posed provision in the Money Laundering Offences Act (that it will be possible to also classify a crime committed abroad that is not a crime in , but which corresponds to a Swedish crime, as a predicate offence for money laundering) it will be clear that Swedish law fulfils the requirements of the Convention on Con- fiscation in this respect. lag (2013:000) om penningtvättsbrott 1 § Denna lag innehåller straffrättsliga bestämmelser om penning- tvätt. I lagen (2009:62) om åtgärder mot penningtvätt och finansiering av terrorism finns bestämmelser om åtgärder som den som bedriver finansiell verksamhet och annan näringsverksamhet är skyldig att vidta för att förhindra att verksamheten utnyttjas för penningtvätt eller finansiering av terrorism. 2 § Med brott i 3–5 §§ avses 1.gärning som utgör brott enligt svensk lag, eller 2.gärning som utgör brott enligt utländsk lag och som mot- svarar brott enligt svensk lag. 3 § Den som 1.överlåter, förvärvar, omsätter, överför eller vidtar annan sådan åtgärd med pengar eller annan egendom som härrör från brott eller brottslig verksamhet, eller 2.tillhandahåller, förvärvar eller upprättar handling som kan ge en skenbar förklaring till innehavet av pengar eller annan egendom som härrör från brott eller brottslig verksamhet, deltar i transak- tioner som utförs för skens skull, uppträder som bulvan eller vidtar annan sådan åtgärd, döms, om åtgärden syftar till att dölja att egendomen härrör från brott eller brottslig verksamhet eller till att främja möjligheterna för någon att tillgodogöra sig egendomen eller dess värde, för penningtvättsbrott till fängelse i högst . 4 § För penningtvättsbrott döms också den som, utan att åtgär- den har ett sådant syfte som anges i 3 §, otillbörligen främjar möjlig- heterna för någon att omsätta egendom som härrör från brott eller brottslig verksamhet. 5 § För penningtvättsbrott döms också den som vidtar en sådan åtgärd som anges i 3 §, om åtgärden syftar till att dölja att någon har berikat sig genom brott eller brottslig verksamhet. 6 § För penningtvättsbrott döms också den som i näringsverk- samhet eller som ett led i en verksamhet som bedrivs vanemässigt eller annars i större omfattning medverkar till en åtgärd som skäli- gen kan antas vara vidtagen i sådant syfte som anges i 3 eller 5 §. 7 § Är brott som avses i 3–6 §§ grovt, döms för grovt penning- tvättsbrott till fängelse, lägst och högst . Vid bedömande av om brottet är grovt ska särskilt beaktas, om gärningen avsett betydande värden, om de brottsliga åtgärderna har ingått som ett led i en brottslighet som utövats systematiskt eller i större omfattning eller i annat fall varit av särskilt farlig art. 8 § Är brott som avses i 3–6 §§ att anse som ringa, döms för pen- ningtvättsförseelse till böter eller fängelse . För penningtvättsförseelse ska också dömas den som 1.i annat fall än som avses i 6 § medverkar till en åtgärd som skäligen kan antas vara vidtagen i sådant syfte som anges i 3 eller 5 §, 2.i fall som avses i 3 eller 4 § inte insåg men hade skälig an- ledning att anta att egendomen härrörde från brott eller brottslig verksamhet, eller 3. i fall som avses i 5 § inte insåg men hade skälig anledning att anta att någon berikat sig genom brott eller brottslig verksamhet. 9 § För försök till penningtvättsbrott eller grovt penningtvätts- brott och för förberedelse eller stämpling till grovt penningtvätts- brott döms till ansvar enligt 23 kap. . 10 § Om det inte är uppenbart oskäligt, ska följande egendom förklaras förverkad: 1.pengar eller annan egendom som varit föremål för brott enligt 3–5, 7 eller 8 § första stycket eller andra stycket 2 eller 3 eller vär- det av sådan egendom, 2.utbyte av brott enligt denna lag, och 3.vad någon tagit emot som ersättning för kostnader i samband med ett brott enligt denna lag, eller värdet av det mottagna, om mottagandet utgör brott enligt denna lag. Egendom som avses i första stycket 1 eller en särskild rätt till egendomen får inte förklaras förverkad, om egendomen efter brottet förvärvats av någon som inte haft vetskap om eller skälig anledning att anta att egendomen hade samband med brottet. 11 § Egendom som har använts som hjälpmedel vid brott enligt denna lag får förklaras förverkad, om det behövs för att förebygga brott enligt denna lag eller om det annars finns särskilda skäl. Det- samma gäller egendom som varit avsedd att användas som hjälp- medel vid brott enligt denna lag, om brottet har fullbordats eller om förfarandet har utgjort ett straffbart försök eller en straffbar för- beredelse eller stämpling. I stället för sådan egendom får dess värde förklaras förverkat. 12 § Förverkande av egendom eller dess värde enligt 10 och 11 §§ får ske hos a)gärningsmannen eller annan som medverkat till brottet, b)den i vars ställe gärningsmannen eller annan medverkande var, c)den som genom brottet beretts eller näringsidkare som avses i 36 kap. 4 § ,