VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH
EMPHASIS ON ECONOMIC CRIME AND MONEY LAUNDERING
Hans G. Nilsson*

I. INTRODUCTION
The notion of economic crime is very large and there is, to my knowledge, not any precise andinternationally established definition of what constitutes economic crime, although there may be suchdefinitions in national law (for instance when defining the competence of an “economic crime prosecution
office” and the like).
The Council of Europe adopted in 1981 a Recommendation No R (81) 12 on economic crime, whichcontains a list of economic offences. But this list is conditioned by the further complication that “owing to
the generally recognised difficulty of giving an exact definition of economic crime, it was found necessary todelimit the concept by means of a list of offences (reference to the object) and a footnote (reference to theloss caused and description of the author)”. The Recommendation then goes on further to define 16
types/categories of offences which are then qualified by the footnote in question. The list is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Cartel offences
Fraudulent practices and abuse of economic situation by multinational companies
Fraudulent procurement or abuse of state or international organisations’ grants
Computer crime (e.g. theft of data, violation of secrets, manipulation of computerised data)
Bogus firms
Faking of company balance sheets and book-keeping offences
Fraud concerning economic situation and corporate capital of companies
Violation by a company of standards of security and health concerning employees
Fraud to the detriment of creditors (e.g. bankruptcy, violation of intellectual and industrial property
rights)10. consumer fraud (in particular falsification of and misleading statements on goods, offences against
public health, abuse of consumers’ weakness or inexperience)
11. Unfair competition (including bribery of an employee of a competing company) and misleading
advertising
12. Fiscal offences and evasion of social costs by enterprises
13. Customs offences (e.g. evasion of customs duties, breach of quota restrictions)14. Offences concerning money and currency regulations
15. Stock exchange and bank offences (e.g. fraudulent stock exchange manipulation and abuse of the
public’s inexperience)
16. Offences against the environment.
The footnote to the Recommendation mentions that the non-specific offences (3, 4, 9, 12-16) are to betaken into consideration when they caused or risked causing substantial loss, presuppose special businessknowledge on the part of the offenders, and were committed by businessmen in the exercise of theirprofession or functions.
It is of importance to note that money laundering at the time of writing of the Recommendation
apparently was not considered to be an economic crime; in most countries at that time it was probably noteven considered to be a crime.1 It was simply legal to do money laundering at the time since the act of* Head of Division, Council of the EU. The opinions expressed are the author’s own and cannot be attributed to the Institution
for which he works.
1 It was in fact only within the context of the discussions on the 1988 Vienna Drugs Convention that the definition of money
laundering was thrashed out in an international setting. The Council of Europe had however, much before its time, alreadytackled the prevention of money laundering in a Recommendation No R (80) 10.

149

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

money laundering intervenes after the predicate offence has been committed and subsequent acts are in
general not punishable. In some countries, however, the act of money laundering could probably beprosecuted as an offence of “receiving of stolen goods” (in French: recel), since that act presupposes a
predicate offence (usually a theft) and knowledge or substantive suspicions that the goods or money wasstolen or defrauded. The author “ought to have known or suspected” that the goods had been stolen or
defrauded.
Inspiration for what can be seen as economic crime can also be sought for example in the definition ofpredicate offences in the second money laundering Directive2 of the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union, which in some respects goes further than the Council of Europe list (drugs, criminalorganisations, fraud against the European Community, corruption, serious offences which may generate
substantial proceeds and which may engender severe punishment - the Directive is not more specific thanthis, which de facto means that it is left for the member states to define what is a serious crime).
Moreover, offences like smuggling or trafficking in human beings, black labour or sexual exploitation ofhuman beings are increasingly considered to be relevant in the context of economic crimes.
For the sake of clarity one can consider economic crime to be serious crime which normally is committedwith a view to obtaining financial gain.
However, when it comes to putting money laundering into the concept of economic crime, it becomes
more difficult; the money launderer may commit money laundering with a view to concealing thecommission of a predicate offence that he himself committed3. In such a case, the primary purpose is not to
obtain economic gain but to conceal the money and to avoid the consequences of the act (or at least to beable to keep the proceeds of the crime). One may therefore ask the question whether money laundering canbe seen as an economic crime at all since it does not fit in well even with such a broad definition. Sincemoney laundering after all is a question of money, it seems however appropriate to deal with it in the context
of economic crime although it may not fit in well with the definition above.
When one examines the offences of the Council of Europe list, one realizes that most of the offences on
the list have not been the subject of harmonisation through the adoption of international treaties, nor to
specific judicial cooperation conventions. There are however some exceptions, sometimes at the UN levelbut, as far as I am aware, mostly in Europe within the context of the European Union or the Council ofEurope.
Computer crime has been defined both in the European Union4 and the Council of Europe5. Unfair
competition is the subject of an extensive regulation inside the European Community, but not throughcriminal law but through the European Commission as a watchdog (with possibilities to have extensive
financial sanctions meted out by the European Court of Justice). Customs offences are subject to theConvention on the Protection of the European Communities’ financial interests6. Offences concerning
forgery of money are the subject of the 1929 UN Convention7 and of a special Framework Decision of the
EU on counterfeiting of the Euro8. Offences against the environment, finally have a very weak legal basis in
the CITES Convention, but a stronger one in the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of theEnvironment through Criminal Law9 and the Framework Decision10 of the EU on the same subject.

2 See below.
3 In some States, this act is not criminal per se; it is considered to be an act “after the act” and thus not criminal.
4 Framework Decision on attacks on information systems (doc 8818/03 DROIPEN 28, 8687/03 DROIPEN 26); politicalagreement on 28.2.03; awaiting parliamentary reservation but adoption expected soon.
5 Convention on Cybercrime, adopted on 23.11.2001, has entered into force after 5 ratifications; currently has 6 ratifications

and 32 signatures.
6 26 July 1995; it has entered into force among the EU Member States and has in addition several Protocols.
7 International Convention for the suppression of counterfeiting currency, Geneva, 20 April 1929.
8 Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA of 29 May 2000.
9 4.11.98; not yet entered into force.
10 2003/80/JHA of 27.1.2003.

150

128TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The EU Framework Decisions, which are binding on the Member States and which may become thesubject of interpretation by the European Court of Justice11, are used to harmonise (or “approximate” as theTreaty says) the law of the Member States of the European Union. They usually do not contain measuresrelating to judicial cooperation since other instruments within the European Union expressly deal withthose12, but will in any case be relevant as far as jurisdiction is concerned.
Other offences which have not been the subject of multilateral treaties or Framework Decisions inside
Europe are nevertheless dealt with under civil law or company law within the European Union. For instance,a Directive deals with market abuse, but it does not include criminal law sanctions since under the Treaty, it
is considered that Directives in the so-called first pillar (the European Community part) are not capable ofcontaining criminal law sanctions13.
In order to explain a bit more for the reader, who perhaps may not be so familiar with the institutional set
up of the Union, I should like to give some more explanations on some of the terms that I use to explain
European Union law, since this is a new, but fast moving area of international cooperation in criminal
matters. In addition, the EU does not only concern its 25 current Member States but influences also widelyin the States that are aspiring to become members - potentially some 15-20 more States. Moreover, since
the EU through the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy has become an important
player on the international scene, in particular in UN negotiations, what the EU is deciding internally has
also become very important in this area.

II. EUROPEAN UNION
The European Union was established by the Maastricht Treaty, which entered into force 1 November
1993. Before that date, criminal law cooperation of the European Community was outside of the Treaty - it
was mainly carried out in the other European organisation, namely the Council of Europe which now has 45
Member States and which is clearly intergovernmental in nature whereas the EU is to a great extent a
supranational body, which can take decisions that are binding on its Member States and liable to be
scrutinized by the European Court of Justice.
In the new so-called third pillar of the EU, a legal basis was established for the adoption of measures,inter alia, in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation. This reflected an
acceptance by the Member States that the need for action at the European level in these areas had
increased, in particular in the light of the free movement of persons, goods, services and money realised by
the development of the internal market. Not only ordinary people, but also the criminals, benefited from theinternal market, and countermeasures were needed.
Further momentum was given to the process by the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May
1999. The Amsterdam Treaty provided for the integration of the Schengen acquis14 in the EU. It also made it
possible to adopt more efficient legal instruments than those which had been available so far. In particular,
the old Joint Action was replaced by the binding Framework Decision, and the jurisdiction of the Court ofJustice was increased.
The fight against organised crime and economic crime was very much in focus from the outset, and it has
been possible to adopt a number of EU instruments on approximation of substantive criminal law andcooperation in criminal matters. Of course, when adopting these instruments in the third pillar, account had
to be taken of activities in the so-called first pillar15 of the EU - the European Community. And activities ofvarious international organisations, such as the UN, the OECD and the Council of Europe also needed to be
11 See Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on European Union.
12 For instance the European Arrest Warrant, which replaces extradition among the Member States of the EU since 1 January
2004, the Council of Europe Convention of 1959 on Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and the Convention of 29 May
2000 on mutual legal assistance between the Member States of the EU.
13 A case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice in relation to the environment to verify if that doctrine iscorrect.
14 A Convention that was established in 1985, with an implementation agreement in 1990, that provides for increased
measures in the field of judicial cooperation and free movement of persons.
15 The second pillar deals with Common Foreign and Security Policy.

151

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

kept in mind.

One example of non-criminal law EC measures (first pillar legislation) is the 1991 money laundering
Directive16 which does not deal with the criminal law per se but only with the prevention aspects. The issueof money laundering is dealt with more closely below.
Other examples of these so-called first pillar measures are provisions on the protection of the EC’s
financial interests as previously stated and different provisions in the field of company law, insurance law andintellectual property law.
A number of criminal law measures have been taken at the international level, both within the EU andwithin the wider17 European organisation called the Council of Europe. There has during the years been a
lot of interaction between the EU and other international fora, in particular the Council of Europe.
Therefore, a number of instruments have either been drafted first within the Council of Europe(environment, computer crime) and then taken over wholly or partially by the EU or vice versa (mutual
assistance convention, terrorism). This may seem confusing to a non-European reader (and to many
Europeans as well), but it is linked with the different legal status of the instruments and with the different
institutional set up.
Important measures affecting the European scene have also been taken in the UN on transnationalorganised crime, and in particular the Convention and its 3 Protocols are relevant in this context. The UN
Convention against corruption, adopted by the UN General assembly in October 2003, and signed in Mexico
in December 2003, is also an important tool in the general fight against the form of economic crimeconsisting of corruption.
The Council of Europe and the OECD have also adopted measures on corruption, including a number ofimportant Conventions.
Finally, the Council of Europe Conventions on environmental crime and on cybercrime are important as
they, to a very large extent, have formed the basis for negotiating the EU Framework Decisions on the same
subjects, as noted above.
But it is not only specific measures that are important in fighting economic crime and money laundering.
We should also remember that general style criminal law measures are relevant, as they contain provisions
directly or indirectly applicable in the fight against economic crime and money laundering. It is obvious thatprovisions improving the cooperation between the Member States in the fight against crime in general havea positive effect also regarding economic crime and money laundering. The EU 2000 Convention on mutual
assistance18 in criminal matters provides for example: 1) assistance shall also be afforded regarding legal
persons; 2) a framework for establishing joint investigation teams (repeated in the 2002 Framework
Decision on joint investigation teams)19 ; and 3) provisions on interception of telecommunications. As
regards investigations on money laundering, provisions in the Convention on undercover operations and on
controlled delivery may be of particular interest.
The 2001 Protocol to the 2000 Convention20 contains a number of provisions of particular relevance toeconomic crime and money laundering: 1) A Member State must on request a) give details on bank accounts
held by any natural or legal persons subject to a criminal investigation; b) inform on transactions madeconcerning specified bank accounts; and c) monitor bank transactions “real time” and 2) mutual legal
assistance may not be refused on the sole ground of bank secrecy, or on the sole ground that it is about afiscal offence.

16 Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money

laundering.
17 The EU has 25 Member States and the Council of Europe an additional 20, i.e. 45 member States.
18 Convention of 29 May 2000 on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States.
19 Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002.
20 Protocol of 16 October 2001 to the Convention of 29 May 2000.

152

128TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Examples of other general type instruments are the 2002 Decision setting up Eurojust21 and the 2002
Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant22. One could also mention in this context the recently
adopted agreements with the USA on extradition and mutual assistance.
As regards criminal law EU measures particularly relevant to economic crime the following can be noted.
As noted above, under the Maastricht regime, the EU adopted the 1995 Convention on the protection of theEC’s financial interests and its 1995 and 1996 Protocols. These instruments have to a large extent served asmodels for later instruments in the field of substantive criminal law. They define fraud and corruption
against the European Community and oblige Member States to make the defined offences punishable. It is
important to recognise that EU measures in the field of substantive criminal law are minimum measures.
They provide for minimum definitions of offences, which must be punishable in all Member States. But each
Member State of the EU may have a larger definition.
Instruments adopted after the above Convention, and in particular the Framework Decisions under the
Amsterdam regime have also gone some way towards approximation of criminal sanctions. They provide fora minimum for the maximum penalty, which must be available for the defined offences. But each Member
State of the EU may punish more severely if it wants to.
A separate Convention on corruption23 with a broader scope was adopted in 1997, and a Framework
Decision on corruption in the private sector24 was adopted in July 2003. The adoption, also in July 2003, of
the Framework Decision on the execution in the EU of orders freezing property and evidence is important,and linked with certain other draft instruments which will be discussed later.
As regards instruments currently negotiated in Brussels, in particular, two proposals on confiscation
should be highlighted25.
The draft Framework Decision on confiscation orders is designed to follow the same principle as the
below mentioned Framework Decision on freezing 26 in relation to the final measure of confiscation.
Confiscation orders may be issued as a follow-up to a freezing order or directly. The State in which theproperty concerned is located can only refuse to confiscate in limited and specified circumstances. The draft
Framework Decision on confiscation of crime-related proceeds does in particular two things: It obliges all
Member States to be able to confiscate proceeds of crime, or value corresponding to such proceeds,
regarding all crimes punishable with 1 year or more of imprisonment. And it obliges all Member States toprovide for “extended powers of confiscation” making it possible, under certain conditions, to confiscate
property of the person sentenced other than property constituting proceeds of crime.
The Framework Decision on freezing makes it possible for a judicial authority in one Member State toissue a freezing order concerning property present in another Member State for the purpose of thesubsequent confiscation of the property concerned. It is based on the new concept of mutual recognition thatis being introduced gradually in different areas within the EU. The freezing order is not a request forfreezing, but an order. The competent authorities of the Member State where the property is located must
execute the order, unless it may refuse on the basis of a very limited list of grounds for refusal in the
instrument.
The EU is also working on a few other instruments relevant to the fight against money laundering andeconomic crime in general. These are for instance the draft Framework Decisions on attacks against
21 Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious

crime.
22 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between
the Member States.
23 Council act of 26 May 1997 drawing up the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European
Communities or officials of the member States of the EU.
24 Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector.
25 Latest texts are doc 10027/04 COPEN 69 (draft Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual
recognition of confiscation orders) and doc 5299/03 DROIPEN 3 (draft Framework Decision on confiscation of crime-related
proceeds, instrumentalities and property).
26 Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the EU of orders freezing property or evidence.

153

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

information systems, on ship source pollution and on financial penalties.

III. MONEY LAUNDERING27
The offence of money laundering was first, in an international context, mentioned in the old Council ofEurope Recommendation from 1980 referred to above. The reason for this was that in Italy, terrorists had
begun kidnapping politicians and had at the same time asked for ransom money which they later sought toconceal via money laundering operations in the banks. The first predicate offence to money laundering in
Italy was in fact kidnapping.
With the explosion of the drugs trade in the 1970s and 1980s the situation became different. The issue
was brought up in the context of the negotiations on the 1988 Vienna Drugs Convention and theinternational community was prepared to deal with the issue - there was a generally spread feeling among
legislators and policy makers that there was a need to tackle the phenomenon resolutely.
The definition of money laundering was taken up not only in the 1988 Convention but also in the 40
Recommendations of the FATF and in the 1990 Convention. This contributed to a general consensus thatsomething had to be done, although there was (and still is) doubt in some countries about making money
laundering a criminal offence across the line (the so-called general approach), and not only for proceeds fromdrugs trafficking.
The activities of the FATF, MONEYVAL28 or other international groupings have however, had a great
impact and there is a growing international consensus on the topic.
In the European Union, a number of initiatives have been taken in the form of binding legislation. Manyof these initiatives follow the FATF Recommendations and, in fact, it is an official policy of the EU to support
the FATF. This policy has been laid down in two meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers meetingwith their counterparts in the Finance in 2000 and 2001.29
The most important instrument is the Council Directive of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of thefinancial system for the purpose of money laundering30. The Directive, which is binding on the Member
States, was drafted following the first set of the 40 Recommendations of the FATF. The Directive provides inprinciple that credit institutions and financial institutions shall 1) identify and keep a record of customers andcertain transactions, 2) on their own initiative or by request by the competent authorities inform theseauthorities on suspect activity relating to money laundering and 3) refrain from carrying out transactions
they know or suspect are related to money laundering.
The scope of the 1991 Directive has been considerably enlarged by the 2001 amendment31 to it, both interms of the criminal activity covered and in terms of the definition of the credit and financial institutions
obliged to cooperate under the Directive. Thus, the obligations of the Directive were extended to certain
non-financial activities and professions, including lawyers and accountants. This is a very important example
of efficient, but very delicate, preventive non-criminal EU measures in the fight against economic crime.
The Directive is now under renegotiation32 for the third time with a view to including the recent
amendments to the 40 Recommendations and also terrorist financing.
27 For a comprehensive picture of this topic, see Valsamis Mitsilegas: Money Laundering Counter-Measures in the European

Union, a New Paradigm of Security Governance vs. Fundamental Legal Principles, Kluwer 2003. See also Guy Stessens,
Money Laundering, A New International Law Enforcement Model, Cambridge studies in international and comparative law,
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
28 This is a Council of Europe FATF style regional body operating within the framework of the Council of Europe.
29 Joint ECOFIN/JHA meetings on 17 October 2000 and on 16 October 2001.
30 OJ L 166/77, 28.6.91.
31 Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive
91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering.
32 Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of thefinancial system for the purpose of money laundering, including terrorist financing.

154128TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The Joint Action on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of
instrumentalities and the proceeds from crime33 should be mentioned next. This Joint Action deals with anumber of issues such as reservations to the previously mentioned Council of Europe Convention, training
and other issues.
The Framework Decision on the same topic34, which partially replaces the above mentioned Joint Action,
approximates criminal law and addresses the issue of predicate offences and sanctions (at least 4 years
imprisonment). Value confiscation is introduced throughout the EU, not only for purposes of international
cooperation but also in purely internal procedures. The decision to do so was, in my opinion correct, as value
confiscation is a modern measure that can be very effective against money launderers.
The Decision on cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units35 was adopted in 2000 and codifies theEgmont definition of FIUs. The Decision, which is binding on the Member States, enjoin the FIUs tocooperate to assemble, analyse and investigate relevant information within the EU. It lays down rules on
exchange of information and on analysis thereof.
Several Member States have also set up a network between them, the so-called FIU.NET. In the longterm, this will become an EU wide, compatible computer based service providing an automated and secure
electronic environment for the controlled and structured receipt, processing and dissemination of
disclosures of suspicious transaction reports made under the 1991 Directive and of financial intelligence
between and among the financial institutions of the Member States, the FIUs and all other actors in themoney laundering chain which are directly concerned. Currently about 10 member States are connected to
the FIU.NET but as the other Member States see that tangible results are achieved, they will not be late injoining this interesting initiative. One problem has however been that the nature of the FIUs are different in
the Member States; some are administrative, some police, some judicial in their nature, and some are a
mixture. It has therefore been difficult for some FIUs to cooperate with one another; for instance toexchange information between a police and an administrative body. This problem has however been
overcome with the entry into force of the above mentioned Framework Decision on the FIUs and the
problems are less acute now.
The 1990 Council of Europe Convention on money laundering is of course extremely relevant regarding
economic crime and also money laundering. The Convention which has been ratified by nearly 40 States,
including all EU States, lays down rules on provisional measures and confiscation and defines money
laundering in accordance with the 1988 Vienna Drugs Convention but promotes the general approach topredicate offences36.
The Council of Europe is now taking steps towards a revision of the 1990 Convention within the context
of a Committee called PC-RM. The first meeting on the subject took place in Strasbourg on 15 - 17
December 2003 and a recent meeting was held in the week of 6 September 2004. The aim of the work in
Strasbourg is to include prevention, FIUs and some parts of terrorist financing. As negotiations are stillongoing, it is hard to predict the final outcome37. Detailed discussions are however ongoing on a number ofissues, such as reversal of the burden of proof as regards the lawful origin of alleged proceeds or otherproperty liable to confiscation, expeditious freezing, freezing and confiscation of transformed or converted
property, property acquired from legitimate sources if proceeds have been intermingled, the incorporation ofsome of the provisions of the 2001 Protocol to the EU mutual assistance convention mentioned above, etc.
All these measures have been developed in Europe in the space of some 15 years, mostly through theimpulses given by the FATF, the Council of Europe and the EU. Since the EU has been able to develop legal
instruments which are binding on the Member States - and which are even liable to be adjudicated before
the Court of Justice if they have not been implemented properly - the EU instruments have had anenormous importance.
33 OJ L 333/1, 9.12.98.
34 OJ L 182/1, 5.7.01.
35 OJ L 271/4, 24.10.00.
36 For a closer description of the Convention, see Nilsson, The Council of Europe Laundering Convention: a recent example ofa developing International Criminal Law, in Criminal Law Forum, Spring 1991, Volume 2 Number 3.
37 The latest available text is found in PC-RM (2004) 2 Rev 4 of 15 July 2004. It is a restricted document.

155

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

But it is of no use to develop instruments at an international level if implementation at the national level
does not follow through. It could therefore be of some interest to take a closer look at how implementation
has been in practice, and for that purpose I have chosen Belgium as an example.
Belgium set up in 1993 its FIU, the so-called CTIF38 in the context of the implementation of the 1991
Directive. Some organ had to receive the suspicious transaction reports which were rendered mandatory to
make by the Directive and that task fell to CTIF which also had to collaborate with financial institutions,police, prosecuting authorities, banking regulators and foreign authorities.
CTIF is placed under the joint control of the Ministry of Justice and Finance in Belgium. It reports once a
year to the responsible Ministers.
The task of CTIF is to receive the suspicious transaction reports, to analyse them and, after verification
if serious reasons are present that money laundering may be at hand, to transmit the information to thepolice and the prosecutors. CTIF has thus a filtering role but does not have its own police or judicial powers,
although it is headed by a prosecutor. Inside CTIF, financial experts with long experience are working, andthey have to take an oath before the Minister of Justice. They are subject to professional secrecy. Until
200239 3 prosecutors and 3 financial experts were working for CTIF and were members of the Governing
Body the “Cellule”, but its members are now 8 because of the increase in STRs. The Cellule meets twice aweek and examines cases of suspicious money laundering. The Cellule has a Secretariat at its disposal ofsome 30 collaborators to the financial experts. There is an investigation department, a documentation
department and a legal department. 3 police and one customs officer assists the Cellule.
When the Cellule receives an STR, it is immediately looked at, so as to enable a decision to block amoney laundering operation. Such a decision must be taken within 24 hours. A verification is also
immediately made with the database to enable CTIF to see if there are files connected with the STR. The
Cellule may make contact with the bank, the police or other authorities and receive information from them.
When the file is complete, the Cellule itself examines it. At that stage 3 decisions may be taken: torequest complementary information, to file the case or to transmit the case to the prosecutor. It is enoughthat only 2 persons (including the President) are present for a decision to be taken.
Between 1/12 1993 and 31/12 2002, the CTIF received 73,202 suspicious transaction reports. It
transmitted 4972 to the prosecutor with sums involved of 9.82 Billion Euro. It made opposition in 140 cases.
During the first year of its operation, CTIF received only 113 STRs but the figure had augmented to 5771 in
1996 and to 13,120 in 2002. Most declarations (46,109) have come from the Bureaux de change and frombanks (15,632) and 5568 from stock exchange companies. According to the CTIF statistics, 60 % of thelaundering cases transmitted to the prosecutor were in the placement stage, whereas 35 % were in thelayering phase. Most cases concerned drugs (41.2 %) whereas 22.5 % concerned illicit trafficking inproperty, 8.5 % each concerned organised crime in general and fiscal fraud. Fifty-five cases, i.e. 1.1 %, wereconsidered to concern terrorism. As a result of the transmission to the prosecutor, and according to CTIF’s
minimal estimations, 416 cases were adjudicated in which 659 persons were convicted, 1332 years of
imprisonment were handed out and fines of 14.2 Million Euro were meted out. 358.9 Million Euro wereconfiscated.
CTIF considers that its activities are very efficient and that its contribution to the fight against serious
crime has been very important. After seeing these statistics, it is difficult not to agree.

IV. CONCLUSION
It is difficult in a short paper like this to deal with the vast subject of economic crime and money
laundering in other than a cursory way and to be able to speak about experiences and international
cooperation as well. The lessons learned of more than 18 years of discussion of economic crime and inparticular money laundering can, however, be summarized as follows.
38 Cellule de traitement des informations financières - the body responsible for treating financial information.
39 According to available information.

156

128TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

It is impossible to fight money laundering without a clear legal basis. The first thing that has to be done isto adopt this clear legal basis in the criminal code so that not only money launderers but in particular law
enforcement and regulators have something to hold on to. It should be remembered that money laundering
until some 20 years ago was not criminalised in many countries, and it is only after a long discussion at theinternational level that the international community has come to realise the serious dangers represented bymoney laundering. Nowadays it seems that no one, at least no one serious, denies the fact that money
laundering is one of the more serious offences we have in the statute books and that it is entirely justified togo after money launderers effectively.
When drafting a law on money laundering, seek to make the predicate offences as broad as possible. The
United Kingdom started with drugs offences, then widened to include terrorism and ended up with allindictable offences. Italy started with kidnapping, then included drugs and ended up to include all crimes anddelicts. Denmark had a list approach and has gone to a general approach. The United States, if it were to
begin again, would probably take a similar approach but has now, I believe, more than 200 offences defined as
predicate offences, etc. Learn from the mistakes of others.
Set up a dedicated FIU immediately and give it resources so that it can fulfil its task. It will pay off 100
fold. One of the tasks of the FIU should be to communicate with banks and other financial institutions and to
give them feedback so that they understand that they are important in the chain of events. There is somemoney that banks don’t want and some money that does smell. It is a good business proposition to keep thebanks clean - for the banks themselves in particular.
Plug into the international network of money laundering organisations wherever possible. Today’s money
laundering operations are truly international so it is important to cooperate internationally - Egmont Group,
FATF Regional Style bodies, join conventions, etc. This is the only way to be efficient.

157