Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Proceeds of organised crime : ensuring that "crime does not pay"
Date: 2008-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European judicial area, criminal law, fight against crime, judicial power, organised crime, terrorism

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.11.2008 
COM(2008) 766 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  

Proceeds of organised crime 

Ensuring that "crime does not pay" 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

7. 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3 

WHY DO WE FOCUS ON CRIME PROCEEDS ?.................................................... 3 

CURRENT ISSUES WITH THE EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................. 4 

The existing legal framework and its flawed implementation ..................................... 4 

Recasting the EU legal framework .............................................................................. 5 

A case for further legal provisions ............................................................................... 6 

COOPERATION AMONG NATIONAL AUTHORITIES ........................................ 7 

The establishment of national Asset Recovery Offices ............................................... 7 

Setting up effective Asset Recovery Offices ............................................................... 8 

Coordination between AROs – The role of Europol and Eurojust .............................. 9 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION – THIRD COUNTRY ASPECTS ............... 10 

NON-LEGISLATIVE FLANKING MEASURES .................................................... 10 

New tools to identify the proceeds of crime more effectively ................................... 10 

Strengthening financial investigations and financial criminal analysis ..................... 10 

Keeping regular and comparable statistics on confiscation ....................................... 11 

CONCLUSION – TEN STRATEGIC PRIORITIES................................................. 11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This Communication focuses on the confiscation and recovery of the proceeds of crime in the 
European Union1. 

Different legal procedures exist or co-exist in the Member States (MS) of the European Union 
(EU)  in  order  to  confiscate  the  proceeds  of  crime.  Effective  national  agencies  charged  with 
tracing  assets  are  a  precondition  for  a  successful  confiscation,  as  well  as  for  international 
cooperation.  

The European Union can provide added value by  

(1)  making the EU legal framework more coherent and further improve it,  

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

promoting  coordination,  exchange  of  information  and  cooperation  among  national 
agencies, 

assisting in the creation of new tools related to the identification and tracing of assets, 

facilitating the enforcement of freezing and confiscation orders, 

facilitating cooperation with third countries through the ratification of conventions and 
the promotion of asset sharing agreements,  

(6) 

assisting partners to develop new initiatives through EU funding programmes.  

2. 

WHY DO WE FOCUS ON CRIME PROCEEDS ? 

In order to disrupt organised crime activities it is essential to deprive criminals of the proceeds 
of crime. Organised crime groups are building large-scale international  networks and amass 
substantial profits from various criminal activities. The proceeds of crime are laundered and 
re-injected into the legal economy.  

The effectiveness of national anti-money laundering systems and international cooperation in 
this  area  are  of  paramount  importance.  However,  even  where  crime  proceeds  have  been 
successfully  laundered,  the  assets  of  organised  criminals  can  still  be  identified  through 
financial intelligence and investigation, seized and recovered.  

The  confiscation  and  recovery  of  criminal  assets  is  a  very  effective  way  to  fight  organised 
crime, which is essentially profit-driven2. Confiscation prevents that criminal wealth may be 
used  to  finance  other  criminal  activities,  jeopardise  the  confidence  in  the  financial  systems 
and corrupt legitimate society. Confiscation has a deterrent effect by strengthening the notion 

1 

2 

The  Communication  draws  on  informal  expert  meetings  held  by  the  Commission,  contacts  with 
authorities in the MS, the conclusions of a pan-European conference on Asset Recovery Offices and the 
draft conclusions of a Commission study on confiscation in the MS (not yet public). 
The conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 12-13 June 2007 invited Member States to 
"increase their efforts in the financial aspects of investigations and prosecutions, for example as regards 
the seizure of assets". 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
that  “crime  does  not  pay”3.  This  may  help  removing  negative  role  models  from  local 
communities. In some cases measures confiscating the proceeds of crime allow to target the 
decision-makers within criminal organisations, which are rarely investigated and prosecuted. 

At  present  the  overall  number  of  confiscation  cases  in  the  EU  is  relatively  limited  and  the 
amounts recovered from organised crime are modest, especially if compared to the estimated 
revenues  of  organised  criminal  groups.  An  increased  use  of  confiscation  procedures  is 
therefore desirable. 

3. 

CURRENT ISSUES WITH THE EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

Four EU Framework Decisions are being implemented at national level with a view to ensure 
a common approach to confiscation. Three of them raise implementation issues. 

3.1. 

The existing legal framework and its flawed implementation 

Framework  Decision  2001/500/JHA4  harmonised  some  MS  provisions  on  confiscation  and 
criminal  sanctions  for  money  laundering.  Overall  this  text  is  relatively  well  transposed  in 
most MS. 

Framework  Decision  2003/577/JHA5  applies  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to  orders 
freezing  property  or  evidence.  There  are  significant  delays  in  its  transposition  by  the  MS. 
Little information is available on the practical application of the provisions that should ensure 
that assets or evidence located in one MS can be frozen on the basis of a decision taken by a 
judicial authority in another MS and transmitted directly to the executing judicial authority by 
way of a specific certificate. It appears that the certificate to request the execution of freezing 
orders is rather difficult to complete and does not contain all the necessary fields. Therefore, 
judicial  authorities  tend  to  revert  to  the  standard  mutual  legal  assistance  forms.  Should  this 
trend continue, this Framework Decision would not have fully achieved its objectives. 

Framework  Decision  2005/212/JHA6  aims  at  ensuring  that  MS  introduce  effective  rules  on 
confiscation, including rules on proof with regard to the source of the assets concerned. The 
Commission's  implementation  report  of  December  20077  showed  that  most  MS  are  slow  in 
putting  in  place  measures  to  allow  more  widespread  confiscation.  It  appears  that  the  text's 
provisions  are  unclear  and  lead  to  piecemeal  transposition.  Moreover,  the  Framework 
Decision  provides  for  alternative  criteria  for  extended  confiscation.  This  may  have  de  facto 
restricted  the  scope  for  mutual  recognition.  The  relevant  national  authorities  will  execute 
confiscation  orders  issued  by  other  MS  only  if  these  are  based  on  the  same  ground(s)  for 
confiscation applied by the receiving MS. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

A 2007 study on illicit drug trade by the UK Home Office showed that confiscation is considered by 
criminals as a serious deterrent.  
Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, 
tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime, OJ L 182 of 
5.7.2001, p. 1.  
Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of 
orders freezing property or evidence, OJ L 196 of 2.8.2003, p. 45. 
Council  Framework  Decision  2005/212/JHA  of  24  February  2005  on  Confiscation  of  Crime-related 
Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, OJ L 68 of 15.3.2005, p. 49. 
Report from the Commission pursuant to Article 6 of the Council Framework Decision of 24 February 
2005 on Confiscation of Crime-related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (2005/212/JHA), COM 
(2007) 805. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Framework  Decision  2006/783/JHA8  applies  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to 
confiscation orders. Better coordination is needed between the previously mentioned criteria 
for  extended  confiscation  and  the  provisions  on  mutual  recognition  of  confiscation  orders. 
Under  the  latter  provisions,  one  of  the  reasons  for  allowing  the  non-recognition  or  non-
execution  of  a  confiscation  order  is  that  it  falls  outside  the  scope  of  the  option(s)  under 
Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA adopted by the executing State in its national legislation. 
Moreover,  Framework  Decision  2006/783/  JHA  seems  to  apply  only  to  confiscation  orders 
issued within the framework of criminal proceedings. Therefore confiscation orders based on 
civil confiscation procedures or on the extended use of taxation powers would not necessarily 
be executed in all MS. This mutual recognition issue is very relevant, as these procedures are 
increasingly used, especially in common law countries, and are proving to be very effective 
tools  in  attacking  the  proceeds  of  organised  criminal  activities.  It  is  too  early  to  assess 
possible delays in the transposition of this Framework Decision into national legislation.  

In addition to the above Framework Decisions, the Second Protocol9 to the Convention on the 
protection of the European Communities’ financial interests10, which should enter into force 
by end 2008, provides for measures of confiscation as well as for an operational cooperation 
with  MS  in  the  fight  against  fraud  and  money  laundering,  including  confiscation.  The 
proposal for a Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, 
documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters11, which should be formally 
adopted by end 2008, provides rules on the follow up of freezing orders issued on the basis of 
Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA. It also includes certain provisions of the 2001 Protocol 
to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters12. 

3.2. 

Recasting the EU legal framework 

In  conclusion,  the  existing  legal  texts  are  only  partially  transposed.  Some  provisions  of  the 
Framework  Decisions  are  not  very  clear  with  the  result  that  transposition  into  national 
legislation is patchy. A lack of coordination between the criteria for extended confiscation on 
the one hand, and the provisions on the execution of confiscation orders in another MS on the 
other,  may  heavily  affect  mutual  recognition.  There  are  relevant  issues  with  the  mutual 
recognition of freezing and confiscation orders based on civil confiscation procedures or on 
the  extended  use  of  taxation  powers.  It  is  essential  to  have  in  place  expedient  and  effective 
mechanisms  to  freeze  and  confiscate  assets abroad. [ In light of the above considerations, a 
recasting of the existing EU legal framework should be considered. Such an exercise would 
be in line with the EU policies of simplification and better regulation and would improve the 
clarity and coherence of existing texts. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of 
mutual recognition to confiscation orders, OJ L 328 of 24.11.2006, p. 59. 
Second  Protocol,  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  Article  K.3  of  the  treaty  on  European  Union,  to  the 
Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, OJ C 221 of 19.7.1997, 
p.12. 
Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the treaty on European Union, on the protection of 
the European Communities' financial interests, OJ C 316 of 27.11.1995, p.49. 
Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, 
documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, COM(2003) 688 final of 14.11.2003. 
Council Act of 16 October 2001 establishing, in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European 
Union, the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member 
States of the European Union, OJ C 326 of 21.11.2001. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
3.3. 

A case for further legal provisions  

In addition to the recasting of the existing legal framework, the Commission will explore the 
possibility  to  extend  some  legal  concepts  and  introduce  new  rules  in  order  to  increase  the 
possibilities  for  confiscation.  However,  as  confiscation  measures  (eg  the  reversal  of  the 
burden of proof) may affect fundamental rights (such as the right to property and the right to 
adequate  means  for  recourse)  a  balanced  approach  is  necessary  and  appropriate  safeguards 
need to be provided for. Based on the practice in MS, the following ideas could be considered 
for discussion. :  

3.3.1.  Confiscation without a criminal conviction (civil confiscation) 

Under  most  MS  jurisdictions  confiscation  is  a  sanction  linked  to  a  criminal 
conviction.  However,  a  new  legal  instrument  could  introduce  instances  where 
confiscation  takes  place  without  a  prior  criminal  conviction  (thereby  transposing 
FATF Recommendation 313 into EU legislation). For example:  

(i)  When there is a suspicion that assets are the proceeds of serious crimes, due to 
their disproportion with the declared income of their owner and to the fact that he/she 
has habitual contacts with known criminals. In this instance a case may be brought 
before  a  civil  court  (which  may  order  the  confiscation  of  assets)  based  on  an 
assumption,  on  the  balance  of  probabilities,  that  the  assets  may  be  derived  from 
proceeds  of  crime.  In  these  cases  the  burden  of  proof  is  reversed  and  the  alleged 
criminal should prove the legitimate origin of the assets.  

(ii)  When  the  person  suspected  of  certain  serious  crimes  is  dead,  fugitive  for  a 
certain period of time or otherwise not available for prosecution. 

(iii)  In certain cases, when cash is seized by customs authorities in breach of the EC 
Regulation on Cash Controls14. An administrative decision may empower authorities 
to detain the amounts above EUR 10 000 which were not declared when entering or 
leaving  the  EU.  However,  if  these  amounts  need  to  be  confiscated  (for  example  as 
the proceeds from tax evasion) a court order is ultimately needed. As tax evasion is 
not prosecuted in all EU MS with criminal proceedings, this may be a further case of 
civil confiscation.  

3.3.2.  Creating a new criminal offence for owning "unjustified" assets 

Different  legal  procedures  exist  or  co-exist  in  the  MS  (criminal  confiscation,  civil 
confiscation,  use  of  tax  authorities'  powers),  which  all  have  the  same  objective  of 
seizing  the  proceeds  of  crime.  In  certain  MS  confiscation  may  not  occur  in  the 
absence of a prior criminal conviction.  

A new criminal offence for owning "unjustified" assets could be introduced in order 
to  attack  the  proceeds  of  crime  in  cases  where  assets  are  disproportionate  to  the 
declared  income  of  their  owner  and  he/she  has  habitual  contacts  with  known 

13 

14 

Recommendation 3 of the Financial Action Task Force 40 Recommendations encourages countries to 
consider confiscation measures “without requiring a criminal conviction or which require an offender to 
demonstrate the lawful origin of the property alleged to be liable to conviction”. 
Regulation  (EC)  no.  1889/2005  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  controls  of  cash 
entering or leaving the Community, OJ L 309 of 25.11.2005, p. 9. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
criminals. The difference with the case under (i) above is that the procedure would 
take place in a criminal court and the burden of proof would not be fully reversed15. 

3.3.3.  Ensuring mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders 

An  alternative  approach  consists  in  ensuring  the  mutual  recognition  of  foreign 
freezing  and  confiscation  orders  by  MS  even  when  those  orders  are  based  on 
procedures which may not be applicable in the executing State (eg civil confiscation 
procedures, procedures based on the extended use of taxation powers). However, it 
that  such  cases  of  mutual  recognition  may  require 
should  be  recognised 
supplementary conditions. 

3.3.4.  Extending the scope of mandatory confiscation 

Mandatory confiscation could be introduced following conviction for certain serious 
criminal  offences  from  which  organised  criminal  groups  derive  substantial  profits. 
The  list  of  offences  set  out  in  the  Framework  Decision  on  Extended  Confiscation 
could be used as a basis and extended to include other offences.  

3.3.5.  Enforcing the obligation to provide information on bank accounts 

A recasting may provide the opportunity to include in the new legal framework the 
provisions  of the  already  mentioned 2001  Protocol, which has not  yet  been ratified 
by a sufficient number of countries and has not yet entered into force. The Protocol 
foresees  that  MS  authorities  should  provide  details  of  bank  accounts  and  banking 
operations  of  identified  persons  and  may  not  rely  on  banking  secrecy  rules  as  a 
ground  for  refusing  to  co-operate  in  this  context.  The  enforcement  of  these 
provisions  would  greatly  assist  the  tracing  of  assets  in  other  MS.  Replacing  the 
Protocol with provisions in the new legal framework on confiscation would allow the 
Commission to accelerate efforts in order to give them full effect.  

4. 

COOPERATION AMONG NATIONAL AUTHORITIES  

The  proceeds  of  crime  are  increasingly  acquired  in  countries  other  than  those  where  a 
criminal  organisation  normally  operates  or  where  a  criminal  conviction  takes  place.  This 
makes the identification of the proceeds of crime and their seizure more difficult. Cooperation 
between  national  authorities  and  a  swift  exchange  of  information  are  essential  in  order  to 
maximise the possibilities to confiscate the proceeds of crime.  

4.1. 

The establishment of national Asset Recovery Offices  

Asset  Recovery  Offices  (AROs)  facilitate  the  tracing  of  criminal  assets,  participate  in 
confiscation  procedures,  ensure  the  proper  management  of  the  seized  assets  and  act  as  a 
central contact point for confiscation activities at national level.  

At  present  such  offices  do  not  exist  in  all  MS  of  the  EU16  and  differ  widely  in  structure, 
powers and practices. Cooperation between national authorities in this field takes place mostly 

15 
16 

This new type of criminal offence has been introduced in France and is proving to be very effective.  
Fully  fledged  AROs  exist  only  in  Austria,  Belgium,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  The 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
through the informal CARIN network (law enforcement and judicial experts on confiscation 
and asset recovery)17.  

Based  on  the  successful  experience  of  CARIN,  Council  Decision  2007/845/JHA  on 
cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices of the MS18 was adopted in December 2007. It 
aims at ensuring that MS set up or designate, by 18 December 2008, national Asset Recovery 
Offices which will act as national contact points for confiscation-related activities. They will 
notably promote, through enhanced cooperation, the fastest possible EU-wide tracing of assets 
derived from crime. In particular AROs should be able to cooperate effectively with Financial 
Intelligence  Units  and  judicial  authorities.  In  this  respect,  training  should  be  increasingly 
provided to judicial authorities dealing with asset tracing and confiscation.  

4.2. 

Setting up effective Asset Recovery Offices  

Within a short time MS should decide the best practical ways of setting up AROs at national 
level,  their  powers  to  trace  and  freeze  assets  efficiently,  and  their  possibilities  to  exchange 
data.  

To support these efforts, a high level pan-European conference on AROs took place in March 
200819. Its findings will be made sustainable by promoting the exchange of best practice and 
assisting  MS  in  setting  up  AROs,  notably  by  organising  upon  request  on-site  visits  of  peer 
experts  in  2009  and  2010.  Based  on  the  conclusions  and  on  the  work  of  CARIN,  the  most 
relevant recommendations to set up effective AROs are the following: 

4.2.1. 

Structure of AROs 

AROs  should  have  a  multidisciplinary  structure  comprising  expertise  from  law 
enforcement,  judicial  authorities,  tax  authorities,  social  welfare,  customs  and  other 
relevant services. These representatives should be able to exercise their usual powers 
and  to  disclose  information  within  the  ARO  without  being  bound  by  professional 
secrecy.  AROs  should  be  adequately  resourced  and  provide  a  central  point  for  all 
incoming requests of assistance from other countries. They should collect all relevant 
statistics  on  asset  freezing  and  confiscation.  Where  AROs  do  not  directly  manage 
seized  assets,  they  should  at  least  collect  information  on  seized  assets  from  the 
authorities managing them. 

4.2.2. 

Information exchange between AROs 

AROs should exchange information rapidly, possibly within the time limits foreseen 
in  Framework  Decision  2006/960/JHA20.  The  legal  possibilities  for  each  ARO  to 

17 

18 

19 

20 

CARIN, supported by the Commission and by Europol, includes experts from 40 countries, including 
26 EU Member States. Its objectives are the exchange of best practices and the improvement of inter-
agency cooperation in cross-border matters. 
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery 
Offices  of  the  Member  States  in  the  field  of  tracing  and  identification  of  proceeds  from,  or  other 
property related to, crime, OJ L 332 of 18.12.2007, p. 103. 
Organised  by  Europol,  the  Austrian  and  Belgian  governments  and  supported  by  the  European 
Commission  under 
fight  against  crime" 
(http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/isec/funding_isec_en.htm). 
Council  Framework  Decision  2006/960/JHA  of  18  December  2006  on  simplifying  the  exchange  of 
information  and  intelligence  between  law  enforcement  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  the 
European Union, OJ L 386 of 18.12.2006, p. 89. 

"Prevention  of  and 

funding  Programme 

the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
spontaneously  exchange  information  should  be  further  analysed.  The  information 
that  can  be  obtained  from  each  ARO  without  resorting  to  mutual  legal  assistance 
procedures should be clarified. The certificates to request the execution of freezing 
orders and confiscation orders in another MS, as well as the mutual legal assistance 
forms,  should  be  revised  in  order  to  make  them  easier  to  use.  Detailed  guidance 
should  be  provided  on  how  to  complete  them.  A  standardized  secure  channel  of 
communication between AROs should be established. 

4.2.3.  Powers to be granted to AROs 

AROs  should  have  access  to  all  relevant  databases21  to  identify  and  trace  assets, 
including financial information (ideally to a central bank account registry at national 
level),  and  should  have  coercive  powers  to  obtain  such  information.  They  should 
have the powers to provisionally freeze assets (e.g. for at least 72 hours) in order to 
prevent  dissipation  of  the  proceeds  of  crime  between  the  moment  when  assets  are 
identified  and  the  execution  of  a  freezing  or  confiscation  court  order.  They  should 
also be able to conduct joint investigations with other authorities. 

Different practices exist in the MS with regard to the destination of the assets confiscated and 
recovered22. It is desirable to promote practices which have proven to be effective at national 
level. 

4.3. 

Coordination between AROs – The role of Europol and Eurojust 

The level of cooperation between AROs will determine the successful execution of freezing 
and confiscation orders. Once AROs are designated or established in all MS, their activities 
should be supported and coordinated in order to facilitate the swift exchange of intelligence 
on the location and ownership of criminals’ assets.  

Consideration should be given to entrust such coordinating role to Europol, whose Criminal 
Assets  Bureau  has  already  had  considerable  success  in  assisting  financial  investigators.  In 
2007,  it  supported  133  investigations  to  trace  criminal  proceeds  and  provided  AROs  with 
expert knowledge. National authorities should involve Eurojust to a greater extent in order to 
facilitate the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. In 2007, 30 out of over 
1000 cases dealt with by Eurojust related to this area. 

5. 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION – THIRD COUNTRY ASPECTS 

Confiscation  of  crime  proceeds  is  a  global  issue  as  criminals  continue  to  acquire  legitimate 
assets  both  in  the  EU  and  in  other  world  regions.  Close  international  cooperation  on 
confiscation issues should be developed not only within the EU, but also with third countries. 
The existing EU legal instruments do not sufficiently address these aspects.  

However,  a  number  of  international  Conventions  include  provisions  on  the  confiscation  of 
criminal proceeds in order to promote international cooperation in the identification, tracing, 

21 

22 

Both  open  and  closed  databases,  such  as  Land  Registry,  Company  Records,  Vehicle  Registration, 
Convictions  and  databases  from  the  financial  institutions,  the  police,  tax  authorities,  social  welfare 
agencies, etc.  
For example, in the United Kingdom assets are shared between the authorities that contributed to their 
recovery, while in Italy they are often entrusted to NGOs for social use.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
freezing and confiscation of criminal assets. The most relevant are the UN Convention against 
Transnational  Organized  Crime  ("UNTOC"),  the  UN  Convention  against  Corruption 
("UNCAC") and the Council of Europe Conventions on Money Laundering and Confiscation 
("Strasbourg Conventions"). A number of important provisions of these conventions are not 
yet  incorporated  into  Community  legislation.  The  Commission  will  continue  its  efforts  to 
ensure  that  the  EU  and  the  MS  ratify  and  implement  these  Conventions  without  delay  and 
encourage third countries to do the same.  

Initiatives on asset recovery and confiscation are also under way in several international fora 
such as the G8, the United Nations and the World Bank.  

International cooperation in the area of confiscation is not always satisfactory due to varying 
degrees of willingness to cooperate. It is necessary to promote a more proactive cooperation 
with third countries, notably by promoting asset sharing agreements, including those related 
to value confiscation, and dissemination of best practices. FATF Recommendation 38 and its 
interpretative note encourage countries to stipulate arrangements for co-ordinating seizure and 
confiscation  proceedings,  including  the  sharing  of  confiscated  assets.  The  2005  Council  of 
Europe Convention contains similar provisions. The Commission could promote the exchange 
of best practices among MS in this area. 

6. 

NON-LEGISLATIVE FLANKING MEASURES  

6.1. 

New tools to support confiscation procedures more effectively  

In  order  to  facilitate  requests  relating  to  the  identification  and  tracing  of  assets  each  ARO 
should have access to centralised registers at national level. Where such registers do not exist, 
MS should be encouraged to establish them. 

Ways  to  improve  the  availability  of  information  on  outstanding  freezing  and  confiscation 
orders in the Union including by the creation of a list, should also be explored. It would allow 
to  better  monitor  overall  progress  in  freezing  and  confiscation  procedures  and  to  derive 
statistics on the time needed to execute such orders. 

6.2. 

Strengthening financial investigations and financial criminal analysis  

They are at the heart of the fight against organised crime and terrorism financing. Promoting a 
wider  use  of  financial  investigation  and  financial  criminal  analysis23  as  a  law  enforcement 
technique in all EU MS will boost the identification and tracing of the proceeds of crime.  

The Commission is working with Europol and a number of MS on a project which consists of 
establishing a set of common minimum training standards for financial investigators (covering 
eight  areas  of  knowledge  and  skill),  an  EU-wide  accreditation  system,  and  of  providing 
training  in  the  MS  based  on  those  standards.  Some  national  centres  of  excellence  are 
producing the relevant training packages. The first deliverables are expected in 2009. 

23 

The Commission funded several projects on improving these techniques between 2002 and 2005. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
6.3. 

Keeping regular and comparable statistics on confiscation  

More  and  better  quality  statistics  on  frozen  or  confiscated  assets  should  be  available.  Very 
limited  data  are  available,  mostly  from  national  databases  or  through  the  mutual  evaluation 
reports  on  anti-money  laundering  compliance  published  by  the  FATF,  the  International 
Monetary Fund and the Council of Europe Moneyval Committee.  

Under  the  EU  Action  Plan  2006-2010  on  Crime  Statistics,  work  is  under  way  to  develop  a 
new  methodology  to  collect  Money  Laundering  statistics  comparable  among  MS.  This 
methodology  foresees  the  collection  of  information  on  frozen,  confiscated  and  recovered 
assets  derived  from  crime.  The  resulting  statistics  may  also  contribute  to  evaluate  the 
effectiveness of the countries' confiscation regimes. 

7. 

CONCLUSION – TEN STRATEGIC PRIORITIES 

To fight crime effectively means to hit criminals where it hurts them most. The confiscation 
and  recovery  of  the  proceeds  of  crime  targets  their  resources  and  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
wider EU financial crime strategy. 

More  should  be  done  to  highlight  confiscation  as  one  of  the  most  effective  ways  to  fight 
organised crime. The following action points aim at ensuring that the EU continues to uphold 
the highest standards in this area:  

(1) 

A future recasting of the existing EU legal framework would improve its clarity and 
coherence,  as  well  as  further  extend  existing  legal  concepts  and  introduce  new 
provisions. 

(2)  MS should complete the transposition of the existing legal framework and implement 
Council  Decision  2007/845/JHA  by  designating  or  establishing  Asset  Recovery 
Offices that are able to rapidly exchange information, have adequate powers and work 
on the basis of best practice. 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Practical  obstacles  to  confiscation  procedures  in  the  MS  should  be  removed.  The 
Commission and the MS will discuss on the basis of a Commission study assessing the 
effectiveness of the MS' practices in late 2008 with a view to promote practices which 
have proven to be effective at national level.  

EU  Asset  Recovery  Offices  should  meet  regularly  within  an  informal  Platform  in 
order  to  ensure  effective  exchange  of  information,  coordination  and  cooperation. 
Europol  is  encouraged  to  play  a  coordinating  role  among  national  Asset  Recovery 
Offices.  

A system to assess the effectiveness of EU Asset Recovery Offices (possibly based on 
peer evaluations) could be developed and implemented. 

Eurojust  should  be  closely  involved  in  facilitating  cooperation  at  judicial  level  and 
promoting  mutual  recognition  in  confiscation  matters,  as  well  as  facilitating  the 
interaction between Asset Recovery Offices and judicial authorities. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

(7) 

A common EU training programme for financial investigators could be developed and 
implemented  as  a  priority.  MS  should  consider  increasing  the  resources  devoted  to 
financial criminal analysis and financial investigations at national level. 

(8)  MS could develop better statistics on assets frozen, confiscated and recovered. These 
data  should  be  comparable  between  countries.  Statistics  will  help  assessing  the 
effectiveness of the confiscation systems in place. 

(9) 

The  Commission  and  the  MS  should  consider  how  to  make  available  to  Asset 
Recovery  Offices  in  other  MS  and  in  third  countries  the  necessary  information  to 
identify and trace assets in their territory, possibly by organising centralised registers. 

(10)  Europol, Eurojust and the Member States could cooperate to improve the availability 
of  information,  including  by  the  creation  of  a  list,  on  outstanding  freezing  and 
confiscation orders in the European Union. 

EN 

12 

   EN