Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on countering money laundering by criminal law
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European security, fight against crime, financial transaction, international criminal law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, money laundering, organised crime, penalty, terrorism

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.12.2016  COM(2016) 826 final 2016/0414 (COD)   Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on countering money laundering by criminal law  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

The recent terrorist attacks in the European Union and beyond, underline the need for the EU 
to  work  across  all  policies  to  prevent  and  fight  terrorism.  Terrorist  organisations  and 
organised  crime  need  financing  –  to  maintain  their  criminal  networks,  to  recruit  new 
members,  and  to  commit  terrorist  acts  themselves.  Cutting  off  their  sources  of  finance, 
making  it  harder  for  terrorists  to  escape  detection  when  using  these  funds,  and  exploiting 
relevant  information  from  financial  transactions  all  make  crucial  contributions  to  the  fight 
against terrorism and organised crime.  

The challenge of terrorist financing is not new. The European Union already has tools in place 
to  tackle  it  including  existing  criminal  legislation,  cooperation  between  law  enforcement 
authorities  and  processes  to  exchange  relevant  information  as  well  as  legislation  to  prevent 
and fight money laundering that is being constantly strenghtened.   

The  nature  of  terrorism  financing  is  however  evolving  over  time,  and  the  EU  needs 
determined, swift and comprehensive actions to modernise existing legislation, to ensure it is 
fully implemented by all relevant actors, and to address identified gaps. The Union also needs 
greater  cooperation  between  competent  authorities,  across  borders  and  with  relevant  EU 
agencies  to  improve  the  dissemination  of  information  and  track  down  those  who  finance 
terrorism.  

This proposal for a Directive, announced in the Commission's Action Plan to strengthen the 
fight  against  terrorist  financing  of  2  February  20161  aims  to  counter  money  laundering  by 
means  of  criminal  law.  The  proposed  Directive  achieves  this  objective  by  implementing 
international  obligations  in  this  area  including  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on 
Laundering,  Search,  Seizure  and  Confiscation  of  the  Proceeds  from  Crime  and  on  the 
Financing  of  Terrorism  of  2005,  CETS  No  198  ("the  Warsaw  Convention"),  as  well  as  the 
relevant recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).  
Existing instruments at EU level (and in particular Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA2) are 
limited  in  scope  and  do  not  ensure  a  comprehensive  criminalisation  of  money  laundering 
offences.  All  Member  States  criminalise  money  laundering  but  there  are  significant 
differences in the respective definitions of what constitutes money laundering, on which are 
the  predicate  offences  –  i.e.  the  underlying  criminal  activity  which  generated  the  property 
laundered  –  as  well  as  the  level  of  sanctions.  The  current  legislative  framework  is  neither 
comprehensive  nor  sufficiently  coherent  to  be  fully  effective.  The  differences  in  legal 
frameworks  can  be  exploited  by  criminals  and  terrorists,  who  can  choose  to  carry  out  their 
financial transactions where they perceive anti-money laundering measures to be weakest. 

More  significantly,  at  the  operational  level,  the  differences  in  the  definitions,  scope  and 
sanctions  of  money  laundering  offences  affect  cross-border  police  and  judicial  cooperation 
between national authorities and the exchange of information. For instance, differences in the 
scope of predicate offences make it difficult for Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and law 
enforcement  authorities  in  one  Member  State  to  coordinate  with  other  EU  jurisdictions  to 
tackle  cross-border  money  laundering  (e.g.  as  regards  money  laundering  related  to  tax 

1 
2 

COM(2016) 50 final, 2 February 2016. 
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, 
05.072001). 

 
 
                                                 
crimes).  As  part  of  the  consultation  carried  out  to  prepare  this  proposal,  practitioners  -  
including  agencies  such as  Europol and Eurojust  - reported that  differences in  criminalising 
this offence in Member States' legislation pose obstacles to effective police co-operation and 
cross-border investigations. 

The  activities  of  criminals  and  criminal  organisations  are  designed  to  generate  profit.  In 
essence,  money  laundering  uses  the  earnings  generated  through  a  multitude  of  cross-border 
illegal activities - such as drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, illicit arms trafficking, 
corruption - to acquire, convert or transfer property, while hiding the true nature of its origin, 
in  order  to  use  the  revenues  of  these  crimes  in  the  legitimate  economy.  Money  laundering 
allows  criminal  organisations  to  benefit  from  their  illegal  activities  and  maintain  their 
operations. A strengthened criminal response to money laundering contributes to countering 
the financial incentive which drives crime. 

At global level, according to United Nations estimates, the total amount of criminal proceeds 
in 2009 was approximately USD 2.1 trillion, or 3.6% of global GDP3. The size of proceeds 
from criminal activity in the main illicit markets in the European Union for which evidence is 
available,  has  been  estimated  to  amount  to  €110  billion4.  The  amount  of  money  currently 
being recovered in the EU is only a small proportion of the estimated criminal proceeds5.  

Individuals  and  groups  involved  in  terrorist  acts  use  criminal  networks  or  engage  in  crime 
themselves to fund their activities, after which they use money laundering schemes to convert, 
conceal the illicit nature of, or acquire funds to finance their operations. This greatly increases 
the  attractiveness  of  organised  crime.  Many  of  the  terrorist  cells  operating  in  Europe  raise 
funds  from  criminal  sources  such  as  drug  trafficking,  trafficking  in  cultural  goods  or 
fraudulent loan applications. Large terrorist organisations also resort to criminal activities in 
different  forms  in  order  to  finance  terrorist  activities.  In  addition,  terrorists  could  take 
advantage  of  criminal  organisations  to  supply  their  logistical  needs,  by  purchasing  false 
documents  or  firearms  from  these  criminal  groups,  which  can  in  turn  launder  the  benefits 
from  these  operations.  A  strengthened  EU  legal  framework  would  therefore  contribute  to 
tackling terrorist financing more effectively and reduce the threat from terrorist organisations 
by hindering their capacity to finance their activities.  

The  introduction  of  minimum  rules  to  define  the  criminal  offence  of  money  laundering, 
applying  this  definition  to  terrorist  offences  and  other  serious  criminal  activities,  and 
approximating  the  sanctions  involved,  will  reinforce  the  EU's  existing  criminal  framework 
against money laundering across Europe. The proposed Directive will improve existing cross 
border cooperation, the exchange of information between competent authorities and will help 
prevent  criminals  from  exploiting  the  differences  between  national  legislations  to  their 
advantage. These measures will provide for a strengthened legal framework to combat money 
laundering  in  the  EU,  improve  enforcement  and  act  as  a  greater  deterrent  to  terrorist  and 
criminal  activity.  They  will  thus  tackle  organised  crime  and  terrorist  financing  more 
effectively, enhancing in this way the internal security of the EU and the safety of its citizens.  

3 

4 

5 

United  Nations  Office  on  Drugs  and  Crime,  "Estimating  illicit  financial  flows  resulting  from  drug 
trafficking and other transnational organised crime", October 2011. 
From illegal markets to legitimate businesses: the portfolio of organised crime in Europe, Final report 
of Project OCP – Organised Crime Portfolio, March 2015. 
Report 'Does crime still pay? Criminal asset recovery in the EU. Survey of statistical information 2010-
2014', Europol, July 2016. 

 
 
                                                 
• 

Need to implement relevant international standards and obligations and address 
money laundering in an effective manner 

This  proposal  aims  to  implement  international  requirements  emanating  from  the  Warsaw 
Convention as well as the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force as regards the 
criminalisation of money laundering.  
Recommendation  3  of  the  Financial  Action  Task  Force  (FATF6)  calls  on  countries  to 
criminalise  money  laundering  on  the  basis  of  the  UN  Convention  Against  Illicit  Traffic  in 
Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic  Substances  (Vienna  Convention)  of  1988  and  the  UN 
Convention  Against  Transnational  Organized  Crime  (Palermo  Convention)  of  2001.  The 
recommendation  requests  countries  to  criminalise  the  laundering  of  proceeds  of  all  serious 
offences, with a view to including the widest range of predicate offences (providing a list of 
predicate  offence  categories  such  as  terrorism,  including  terrorist  financing,  trafficking  in 
human  beings  and  migrant  smuggling,  illicit  arms  trafficking,  environmental  crime,  fraud, 
corruption  or  tax  crimes),  while  leaving  countries  discretion  in  how  to  achieve  this.  The 
Recommendation allows countries not to apply the offence of money laundering to the person 
who committed the predicate offence and requires countries to ensure effective, proportionate 
and  dissuasive  criminal  sanctions  for  natural  persons,  criminal  (or  civil  or  administrative) 
liability  and  sanctions  for  legal  persons.  The  Recommendation  also  calls  for  the 
criminalisation of ancillary activities such as participation in, association with or conspiracy 
to  commit,  attempt,  aiding  and  abetting,  facilitating,  and  counselling,  unless  this  is  not 
permitted by fundamental principles of domestic law. 

The  Warsaw  Convention  constitutes  the  most  comprehensive  international  convention  on 
money  laundering  (including  provisions  related  to  the  criminalisation  of  money  laundering 
but  also  provisions  on  asset  freezing  and  confiscation  as  well  as  international  cooperation). 
The  Warsaw  Convention  requests  parties  to  adopt  legislative  measures  to  facilitate  the 
prevention,  investigation  and  prosecution  of  money  laundering  as  well  as  the  effective 
freezing and confiscation of proceeds and instrumentalities of crime. This convention goes in 
several  respects  beyond  the  requirements  of  the  FATF  Recommendation,  by  making 
irrelevant whether the predicate offence was subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the country 
where the money laundering offence took place, allowing countries to apply a lower level of 
intent  and  requiring  countries  to  ensure  that  a  prior  or  simultaneous  conviction  for  the 
predicate offence and the precise establishment of the predicate offence are not a prerequisite 
for a conviction for money laundering.  

The Warsaw Convention was signed by 26 EU Member States, of which only 17 have so far 
ratified it. The EU has signed but not yet ratified.  The present proposal for a Directive would 
be an important step towards EU ratification of the Warsaw Convention.  

This proposal aims at implementing the abovementioned international requirements. In certain 
areas, it goes beyond  these  requirements:  it establishes  the  minimum level of the maximum 
sanctions and criminalises self-laundering - i.e. cases in which the person laundering property 
derived  from  criminal  activity  is  also  the  perpetrator  of  the  underlying  predicate  offence, 
although self-laundering is limited to conversion or transfer and concealment or disguise. In 
addition  to  the  general  categories  of  crime  as  provided  in  the  list  of  predicate  offences 
established by FATF and the Warsaw Convention, the list provided in this proposal includes 

6 

The  FATF  is  the  most  important  international  standard  setter  for  AML/CFT.  The  European 
Commission  and  15  Members  States  are  Members  of  FATF  and  the  remaining  13  are  members  of 
"MONEYVAL", the FATF-style regional body that conducts self and mutual assessment exercises of 
the AML/CFT measures in place in Council of Europe Member States. 

 
 
                                                 
cybercrime  and  the  crimes  where  there  is  legislation  at  EU  level  defining  the  predicate 
offences, by making a reference to the relevant EU legislative acts.  

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

This  proposal  is  embedded  in  the  global  fight  against  money  laundering  and  terrorism 
financing by implementing Recommendation  3 of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), 
the  intergovernmental  body  defining  and  promoting  the  implementation  of  international 
standards in this area, and by implementing relevant international conventions. It is also part 
of  the  broader  efforts  at  EU  level  to  combat  money  laundering  and  terrorists  financing  by 
reinforcing the repressive action against criminal organisations and financers of terrorism. 
The European Agenda on Security adopted in April 20157 called for additional measures in 
the area of terrorist financing and money laundering. Highlighting that "the primary goal of 
organised crime is profit", the European Agenda on Security called for a strengthening of the 
capacity  of  law  enforcement  to  tackle  the  finance  of  organised  crime,  underlining  that 
"international  criminal  networks  use  legal  business  structures  to  conceal  the  source  of  their 
profits,  so  action  is  needed  to  address  the  infiltration  of  the  licit  economy  by  organised 
crime." The European Agenda on Security also aimed at tackling the nexus between terrorism 
and organised crime, highlighting that organised crime feeds terrorism through channels like 
the  supply  of  weapons,  financing  through  drug  smuggling,  and  the  infiltration  of  financial 
markets. 

The  Commission  presented  on  2  February  2016  an  Action  Plan  to  further  step  up  the  fight 
against the financing of terrorism. One of the key actions of the Action Plan was to consider a 
possible proposal for a Directive to introduce minimum rules regarding the definition of the 
criminal  offence  of  money  laundering  (applying  it  to  terrorist  offences  and  other  serious 
criminal offences) and to approximate sanctions. The rationale set out was that terrorists often 
resort to criminal proceeds to fund their activities and use money laundering schemes in that 
process.  Criminalisation  of  money  laundering  would  thus  contribute  to  tackling  terrorist 
financing. 

The European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2016 on the fight against corruption and 
follow-up  of  the  CRIM    resolution  (2015/2110(INI))8  also  pointed  out  that  participation  in 
criminal  activities  may  be  linked  to  terrorist  crimes  and  called  for  a  reinforcement  of  EU 
legislation  on  combating  organised  crime  and  money-laundering  for  the  fight  against 
terrorism to be effective. 

This  proposal  will  also  reinforce  the  measures  in  place  aimed  at  detecting,  disrupting  and 
preventing  the  abuse  of  the  financial  system  for  money  laundering  and  terrorist  financing 
purposes, notably the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive9 (4AMLD), which sets out rules 
which  are  designed  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  the  financial  system  for  money  laundering  and 
terrorist  financing  purposes,  and  the  Transfer  of  Funds  Regulation10.  The  transposition  date 
for  the  4AMLD  and  Regulation  (EU)2015/847  has  been  anticipated  to  1  January  2017.  A 
number  of  amendments  to  the  4AMLD  have  been  presented  on  5  July  201611  in  order  to 
reinforce  the  preventive  framework  against  money  laundering,  in  particular  by  addressing 

7 
8 

9 

10 

11 

COM (2015) 185 final of 28 April 2015. 
European  Parliament  resolution  of  23  October  2013  on  organised  crime,  corruption  and  money 
laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (2013/2107(INI)). 
Directive 2015/849/EU on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money 
laundering or terrorist financing (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015). 
Regulation  (EU)2015/847  on  information  accompanying  transfers  of  funds  and  repealing  Regulation 
(EC) No 1781/2006 (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015). 
COM(2016) 450 final of 5 July 2016. 

 
 
                                                 
emerging  risks  and  increasing  the  capacity  of  competent  authorities  to  access  and exchange 
information. 

These  legal  instruments  help  prevent  money  laundering  and  facilitate  investigations  into 
money laundering cases. They do not however tackle the issue of the present initiative, which 
is the absence of a uniform definition of the crime of money laundering and the differences in 
the  type  and  level  of  sanctions  for  this  crime  throughout  the  Union.  After  adoption  by 
colegislators  of  the  proposed  directive,  the  Commission  will  assess  whether  it  will  be 
necessary to revise the 4AMLD with a view to aligning the definition of “criminal activity” as 
reflected in this directive.  

Furthermore, this proposal also reinforces and complements the criminal law framework with 
regard  to  offences  relating  to  terrorist  groups,  in  particular  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  on 
combating  terrorism12,  which  sets  a  comprehensive  definition  of  the  crime  of  terrorist 
financing,  covering  not  only  terrorist  offences,  but  also  terrorist-related  offences  such  as 
recruitment, training and propaganda.  

The present proposal also reinforces the fight against organised crime by complementing the 
Directive  2014/42/EU13  that  aims  at  creating  a  common  set  of  minimum  rules  for  the 
detection,  tracing  and  confiscation  of  proceeds  of  crime  across  the  EU  and  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  2008/841/JHA14  which  criminalises  the  participation  in  an  organised 
criminal group and racketeering.  

Additionally, the current proposal would complement different pieces of EU legislation that 
require  Member  States  to  criminalise  some  forms  of  money  laundering.  It  will  partially 
replace Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA15 as regards the Member States bound by 
this proposal. That Framework Decision aims at approximating national rules on confiscation 
and  on  certain  forms  of  money  laundering  which  Member  States  were  required  to  adopt  in 
accordance with the 1990 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and 
Confiscation of the Proceeds from crime.  

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

The proposed Directive is in line with policy aims pursued by the Union, and in particular: 

– 

12 
13 

14 

15 

16 

The  fight  against  crimes  affecting  the  Union's  financial  interests.  The  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, 
requires  Member  States  to  criminalise  the  laundering  of  the  proceeds  of  crimes 
affecting the Union's financial interests, such as fraud and corruption, as defined in 
the  Convention  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Communities'  financial  interests 
and its protocols. In July 201216 the Commission proposed a Directive on the fight 
against  fraud  to  the  Union’s  financial  interests  by  means  of  criminal  law  which 
should replace the Convention and its protocols for the participating Member States. 
It would introduce new criminal offences affecting the Union's financial interests and 

COM(2015) 625 final of 2 December 2015. 
Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation 
of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union, (OJ L 127, 29.4.2014). 
Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, 
(OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42). 
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, 
5.7.2001, p. 1–2). 
COM (2012) 363 final of 11 June 2012. 

 
 
 
                                                 
foresees that  the  laundering  of  the proceeds  of  such  crimes  should  be  criminalised. 
This proposal is without prejudice to those criminal law rules on money laundering. 

The fight against drug trafficking, consumption and availability, as set out in the EU 
Drugs Strategy (2013-20)17. 

Combating  criminal  activities  such as  wildlife trafficking.  In the 2016 Commission 
Communication  “EU  Action  Plan  against  Wildlife  Trafficking”18,  the  Commission  
called upon Member States to revise their national legislation on money laundering 
to  ensure  that  offences  connected to  wildlife  trafficking  can  be  treated  as  predicate 
offences. 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

– 

– 

2. 

• 

The legal basis for this proposal is Article 83(1) TFEU, which identifies money laundering as 
one  of  the  crimes  with  a  particular  cross-border  dimension.  It  enables  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  to  establish  the  necessary  minimum  rules  on  the  definition  of 
money laundering by means of directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative 
procedure. 

• 

Variable geometry  

Framework  Decision  2001/500/JHA  on  money  laundering,  the  identification,  tracing, 
freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime currently in 
force is applicable to all Member States. 

In accordance with Protocol 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect 
of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaties, the United Kingdom and 
Ireland may decide to  take part in  the adoption of this proposal. They also have  this  option 
after adoption of the proposal. 

Under Protocol 22 on the position of Denmark, Denmark does not take part in the adoption by 
the Council of the measures pursuant to Title V of the TFEU (with the exception of "measures 
determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing 
the  external  borders  of  the  Member  States,  or  measures  relating  to  a  uniform  format  for 
visas"). Therefore, under the arrangements currently in force, Denmark does not take part in 
the adoption of this proposal and will not be bound by it. 

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

Criminals  and  the  financers  of  terrorism  can  move  their  funds  easily  across  borders  with  a 
view  to  disguising their illicit  origins.  Criminal  organisations  and  terrorist  networks operate 
across  different  Member  States.  Illicit  proceeds  are  widely  laundered  in  the  European  legal 
economy.  Evidence  of  organised  crime  investments  is  found  in  almost  all  EU  Member 
States19.  

Organised crime groups increasingly hide and reinvest assets in Member States other than the 
one  where  the  crime  originating  the  property  was  committed20.  This  makes  it  much  more 

17 
18 
19 

20 

EU Drugs Strategy (2013-20), (OJ C 402, 29.12.2012). 
COM (2016)87 final of 26 February 2016. 
From illegal markets to legitimate businesses: the portfolio of organised crime in Europe, Final report 
of Project OCP – Organised Crime Portfolio, March 2015. 
Idem. 

 
 
                                                 
complicated for competent authorities to fight cross-border serious and organised crime in the 
EU as  a whole, and affects the functioning of the Internal Market by distorting competition 
with legitimate businesses and undermining trust in the financial system. 

The  cross-border  dimension  of  money  laundering  is  experienced  by  public  authorities  and 
practitioners  dealing  with  money  laundering  cases  in  their  day-to-day  work:  Financial 
Intelligence  Units  (FIUs)  of  the  EU  Member  States,  in  charge  of  analysing  transactions 
suspected of links to money laundering and terrorist financing and disseminating the results of 
the  analysis  to  competent  authorities,  collaborate  on  a  regular  basis  in  order  to  fulfil  their 
mission. An indication is the number of requests for information and cooperation transmitted 
through FIU.Net, the information exchange tool of EU Financial Intelligence Units: in 2014 
there were 12,076 information exchanges, a number which increased to 17,149 in 201521. The 
proportion  of  Suspicious  Transaction  Reports  (STRs)  involving  other  EU  Member  States 
varies greatly depending on the Member State. Most Member States do not have exact data, 
but a large number of Member States have estimated the number of STRs with a cross-border 
dimension to be between 30% and 50% of the STRs disseminated to competent authorities22. 

Criminal  investigations  on  money  laundering  involving  several  EU  Member  States  are 
frequent.  Estimates  in  one  Member  State  suggest  that  between  10  to  15%  of  cases  have  a 
cross border dimension. In two Member States the same estimate is 20%, and in a couple of 
Member  States  it  reaches  70%.  Five  Member  States  estimate  that  the  proportion  of  money 
laundering  investigations  with  a  cross-border  element  ranges  between  38%  and  50%.  One 
Member State has indicated that around 50% of predicate criminal offences were committed 
abroad23.  

The  cross-border  dimension  of  money  laundering  and  the  need  to  address  this  phenomenon 
through  judicial  cooperation  among  Member  States  are  confirmed  by  the  number  of  cases 
registered  by  Member  States  and  Liaison  Prosecutors  at  Eurojust.  Eurojust  registered  724 
cases on money laundering between 2012 and July 2015, rising from 193 cases in 2013 to 286 
money  laundering  cases  in  2015.  Between  1  January  and  30  September  2016,  Eurojust 
registered  212  cases.  Of  the  160  coordination  meetings  organised  by  Eurojust  between 
January and April 2015, 1/8th (12.5%) related to money laundering, double the percentage of 
2014. Money laundering represents an area of continuing growth in Eurojust’s casework. 

If  no  action  is  taken  at  EU  level,  the  scale  of  the  money  laundering  problem  is  likely  to 
increase  significantly  in  coming  years.  Judicial  and  law  enforcement  authorities  would 
continue  to  face  difficulties  in  dealing  with  the  more  complex  money  laundering  cases, 
allowing  perpetrators  opportunities  to  possibly  ‘forum  shop’  for  EU  jurisdictions  which  do 
not capture, or capture less effectively and comprehensively, certain criminal activities within 
their  anti-money-laundering  legislative  framework.  Continued  money  laundering  activity 
would  ultimately  result in  a  wider societal cost through  continued  criminal  activity and  lost 
tax revenues and could also facilitate the continued funding of terrorist groups. 

• 

Proportionality 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  Article  5(4)  TEU,  the 
proposed  new  Directive  is  limited  to  what  is  necessary  and  proportionate  to  implement 
international obligations and standards, in particular as regards the criminalisation of money 
laundering, in line with the FATF recommendations and the Warsaw Convention. The latter 

21 
22 
23 

Source: Europol. 
Responses by Member States as part of the consultation process. 
Idem. 

 
 
                                                 
goes beyond the FATF Recommendation by making irrelevant whether the predicate offence 
was  subject  to  the  criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  country  where  the  money  laundering  offence 
took  place  and  requiring  countries  to  ensure  that  a  prior  or  simultaneous  conviction  for  the 
predicate offence and the precise establishment of the predicate offence are not a prerequisite 
for a conviction for money laundering.  

The  proposal  elaborates  these  obligations  when  necessary,  in  order  to  improve  cross-border 
cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  and  to  prevent  criminals  from  exploiting  the 
differences between national legislations to their advantage (for instance by criminalising self-
laundering  –  although  limited  to  conversion  or  transfer  and  concealment  or  disguise  –  and 
imposing  minimum  thresholds  for  maximum  sanctions).  The  list  of  predicate  offences 
established in this proposal is also based on the categories of predicate offences of the FATF 
Recommendations  and  the  appendix  to  the  Warsaw  convention,  with  two  exceptions:  this 
proposal also includes cyber-crime and misappropriation as predicate offences. 

The proposal defines the scope of the money laundering offences with a view to covering all 
relevant conduct while limiting it to what is necessary and proportionate. 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

In accordance with Article 83(1) TFEU, the establishment of minimum rules concerning the 
definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of serious crime with a cross-border 
dimension, including money laundering can only be achieved by means of a Directive of the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative 
procedure.  

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

No  ex-post  evaluations  have  been  carried  out  in  existing  provisions  regarding  the 
criminalisation of  money laundering (i.e. point (b) of Article 1 and Article 2 of Framework 
Decision 2001/500/JHA). 

• 

Stakeholder consultations 

The Commission has taken into account the outcome of a survey carried out by an external 
consultant in 2013 which assessed, inter alia, the Member States' compliance with the FATF 
Recommendations,  including  the  recommendation  on  the  criminalisation  of  the  money 
laundering  offence.  A  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  online  questionnaire,  conducted  in 
2013,  believed  an  EU-wide  definition  of  money  laundering  would  be  effective  in  tackling 
cross-border  aspects  of  money  laundering.  The  survey  also  showed  overall  support  for 
harmonisation as regards the range of predicate offences and indicated that the differences in 
this respect give criminals opportunities to launder money in jurisdictions where anti-money 
laundering  measures  are  perceived  to  be  weakest.  This  creates  practical  problems  for 
competent authorities at a cross-border level. The survey also reflected overall support among 
stakeholders to harmonising the criminalisation of self-laundering via an EU measure. 

In October 2016 the Commission consulted Member States about their existing provisions at 
national  level  regarding  the  criminalisation  of  money  laundering,  by  requesting  updated 
information  on  the  basis  of  a  country  fiche  for  each  Member  State.  The  results  of  this 
consultation exercise were reviewed during a meeting with Member States in November 2016 
in which the different approaches to aspects such as the predicate offences, the requirement of 
prior  conviction  or  establishment  of  the  predicate  offence,  the  criminalisation  of  self-
laundering and the level of sanctions were discussed. 

 
 
The  Commission  also  consulted  representatives  of  legal  associations  in  November  2016  in 
order to seek their views on the Commission's outline for a proposed Directive as presented in 
the roadmap. Overall stakeholders stressed the need  for harmonisation of  money laundering 
offences and sanctions in order to tackle money laundering across the EU in a comprehensive 
and  effective  way.  Stakeholders  indicated  that  there  were  frequent  cases  when  differing 
definitions hinder effective cross-border cooperation in the prosecution of money laundering 
offences.  The  elimination  of  significant  differences  in  respective  definitions  of  the  money 
laundering  and  offence  would  allow  for  better  cross  border  information  exchange  and 
cooperation between law enforcement authorities. Aligning the level of sanctions imposed for 
money laundering offences would also provide for more effective enforcement and deterrence 
across the EU. 

The Commission has also consulted EU Agencies in charge of supporting police and judicial 
cooperation between Member States.  

Other data such as Eurostat’s updated report on money laundering as well as the findings of 
the ECOLEF project24 were also taken into account. The Commission has also relied on other 
relevant reports by these organisations, such as the recent typologies report on laundering the 
proceeds of crime issued by Moneyval of 201525.  

• 

Impact assessment 

Given  that  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  mainly  incorporates  international  obligations  and 
standards, this proposal is exceptionally presented without an impact assessment. 

This  proposal  nevertheless  builds  on  the  evidence  gathered  through  external  studies  and 
assessments described in the earlier section and the various stakeholder consultations. 

Various approaches were considered using the available evidence: 

1)  Non-legislative  action  at  EU  or  national  level,  including  guidelines,  exchange  of  best 
practices, training and the development of correspondence tables for predicate offences; 

2)  Limiting  the  proposal  to  FATF  Recommendations,  tailoring  the  EU  definition  of  money 
laundering in line with international standards while allowing Member States a large margin 
of discretion in other areas; 

3.1)  A  proposal  transposing  the  provisions  of  the  Warsaw  Convention;  alleviating  the 
requirements  as  to  the  proof  of  the  predicate  offence  underlying  the  money  laundering 
offence;  

3.2)  A  proposal  transposing  the  provisions  of  the  Warsaw  Convention  but  going  beyond 
international  obligations  in  certain aspects,  to  include  a  definition  of  the  predicate  offences, 
criminalising  self-laundering  and  imposing  minimum  and/or  maximum  thresholds  for 
sanctions; 

4) A proposal defining the various conditions and elements of the money laundering offence 
(including definitions of conversion/transfer of property, concealment, acquisition, possession 

24 

25 

Unger, B (a.o.), Final report of the ECOLEF (The Economic and Legal Effectiveness of Anti Money 
Laundering and Combating Terrorist Financing Policy) project, "The economic and legal effectiveness 
of Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting Terrorist Financing policy", February 2013.   
Typologies report on laundering the proceeds of organised crime, Moneyval, April 2015. 

 
 
 
                                                 
and use  of proceeds of crime), imposing an all-crimes  approach and criminalising negligent 
money laundering. 

On  the  basis  of  the  evidence  gathered  and  previous  assessments  described  above,  the 
Commission has opted for an approach which proposes minimum harmonisation in line with 
the  provisions  of  the  Warsaw  Convention,  going  beyond  international  obligations  only  in 
those areas where action has demonstrable benefits in terms of cross-border cooperation while 
respecting  national  traditions  and  case-law  and  ensuring  consistency  with  EU  law,  i.e.  by 
making  sure  that  all  of  the  offences  as  defined  in  EU  legislative  acts  qualify  as  predicate 
offences for money laundering.  

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

The proposal aims at introducing international obligations and standards in the EU legal order 
and  updating  the  legal  framework  so  as  to  adequately  respond  to  the  cross-border 
phenomenon  of  money  laundering.  This  will  help  Member  States  when  transposing  and 
implementing the relevant provisions.  

• 

Fundamental rights 

 The establishment, implementation and application of criminalisation have to be carried out 
in  full  respect  of  fundamental  rights  obligations.  Any  limitation  on  the  exercise  of 
fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  is  subject  to  the  conditions  set  out  in  Article  52(1)  of  the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  namely  be  subject  to  the  principle  of  proportionality  with 
respect to the legitimate aim of genuinely meeting objectives of general interest recognised by 
the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, be provided for by law and 
respect the essence of those rights and freedoms.  

A variety of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
have to be taken into account in this respect. Rights which are particularly relevant in relation 
to the proposed measures include, but are not limited to, the rights included in Title I of the 
Charter on liberty and security (Article 6 of the Charter), the right to property (Article 17 of 
the Charter), the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47 of the Charter), the 
presumption of innocence and the right of defence (Article 48 of the Charter), the principles 
of legality and proportionality of  criminal offences and penalties (Article 49 of the Charter) 
and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal 
offence (ne bis in idem, Article 50 of the Charter). 

All measures adopted by the Union and its Member States in relation to the criminalisation of 
money  laundering  as  provided  for  in  this  Directive,  and  the  determination  of  criminal  and 
non-criminal sanctions thereof, must be subject to the principle of legality and proportionality 
of  criminal  offences  and  penalties,  to  the  presumption  of  innocence  and  to  the  rights  of 
defence, and should exclude any forms or arbitrariness. 

The respect of fundamental rights in general and the principle of proportionality is respected 
in  limiting  the  scope  of  the  offences  to  what  is  strictly  necessary  to  allow  for  the  effective 
prosecution of acts that pose a particular threat to the EU's internal security. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

This proposal has no immediate budgetary implications for the Union. 

 
 
5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The implementation of the Directive will be monitored by the Commission on the basis of the 
information  provided  by  the  Member  States  on  the  measures  taken  to  bring  into  force  the 
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive. 

The  Commission  shall,  after  two  years  following  the  deadline  for  implementation  of  this 
Directive, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent 
to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Directive. 

• 

Explanatory documents (for directives) 

No explanatory documents on the transposition are considered necessary.  

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

 Article 1: Subject matter and scope. – This provision sets out the purpose and scope of the 
draft  Directive,  in  particular  that  it  establishes  minimum  rules  concerning  the  definition  of 
criminal offences and sanctions in the area of money laundering offences.. 

Article 2: Definitions. – This provision provides definitions for "property" (in relation to the 
offences of money laundering cf. Article 3) in line with EU acquis26 and "legal persons" (in 
relation to the obligation to establish liability of legal persons cf. Article 6). 

While allowing Member States to maintain different approaches as regards predicate offences 
for money laundering (choosing between an all-crimes approach, lists of predicate offences, 
list  of  offences  with  a  minimum  penalty),  this  provision  provides  definitions  of  the  term 
"criminal  activity"  which  constitute  predicate  offences  for  money  laundering.  The  range  of 
criminal activities that generate the property which is laundered, as listed in this provision, is 
in  line  with  Recommendation  3  of  the  Financial  Action  Task  Force  which  requires, 
irrespective  of  the  approach  adopted  to  describe  the  predicate  offences,  the  inclusion  of 
offences from a list of designated categories of offences. The list in this provision  is also in 
line with Article 9 (4) of the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure 
and  Confiscation  of  the  Proceeds  from  Crime  and  on  the  Financing  of  Terrorism  of  2005 
(CETS  No  198),  which  requires  parties  to  the  Convention  to  apply  the  money  laundering 
offence  to  the  categories  of  predicate  offences  in  the  appendix  to  the  Convention.  The 
categories designated by the Financial Action Task Force and the categories in the appendix 
to  the  Convention  correspond  to  the  range  of  criminal  activities  listed  in  Article  2  of  this 
proposal, with one exception: this article also includes cyber-crime as a predicate offence, as 
explained below. 

However,  these  categories  are  simply  listed  and  not  defined  by  the  FATF  or  in  the  2005 
Convention,  leaving  wide  scope  for  national  differences  in  the  range  of  predicate  offences. 
This leads in some Member States to a rather limited scope of predicate offences included in 
national  provisions.  In  addition,  there  is  no  comprehensive  common  understanding  among 
Member States of the underlying criminal activities that generate the property laundered.  

26 

Identical to Article 2 (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering 
or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council,  and  repealing  Directive  2005/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and 
Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 85). 

 
 
                                                 
According to the consultation with Europol, different views on what crimes can lead to money 
laundering make it difficult to prevent financial transactions related to money laundering and 
to prosecute cross-border money laundering to identify whether money laundering took place. 
In  the same line, as  part of the consultation process  Eurojust  referred to  the difficulties that 
Member  States  face  in  the  context  of  investigating  and  prosecuting  cross-border  money 
laundering cases due to the ancillary nature of this type of offence. Other stakeholders have 
also indicated that the differences as regards the predicate offences lead to obstacles in cross-
border  cooperation.  Since  Member  States,  when  requested  to  cooperate  in  investigations  or 
prosecutions regarding money laundering often require that the underlying predicate offence 
would also have been a predicate offence in their own jurisdiction, had it been committed in 
their  Member  State,  cooperation  is  not  always  possible,  and  criminals  successfully  launder 
their criminal proceeds. 

Whenever there is existing legislation in the EU acquis defining any of the predicate offences, 
a  reference  to  the  relevant  EU  legislative  act  is  included  in  order  to  ensure  that  all  of  the 
offences  as  defined  in  that  EU  legislative  act  qualify  for  money  laundering.  This  will 
contribute  to  reducing  existing  discrepancies  and  fostering  a  more  extensive  common 
understanding.  

In addition, there is a need to address the growing menace of cybercrime and attacks against 
information  systems,  in  particular  attacks  linked  to  organised  crime.  Computer  crime  is  the 
only  area  of  crime  mentioned  in  Article  83  TFEU  which  is  not  listed  in  the  categories  of 
offences  designated  by  the  Financial  Action  Task  Force  and  the  Warsaw  Convention.  The 
financial  impact  of  cybercrime  and  the  size  of  related  proceeds  are  hard  to  quantify,  in  the 
absence  of  reliable  data  and  research,  but  cases  show  that  proceeds  from  cybercrime  are 
laundered  through  sophisticated  schemes,  involving  both  traditional  and  new  payment 
methods27. In order to disrupt the financial incentive that drives many cybercrime activities, 
this  provision  qualifies  cybercrime,  including  any  of  the  offences  set  out  in  Directive 
2013/40/EU28, as a predicate offence for money laundering.  

Article  3:  Money  laundering  offences.  –  This  provision  defines  which  offences  should  be 
considered as money laundering offences in the Member States.  

This  provision  implements  Article  9(1)  of  the  Warsaw  Convention  by  defining  the  material 
elements  of  what  constitutes  money  laundering,  i.e.  the  conversion  or  transfer  of  property 
derived  from  criminal  activity  with  the  purpose  of  concealing  or  disguising  its  illicit  origin 
(point (a) of paragraph 1), and the concealment or disguise of its true nature, source, location, 
disposition,  movement,  rights  with  respect  to,  or  ownership  of  the  property  (point  (b)  of 
paragraph 1). 

In  addition,  this  provision  goes  beyond  the  FATF  Recommendation  and  the  Warsaw 
Convention by making obligatory the criminalisation of the acquisition, possession or use of 
the property derived from criminal activity, which in the Warsaw Convention is a possibility 
subject  to  the  constitutional  principles  and  the  basic  concepts  of  the  legal  system  of  each 
country.  The  mere  possession  of  criminal  proceeds  is  not  considered  money  laundering  in 
most Member States29. This proposal respects the different legal traditions of Member States 

27 

28 

29 

Moneyval  Research  report,  Criminal  money  flows  on  the  Internet:  methods,  trends  and  multi-
stakeholder counteraction, March 2012. 
Directive  2013/40/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  August  2013  on  attacks 
against  information  systems  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2005/222/JHA,  (OJ  L  218, 
14.8.2013, p. 8). 
Unger, B. (a.o.), Final report of the ECOLEF project, "The economic and legal effectiveness of Anti-
Money Laundering and Combatting Terrorist Financing policy", February 2013, p.16. 

 
 
                                                 
by enabling the exclusion of self-laundering as to this type of money laundering (see below on 
paragraph 3 of Article 3). 

The  three  types  of  money  laundering  (conversion  or  transfer,  concealment  or  disguise,  and 
acquisition,  possession  or  use)  should  be  criminalised  when  committed  intentionally  in  line 
with  the  Warsaw  Convention.  No  element  of  negligence  is  introduced.  Article  9  (3)  of  the 
Warsaw Convention allows discretion for parties to criminalise cases where the offender "(a) 
suspected that the property was proceeds; and (b) ought to have assumed that the property was 
proceeds."  Diverging  approaches  to  negligent  money  laundering  exist  in  Member  States, 
reflecting the differences in national legal traditions as to the subjective element required for 
the offence, but these divergences have not been identified as a substantial problem for cross-
border  cooperation.  As  this  Directive  only  sets  minimum  rules,  Member  States  are  not 
prevented to criminalise negligent money laundering. 

Furthermore,  paragraph  2  of  this  provision  makes  irrelevant  for  the  money  laundering 
offences as described above to be punishable whether there is or not a prior or simultaneous 
conviction for the underlying criminal activity or whether it can be established in detail who is 
the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated the property or other circumstances of 
that criminal activity. By doing so, this provision implements paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 9 
of  the  Warsaw  Convention  by  ensuring  that  money  laundering  is  criminalised  even  when 
there  is  no  previous  or  simultaneous  conviction  for  the  predicate  offence  and  without 
necessarily establishing precisely which offence the property originated from.  

Eurojust  and  other  stakeholders  have  indicated  that  the  requirement  for  the  precise 
establishment  of  the  predicate  offences  is  an  important  obstacle  that  can  make  the  cross-
border fight against money laundering particularly difficult. According to Europol, most law 
enforcement authorities are required to demonstrate the predicate offence. Linking suspicious 
funds to  a specific  predicate offence is  reported by law enforcement authorities as the  most 
significant  problem  when  investigating  money  laundering:  in  a  multi-jurisdictional  case 
supported  by  Europol,  the  country  in  which  the  predicate  offence  was  committed  failed  to 
answer  mutual  legal  assistance  requests.  All  countries  involved  in  this case  highlighted  that 
the main barrier was linking funds to a specific predicate offence.  

Even  in  Member  States  where  a  money  laundering  conviction  can  be  obtained  simply  by 
proving that the money could not have derived from a legal source, indicators of criminality 
will  usually  be  required  in  order  to  secure  a  conviction  or  confiscation.  Therefore,  the 
approach taken in this provision is consistent with the requirement of the Warsaw Convention 
as well as with national practices.  

Moreover,  the  Warsaw  Convention  stipulates  that  it  should  not  be  a  problem  to  prosecute 
money  laundering  even  if  the  criminal  activity  that  generated  the  funds  was  committed  in 
another  country.  Point  (c)  of  paragraph  2  of  this  proposal  establishes  that  it  is  irrelevant 
whether  the  criminal  activity  that  generated  the  property  was  carried  out  in  the  territory  of 
another Member State or in that of a third country, while allowing Member States discretion 
to apply the double criminality criterion, i.e. that the predicate offence should be criminal in 
the country where it was committed and that it would also be criminal in the Member State 
prosecuting the money laundering offence, had the predicate offence been committed there. 

Finally,  this  provision  requires  Member  States  to  criminalise  self-laundering.  Eurojust 
indicates that the fact that ‘self-laundering’ is not criminalised in all jurisdictions may cause 
difficulties for some Member States to establish a prosecutable offence and to investigate and 
trace  the  flow  of  “black  money”.  Paragraph  3  of  this  Article  clarifies  that  the  obligation  to 
criminalise  self-laundering  is  limited  to  conversion  or  transfer  and  concealment  or  disguise 
and  is  not  applied  to  mere  possession  or  use.  This  approach  takes  into  account  that 
prosecuting a person for the mere 'personal enjoyment' of the proceeds of the own crime for 

 
 
which  he  has  already  been  judged,  in  some  Member  States,  is  considered  to  infringe  the 
principle  of  ne  bis  in  idem,  i.e.  that  a  person  cannot  be  judged  twice  for  the  same  criminal 
conduct30.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  money  laundering  activity  involves  converting  and 
transferring as well as concealing and disguising through the financial system, these activities 
are  clearly  an  additional  criminal  act  distinguishable  from  the  predicate  offence  which 
moreover  causes  additional  or  a  different  type  of  damage  than  that  already  caused  by  the 
predicate offence. This approach is in line with the case law of Member States31. 

Article 4: Incitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt. – This is a provision applicable to the 
offences mentioned above, which requires Member States to criminalise forms of aiding and 
abetting, inciting and attempting many of the mentioned offences. 

Aiding and abetting a money laundering offence may include a large variety of activities that 
range from facilitating or providing counselling to the provision of supportive services for the 
commission of these acts. 

This  provision  ensures  alignment  with  the  definitions  in  international  standards  referred  to 
above. 

In addition, in order to ensure effective deterrence, it is necessary to criminalise incitement, 
making punishable the act of soliciting others to carry out the offences mentioned above.  

Article  5:  Penalties  for  natural  persons.  –  This  provision  is  applicable  to  all  offences  and 
requires Member States to apply effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. 

In  addition,  the  provision  establishes  the  minimum  level  of  the  maximum  sanction. 
Framework  Decision  2001/500/JHA  already  sets  a  minimum  threshold  for  a  maximum 
penalty  of  four  years  for  some  type  of  money  laundering.  This  proposal  sets  the  minimum 
maximum penalty also at four years of imprisonment, at least for serious cases. The definition 
of the minimum threshold also takes into account the existing rules in Member States. 

Setting  a  minimum  level  of  the  maximum  penalty  at  EU  level  will  facilitate  international 
police  and  judicial  cooperation  and  enhance  deterrence.  Different  analyses  have  highlighted 
the  low  level  of  sanctions/fines  and  the  low  prosecution  rates32.  While  this  may  have  a 
number  of  reasons,  including  limited  access,  capacity  or  resources  of  the  competent 
authorities  to  access  and  analyse  the  relevant  information  in  particularly  complex  cases,  a 
narrow  definition  of  the  money  laundering  offence,  low  level  of  sanctions  and  evidentiary 
hurdles must be regarded as contributing to this problem. In addition to enforcement gaps, this 
situation creates a risk of “forum-shopping” by offenders, i.e. criminals carrying out financial 
transactions where they perceive anti-money laundering measures to be weakest.  

Article 6: Aggravating circumstances. – This is a provision applicable to the money laundering 
offences as defined in Article 3 to ensure that when the offence was committed within a criminal 
organisation  in  the  sense  of  Council  Framework  Decision  2008/841/JHA33  or  when  the 
perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, this is considered an 
aggravating circumstance. 

Article 7: Liability of legal persons. – This is a provision applicable to all offences mentioned 
above, which requires Member States to ensure the liability of legal persons, while excluding 

30 

31 
32 
33 

FATF  and  Moneyval  Mutual  evaluation  reports  and  results  of  the  consultation  process  with  Member 
States. 
Idem. 
FATF and Moneyval Mutual Evaluation Reports. 
Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, 
(OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42) 

 
 
                                                 
that such liability is alternative to that of natural persons. The provision is in line with Article 
10 of the Warsaw Convention. 

This  provision  follows  a  standard  formula  that  can  be  found  in  other  EU  legal  instruments, 
obliging Member States to ensure that legal persons can be held liable for offences referred to 
in  Articles  1  to  4  committed  for  their  benefit  by  any  person  with  certain  leading  positions, 
within the legal person. It is not required that such liability be exclusively criminal. 

Article  8:  Sanctions  for  legal  persons.  –  This  provision  is  applicable  to  sanctions  for  legal 
persons. It follows a standard formula that can be found in other EU legal instruments. 

Article 9: Jurisdiction. – This provision applicable to all offences mentioned above, requires 
the  existence  of  competence  bases  for  the  judicial  authorities  which  allow  them  to  initiate 
investigation,  pursue  prosecutions  and  bring  to  judgment  the  offences  defined  in  this 
Directive. 

Article 10: Investigative tools. – This provision aims at ensuring that investigative tools which 
are provided for in national law for organised crime or other serious crime cases can also be 
used in cases of money laundering. 

Article  11:  Replacement  of  certain  provisions  of  Framework  Decision  2001/500/JHA–  This 
provision  replaces  the  current  provisions  in  the  area  of  the  criminalisation  of  money 
laundering  contained  in  point  (b)  of  Article  1  and  Article  2  of  Framework  Decision 
2001/500/JHA in relation to Member States participating in this Directive.  

The provisions related to confiscation included in point (a) of Article 1 and Articles 3 and 4 of 
Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA were replaced by Directive 2014/42/EU. 

 
 
 
2016/0414 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on countering money laundering by criminal law 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article  83(1) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1)  Money  laundering  and  the  associated  financing  of  terrorism  and  organised  crime 
remain significant problems at the Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability 
and  reputation  of  the  financial  sector  and  threatening  the  internal  security  and  the 
internal market of the Union. In order to tackle those problems and also reinforce the 
application of Directive 2015/849/EU1, this Directive aims to tackle money laundering 
by  means  of  criminal  law,  allowing  for  better  cross-border  cooperation  between 
competent authorities.  

(2)  Measures  adopted  solely  at  national  or  even  at  Union  level,  without  taking  into 
account  international  coordination  and  cooperation,  would  have  very  limited  effect. 
The measures adopted by the Union in countering money laundering  should therefore 
be  compatible  with,  and  at  least  as  stringent  as,  other  actions  undertaken  in 
international fora.  

(3) 

Union action should continue to take particular account of the Financial Action Task 
Force (FATF) Recommendations and instruments of other international bodies active 
in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The relevant Union legal 
acts should, where appropriate, be further aligned with the International Standards on 
Combating  Money  Laundering  and  the  Financing  of  Terrorism  and  Proliferation 
adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the ‘revised FATF Recommendations’). As a 
signatory  to  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Laundering,  Search,  Seizure  and 
Confiscation  of  the  Proceeds  from  Crime  and  on  the  Financing  of  Terrorism  (CETS 
No.  198),  the  Union  should  transpose  the  requirements  of  that  Convention  into  its 
legal order. 

1 
Directive  (EU)  2015/849  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  May  2015  on  the 
prevention  of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purposes  of  money  laundering  or  terrorist  financing, 
amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 
2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 
5.6.2015, p.73). 

 
 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

Council  Framework  Decision  2001/500/JHA2  lays  down  requirements  on  the 
criminalisation of money laundering. That Framework Decision is not comprehensive 
enough,  however,  and  the  current  incrimination  of  money  laundering  is  not 
sufficiently  coherent  to  effectively  combat  money  laundering  across  the  Union,  thus 
leading to enforcement gaps and obstacles in the cooperation between the competent 
authorities in different Member States. 

The  definition  of  criminal  activities  which  constitute  predicate  offences  for  money 
laundering  should  be  sufficiently  uniform  in  all  the  Member  States.  Member  States 
should  include  a  range  of  offences  within  each  of  the  categories  designated  by  the 
FATF.  Where  categories  of  offences,  such  as  terrorism  or  environmental  crimes,  are 
set  out  in  Union  law,  this  Directive  refers  to  such  legislation.  This  ensures  that  the 
laundering  of  the  proceeds  of  the  financing  of  terrorism  and  wildlife  trafficking  are 
punishable in the Member States. In cases where Union law allows Member States to 
provide  for other  sanctions  than  criminal  sanctions,  this  Directive  should  not  require 
Member States to establish those cases as predicate offences for the purposes of this 
Directive. 

Tax crimes relating to direct and indirect taxes should be included in the definition of 
criminal  activity,  in  line  with  the  revised  FATF  Recommendations.  Given  that 
different  tax  offences  may  in  each  Member  State  constitute  a  criminal  activity 
punishable  by  means  of  the  sanctions  referred  to  in  this  Directive,  definitions  of  tax 
crimes  may  diverge in  national law. However no harmonisation of the definitions of 
tax crimes in Member States' national law is sought. 

This Directive should not apply to money laundering as regards property derived from 
offences affecting the Union's financial interests, which is subject to specific rules as 
laid  down  in  Directive  2017/XX/EU3.  In  accordance  with  Article  325(2)  TFEU,  the 
Member  States  shall  take  the  same  measures  to  counter  fraud  affecting  the  financial 
interests  of  the  Union  as  they  take  to  counter  fraud  affecting  their  own  financial 
interests. 

(8)  Where  money  laundering  activity  does  not  simply  amount  to  the  mere  possession or 
use, but also involves the transfer or the concealing and disguise of property through 
the  financial  system  and  results  in  further  damage  than  that  already  caused  by  the 
predicate offence, such as damaging the integrity of the financial system, that activity 
should be punished separately. Member States should thus ensure that such conduct is 
also  punishable  when  committed  by  the  perpetrator  of  the  criminal  activity  that 
generated that property (so-called self-laundering). 

(9) 

In order for money laundering to be an effective tool against organised crime, it should 
not be necessary to identify the specifics of the crime that generated the property, let 
alone  require  a  prior  or  simultaneous  conviction  for  that  crime.  Prosecutions  for 
money  laundering  should  also  not  be  impeded  by  the  mere  fact  that  the  predicate 
offence  was  committed  in  another  Member  State  or  third  country,  provided  it  is  a 
criminal offence in that Member State or third country. Member States may establish 
as  a  prerequisite  the  fact  that  the  predicate  offence  would  have  been  a  crime  in  its 
national law, had it been committed there. 

2 

3 

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, 
5.7.2001). 
Directive 2017/XX/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of x x 2017 on the protection of 
the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ x L, xx.xx.2017, p.x). 

 
 
                                                 
(10)  This  Directive  aims  to  criminalise  money  laundering  when  committed  intentionally. 
Intention  and  knowledge  may  be  inferred  from  objective,  factual  circumstances.  As 
this  Directive  provides  for  minimum  rules,  Member  States  are  free  to  adopt  or 
maintain more stringent criminal law rules for money laundering. Member States may, 
for  example,  provide  that  money  laundering  committed  recklessly  or  by  serious 
negligence constitutes a criminal offence. 

(11) 

In order to deter money laundering throughout the Union, Member States should lay 
down  minimum  types  and  levels  of  penalties  when  the  criminal  offences  defined  in 
this  Directive  are  committed.  Where  the  offence  is  committed  within  a  criminal 
organisation  within  the  meaning  of  Council  Framework  Decision  2008/841/JHA4
8  or 
where the perpetrator abused their professional position to enable money laundering, 
Member  States  should  provide  for  aggravating  circumstances  in  accordance  with  the 
applicable rules established by their legal systems.  

(12)  Given the mobility of perpetrators and  proceeds stemming from criminal activities, as 
well as the complex cross-border investigations required to combat money laundering, 
all Member States should establish their jurisdiction in order to enable the competent 
authorities to investigate and prosecute such activities. Member States should thereby 
ensure  that  their  jurisdiction  includes  situations  where  an  offence  is  committed  by 
means of information and communication technology from their territory, whether or 
not based in their territory. 

(13)  This  Directive  should 

replace  certain  provisions  of  Framework  Decision 

2001/500/JHA5 for the Member States bound by this Directive. 

(14)  Since  the  objective  of  this  Directive,  namely  to  subject  money  laundering  in  all 
Member  States  to  effective,  proportionnate  and  dissuasive  criminal  penalties,  cannot 
be sufficiently achieved by Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and 
effects  of  this  Directive,  be  better  achieved  at  Union  level,  the  Union  may  adopt 
measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the 
Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set 
out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that 
objective. 

(14) 

[In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Protocol  (No  21)  on  the  position  of  the  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish to take part 
in the adoption and application of this Directive.  

(15)  AND/OR  

(16) 

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union,  and  without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  that  Protocol,  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Ireland are not taking part in the adoption and application of this Directive and are not 
bound by it or subject to its application.]  

4 

5 

Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, 
(OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42) 
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, 
5.7.2001). 

 
 
                                                 
(17) 

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark 
annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and 
is  not  bound  by  it  or  subject  to  its  application.  Framework  Decision  2001/500/JHA6 
shall continue to be binding upon and applicable to Denmark, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

 Article 1 
Subject matter and scope 

1. 

2. 

This  Directive  establishes  minimum  rules  concerning  the  definition  of  criminal 
offences and sanctions in the area of money laundering. 

This Directive shall not apply to money laundering as regards property derived from 
offences affecting the Union's financial interests, which is subject to specific rules as 
laid down in Directive 2017/XX/EU.  

Article 2 
Definitions 

For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:  

(1)  "criminal  activity"  means  any  kind  of  criminal  involvement  in  the  commission  of  the 
following crimes:  

(a)  participation  in  an  organised  criminal  group  and  racketeering,  including  any 
of the offences set out in Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA;   
terrorism, including any of the offences set out in Directive 2017/XX/EU7;  

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

trafficking  in  human  beings  and  migrant  smuggling,  including  any  of  the 
offences set out  in  Directive 2011/36/EU8 and  Council  Framework  Decision 
2002/946/JHA9; 

sexual  exploitation,  including  any  of  the  offences  set  out  in  Directive 
2011/93/EU10; 

illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, including any 
of the offences set out in Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA11; 

(f) 

illicit arms trafficking; 

6 
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Idem 
Directive  2017/XX/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  X  X  2017  on  combating 
terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism (OJ x L, 
xx.xx.2017, p. x.). 
Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and 
combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims,  and  replacing  Council  Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA (OJ L 101, 15.04.2011, p.1). 
Council  Framework Decision  2002/946/JHA  of  28 November  2002 on the  strengthening of  the  penal 
framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ L 328, 5.12.2002, 
p. 1). 
Directive  2011/93/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  December  2011  on 
combating  the  sexual  abuse  and  sexual  exploitation  of  children  and  child  pornography,  and  replacing 
Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (OJ 335 L, 17.12.2011, p. 1). 
Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on 
the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking (OJ 335 L, 
11.11.2004, p. 8). 

 
 
                                                 
(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

illicit trafficking in stolen goods and other goods;  

corruption,  including  any  of  the  offences  set  out  in  the  Convention  on  the 
fight  against  corruption  involving  officials  of  the  European  Communities  or 
officials  of  Member  States  of  the  European  Union12  and  in  Council 
Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA13; 

fraud,  including  any  of  the  offences  set  out  in  Council  Framework  Decision 
2001/413/JHA14; 

counterfeiting of currency, including any of the offences set out in Directive 
2014/62/EU15; 

(k) 

counterfeiting and piracy of products; 

(l) 

environmental  crime,  including  any  of  the  offences  set  out  of  Directive 
2008/99/EC16 or in Directive 2009/123/EC17; 

(m)  murder, grievous bodily injury; 

(n)  kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking; 

(o) 

(p) 

(q) 

(r) 

(s) 

(t) 

(u) 

(v) 

robbery or theft; 

smuggling (including in relation to customs and excise duties and taxes); 

extortion; 

forgery; 

piracy;  

insider trading and market manipulation, including any of the offences set out 
in Directive 2014/57/EU18;  
cybercrime, including any of the offences set out in Directive 2013/40/EU19;  

all offences, including tax crimes relating to direct taxes and indirect taxes as 
defined  in  the  national  law  of  the  Member  States,  which  are  punishable  by 
deprivation  of  liberty  or  a  detention  order  for  a  maximum  of  more  than  one 
year or, as regards Member States that have a minimum threshold for offences 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials 
of Member States of the European Union.  
Council  Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  of  22  July  2003  on  combating  corruption  in  the  private 
sector (OJ L 192, 31.7.20004, p. 54). 
Council Framework Decision of 28 May 2001 combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of 
payment (OJ 149 L, 2.6.2001, p. 1). 
Directive 2014/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the protection 
of  the  euro  and  other  currencies  against  counterfeiting  by  criminal  law,  and  replacing  Council 
Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA (OJ 151 L, 21.5.2014, p. 1). 
Directive  2008/99/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  November  2008  on  the 
protection of the environment through criminal law (OJ 328 L, 6.12.2008, p. 28). 
Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending 
Directive  2005/35/EC  on  ship-source  pollution  and  on  the  introduction  of  penalties  for  infringements 
(OJ 280 L, 27.10.2009, p.52). 
Directive  2014/57/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  April  2014  on  criminal 
sanctions for market abuse (OJ 173 L, 12.6.2014, p. 179). 
Directive  2013/40/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  August  2013  on  attacks 
against  information  systems  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2005/222/JHA  (OJ  L  218, 
14.8.2013, p. 8). 

 
 
                                                 
in  their  legal  system,  all  offences  punishable  by  deprivation  of  liberty  or  a 
detention order for a minimum of more than six months; 

(2) 

(3) 

"property"  means  assets  of  any  kind,  whether  corporeal  or  incorporeal,  movable  or 
immovable, tangible or intangible, and legal  documents  or instruments in any form 
including electronic or digital, evidencing title to or an interest in such assets; 

"legal  person"  means  any  entity  having  legal  personality  under  the  applicable  law, 
except  for  States  or  public  bodies  in  the  exercise  of  State  authority  and  for  public 
international organisations. 

Article 3 
Money laundering offences 

1. 

Each  Member  State  shall  ensure  that  the  following  conduct  shall  be  a  punishable 
criminal offence, when committed intentionally:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the conversion or transfer of property, knowing that such property is derived 
from criminal activity or from an act of participation in such activity, for the 
purpose  of  concealing  or  disguising  the  illicit  origin  of  the  property  or  of 
assisting any person who is involved in the commission of such an activity to 
evade the legal consequences of that person's action;  

the  concealment  or  disguise  of  the  true  nature,  source,  location,  disposition, 
movement,  rights  with  respect  to,  or  ownership  of,  property,  knowing  that 
such property is derived from criminal activity or from an act of participation 
in such an activity;  

the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing at the time of receipt, 
that  such  property  was  derived  from  criminal  activity  or  from  an  act  of 
participation in such an activity.  

2. 

In  order  for  an  offence  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  to  be  punishable,  it  shall  not  be 
necessary to establish:   

(a) 

(b) 

a prior or simultaneous conviction for the criminal activity that generated the 
property; 

the  identity  of  the  perpetrator  of  the  criminal  activity  that  generated  the 
property or other circumstances relating to that criminal activity; 

(c)  whether the criminal activity that generated the property was carried out in the 
territory  of  another  Member  State  or  in  that  of  a  third  country,  when  the 
relevant conduct is a criminal offence under the national law of the Member 
State or the third country where the conduct was  committed and would be a 
criminal offence under the national law of the Member State implementing or 
applying this Article had it been committed there; 

3. 

The  offences  referred  to  in  points  (a)  and  (b)  of  paragraph  1  shall  also  apply  to 
persons  who  committed  or  participated  in  the  criminal  activity  from  which  the 
property was derived.  

Article 4 
Incitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt 

Each Member State shall ensure that inciting, aiding and abetting and attempting an offence 
referred to in Article 3 shall be punishable.   

 
 
Article 5 
Penalties for natural persons 

1. 

2. 

Each Member State shall ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 shall 
be  punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. 

Each  Member  State  shall  ensure  that  the  offences  referred  to  in  Article  3  shall  be 
punishable  by  a  maximum  term  of  imprisonment  of  at  least  four  years,  at  least  in 
serious cases. 

Article 6  

Aggravating circumstances  

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  following  circumstances  shall  be  regarded  as  aggravating 
circumstances, in relation to the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 when: 

(a) 

(b) 

the  offence  was  committed  within  the  framework  of  a  criminal  organisation 
within the meaning of Framework Decision 2008/84120; or  

the  offender  has  a  contractual  relationship  and  a  responsibility  towards  an 
obliged  entity  or  is  an  obliged  entity  within  the  meaning  of  Article  2  of 
Directive 2015/849/EU and has committed the offence in the exercise of their 
professional activities. 

Article 7 
Liability of legal persons   

1. 

2. 

3. 

Each Member State shall ensure that legal persons can be held liable for any of the 
offences  referred  to  in  Articles  3  and  4  committed  for  the  benefit  of  those  legal 
persons by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal 
person, and having a leading position within the legal person, based on: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a power of representation of the legal person; 

the  authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person; or 

the  authority to exercise control within the legal person. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  legal  persons  can  be  held  liable  where  the  lack  of 
supervision  or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the 
commission of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for the benefit of 
that legal person by a person under its authority. 

Liability  of  legal  persons  under  paragraphs  1  and  2  shall  not  exclude  criminal 
proceedings against natural persons who incite the commission of or are perpetrators 
of , or are accessories to  any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4. 

20 

Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime, 
(OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42). 

 
 
 
                                                 
Article 8 
Sanctions for legal persons  

Each Member State shall ensure that a legal person held liable for offences pursuant to Article 
6 shall be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include 
criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

the exclusion of that legal person from entitlement to public benefits or aid; 

the  temporary  or  permanent  disqualification  of  that  legal  person  from  the 
practice of commercial activities; 

the placing of that legal person under judicial supervision; 

judicial winding-up; 

the  temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  establishments  which  have  been  used 
for committing the offence. 

Article 9 
Jurisdiction  

1. 

2. 

Each  Member  State  shall  establish  its  jurisdiction  over  the  offences  referred  to  in 
Articles 3 and  4 where: 

(a) 

(b) 

the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory; 

the offender is one of its nationals.   

A  Member  State  shall  inform  the  Commission  where  it  decides  to  establish  further 
jurisdiction  over  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  3  and  4  committed  outside  its 
territory where: 

(a) 

(b) 

the offender is a habitual resident in its territory;  

the  offence  is  committed  for  the  benefit  of  a  legal  person  established  in  its 
territory.    

Article 10 
Investigative tools 

Each  Member  State  shall  ensure  that  effective  investigative  tools,  such  as  those  used  in 
countering organised crime or other serious crimes are available to persons, units or services 
responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4.   

Article 11 
Replacement of certain provisions of Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA  

1. 

2. 

This Directive replaces point (b) of Article 1  and Article 2 of Framework Decision 
2001/500/JHA  in  respect  of  the  Member  States  bound  by  this  Directive,  without 
prejudice  to  the  obligations  of  those  Member  States  relating  to  the  date  for 
transposition of that Framework Decision into national law.  

For  the  Member  States  bound  by  this  Directive,  references  to  Framework  Decision 
2001/500/JHA shall be construed as references to this Directive.  

 
 
 
Article 12 
Transposition  

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [24 months after adoption] at 
the  latest.  They  shall  immediately  communicate  the  text  of  those  provisions  to  the 
Commission. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 13 
Reporting  

The Commission shall, by [24 months after the deadline for implementation of this Directive], 
submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which 
the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Directive. 

Article 14 
Entry into force 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 15 
Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President