COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation
Date: 2022-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, European security, confiscation of property, criminal proceedings, cross-border cooperation, fight against crime, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, offence, organised crime, seizure of goods

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.5.2022  SWD(2022) 246 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation {COM(2022) 245 final} - {SEC(2022) 245 final} - {SWD(2022) 245 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment on the revision of the EU rules on confiscation and asset recovery  

Executive Summary Sheet 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  
Organised  crime  is  one  of  the  greatest  threats  to  the  security  of  the  European  Union.  The  increasingly 
complex  modi  operandi,  sophisticated  means  to  launder  and  hide  illicit  assets  and  the  scale  of  their  vast 
profits, estimated at least EUR 139 billion every year, make disruption of organised crime extremely difficult. 
Recovering illicit profits and ensuring that crime does not pay is essential.  Despite the 2007 Asset Recovery 
Offices  Council  Decision  and  the  2014  Confiscation  Directive  setting  minimum  standards  for  freezing  and 
confiscation, only a minor fraction of illicit assets is taken away from the hands of criminals. The reasons are 
that:  
  Capabilities to swiftly identify, trace and freeze assets is limited given  that law enforcement does 
not prioritise financial investigations and Asset Recovery Offices do not have the resources, powers and 
information to efficiently cooperate across Member States; 

  The  management  of  assets  is  not  always  carried  out  in  an  efficient  way,  since  the  necessary 
specialised knowledge is not always available and measures ensuring that assets do not lose their value 
are  not  systematically  taken.  High  management  costs  and  depreciation  of  assets  is  a  disincentive  to 
launching asset tracing and freezing procedures;  

  Existing confiscation tools do not cover all criminal markets and are not designed to capture criminal 
proceeds  when  criminals,  in  particular  those  at  the  higher  echelons  of  the  criminal  enterprise, 
successfully cover their tracks and hide the illicit origin of their assets. 

  Moreover,  asset  recovery  and  confiscation  is  not  sufficiently  prioritised  with  a  wide  range  of  authorities 

tasked with different roles.     

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  
This initiative is expected to strengthen the capacity of competent authorities to deprive criminals from 
their  illicit  profits,  thereby  disrupting  their  capacity  to  carry  out  further  criminal  activities.  In  pursuit  of  this 
general objective, this initiative aims at achieving four specific objectives:  
  Strengthening asset tracing capabilities by ensuring that competent authorities have the competences 
and resources as well as sufficient access to information to trace assets and cooperate across borders; 
Improve asset management tools to minimise costs and safeguard the value of the assets;   

 
  Strengthen confiscation capabilities, enabling authorities to capture criminal activities and illicit assets 

 

held by organised crime groups and in particular their managerial levels;  
Improve the efficiency of the asset recovery system through a more strategic approach and increased 
cooperation.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
Organised criminal groups split their illicit properties in multiple jurisdictions. National authorities are reliant on 
effective asset tracing and freezing in other Member States and EU wide cooperation mechanisms to recover 
illicit  assets.  Insufficient  asset  recovery  provisions  in  one  Member  State  affect  the  security  of  all  Member 
States  where  organised  crime  groups  use  the  illicit  profits  for  criminal  activities  across  the  EU.  National 
authorities and stakeholders recognised that the European Union is better placed to develop common rules to 
tackle this transnational criminal phenomenon.   

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why?  
Besides a non-legislative option (option 1) focused on the exchange of best practices, guidance and training, 
three  legislative  options  addressing  each  specific  objective  have  been  assessed,  with  option  3  being  the 
preferred option:  
  Objective I: strengthen asset tracing capabilities 

o  Option 2: Strengthening Asset Recovery Offices’ powers, resources and access to databases. 
o  Option 3: In addition to measures foreseen in Option 2, requiring the systematic launch of financial 
investigations  for  a  set  of  crimes,  and  regulating  information  exchange  among  Asset  Recovery 
Offices. 

o  Option 4: In addition to the requirements considered in Option 3, extending the obligation on financial 

investigations to all crimes and introducing 24/7 Asset Recovery Offices contact points. 

  Specific objective II: ensure efficient asset management  

o  Option  2:  Establishing  contact  points  to  facilitate  cross-border  cooperation  between  Asset 

1 

 
 
Management Offices and setting out general principles for asset management.  

o  Option  3:  In  addition  to  measures  foreseen  in  Option  2,  requiring  that  all  Member  States  set  up 
specialised  Asset Management Offices and ensuring that they can sale the assets before they  lose 
value. 

o  Option  4:  Centralising  all  tracing  and  management  tasks  in  one  Asset  Recovery  and  Management 

Office). 

  Specific objective III: strengthen confiscation capabilities  

o  Option 2: Extending the scope of confiscation measures to all ‘eurocrimes’ (i.e. firearms trafficking). 
o  Option  3:  Extending 
the  most 

revenue-producing  organised-crime  crimes 
(counterfeiting, fraud, etc.) and introducing a new confiscation model enabling confiscation of assets 
resulting  from  criminal  activities  but  not  directly  linked  to  a  specific  crime,  and  which  are 
disproportionate to the income of the owner.   

the  scope 

to 

o  Option  4:  In  addition  to  the  measures  in  Option  3,  extending  the  scope  to  all  crimes  (‘all  crimes 

approach’).  

  Specific objective IV: improve the overall efficiency of the asset recovery system 

o  Option  2:  Requiring  Member  States  to  establish  a  national  strategy  on  asset  recovery  setting  out 

common objectives, defining the roles of different actors and the cooperation among them. 

o  Option 3: Setting cooperation obligations and reporting requirements on the functioning of the asset 
recovery  system,  with  possible  recommendations.  Establishment  of  asset  registries  to  track  asset 
recovery decisions. 

o  Option 4: Interconnecting the asset registries of the Member States across the Union. 

Who supports which option?  
The  legislative  intervention  is  in  line  with  the  expectation  of  the  co-legislators,  which  at  the  time  of 
adopting the Confiscation Directive called on the Commission to analyse the feasibility of introducing further 
rules on the confiscation of criminal property in the absence of a conviction. Furthermore, in June 2020 the 
Council  called  the  Commission  to  consider  strengthening  the  legal  framework  on  the  management  of 
frozen  properties  and  granting  Asset  Recovery  Offices  with  additional  powers  such  as  urgent  freezing 
assets and with access to databases. Asset Recovery Offices at the ARO Platform supported this possibility. 
Moreover,  national  authorities  represented  at  the  Confiscation  Contact  Committee  supported  the  option  to 
enlarge the scope of the Confiscation Directive and called for further harmonisation and cooperation in 
relation to asset management.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?                                 
The preferred option (option 3) is expected to contribute in a significant manner to improving the capacity 
of  Member  States  to  deprive  criminals  of  their  illicit  gains.  By  ensuring  that  competent  authorities  have  the 
means to better trace assets, to maintain the value of the property and to effectively confiscate assets derived 
from the relevant criminal activities of organised crime groups the preferred policy option would significantly 
increase  the  potential  volume  of  confiscated  assets.  By  cutting  the  financial  profits  that  drive  criminal 
activity  and  allow  criminals  to  operate,  the  preferred  option  would  contribute  substantially  to  reinforcing 
the  fight  against  organised  crime.  This  will  improve  citizen’s  perception  of  justice  and  increase  the 
opportunities  for  compensating  victims.  Businesses  would  also  benefit  from  a  reduced  criminal  activity, 
including  more  specifically  where  confiscation  possibilities  would  be  extended  to  proceeds  resulting  crimes 
distorting competition such as counterfeiting or  VAT fraud.  Public administrations would also profit from 
increased revenues brought back to the state budget.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?                                  
Under  the  preferred  option  there  will  be  additional  costs  for  the  public  administration  as  both  Asset 
Recovery  Offices  as  well  as  Asses  Management  Offices  will  need  sufficient  resources  to  fulfil  the  tasks 
assigned. The costs estimation is in a range of EUR 30 - 40 million. However, the additional costs are more 
than  offset  by  measures  that  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  entire  asset  recovery  process,  since  the 
measures foreseen could result in an approximate doubling of recovered assets, which now represent EUR 1 
billion  annually.  Overall  the  costs  for  public  administrations  are  expected  to  be  lower  than  the  revenues 
obtained through a reinforced asset recovery system. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  
The  preferred  policy  option  do  not  impose  any  obligation  on  businesses  and  thus  does  not  directly  affect 
them. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
As mentioned above, the preferred option generates additional costs on national budget and administration. 
However, these will be compensated by revenues resulting from the increased confiscation rate and overall 

2 

 
efficiency gains.   

Will there be other significant impacts?  
The  preferred  option  will  affects  fundamental  rights,  particularly  on  the  right  to  property,  procedural  rights 
and  data  protection.  The  preferred  option  will  cover  a  significant  number  of  offences  and  will  facilitate 
confiscation.  As  a  result,  a  higher  number  of  people  and  assets  will  be  affected.  However,  the  preferred 
option includes strong safeguards and will meet the legal and procedural requirements enshrined in the 
existing case law.  

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
The  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  legislative  act  should  be  carried  out,  in  principle  not  earlier  than  five 
years  after  the  deadline  for  implementation  of  the  legislative  act  to  ensure  that  there  is  a  sufficiently  long 
period to evaluate the effects of the initiative after it has been fully implemented across all Member States. 
Such an evaluation would be preceded by implementation reports as well as a monitoring programme. 

3