Transcript EUROJUST - Working with Liaison Magistrates, The EJN

Eurojust’s structure, role in
Bankruptcy and Asset Recovery
related activities
Carlos Zeyen
1st Deputy State Prosecutor
National Member for Luxembourg
Member of the CTT and FECT
Outline
•
•
•
•
What is Eurojust and its aims?
Who works there?
How does it work?
Eurojust’s Bankruptcy and Asset
Recovery related activities
• Case examples
• The Future
The European Union
27 EU States
30 Legal Systems
492.8 million people
The Background
• European Union Principle Freedom of
Movement
– People Capital Goods Services
– Minimal, if any, frontier controls
– Mobility & relatively cheap travel
– Computer and internet
• Organised cross-border crime
– Terrorism
– Trafficking in Drugs
– Trafficking in Human Beings
– Serious Fraud (inc. fraud on EU
Budget)
– Car Theft
– Cybercrime
– Corruption
EJN
•
•
•
•
Established in 1998
List of national contact points or intermediaries
Informal group
Task of facilitating judicial co-operation between
EU States particularly in action to combat forms of
serious crime
• Enabling authorities to make the most of direct
contact
• Providing legal and practical information
• Possible co-ordination functions
Mutual Recognition
– European Arrest Warrant
– Freezing Orders Property & Evidence
– Recognition of Financial Penalties
– Confiscation Orders
– European Evidence Warrant
What is Eurojust ?
• A group of 27 EU prosecutors / judges
– One nominated by each Member State
• Aim – ‘to deal more effectively with serious
cross border crime, particularly
when it is organised, and involves
two or more Member States’
- JHA Council Decision of 14 December 2000
Aims
• Improve co-operation between Competent
Authorities in Member States
• Bring better co-ordination of cross-border
investigations and prosecutions
• Exchange of information
• To make recommendations to change laws
to improve MLA & Extradition arrangements
Eurojust - Membership (1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ursula Koller
Michèle Coninsx
Mariana Lilova
Katerina Loizou
Pavel Zeman
Lennart Lindblom
Raivo Sepp
Ritva Sahavirta
Gérard Loubens
Michael Grotz
Lampros Patsavellas
Ilona Lévai
Jarlath Spellman
Eurojust - Membership (2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
–
Italy
–
Lithuania
–
Latvia
–
Luxembourg
–
Malta
The Netherlands–
–
Poland
–
Portugal
–
Romania
–
Slovakia
–
Slovenia
–
Spain
–
Sweden
–
UK
n.a.
Laima Cekeliene
Gunārs Bundzis
Carlos Zeyen
Donatella Frendo Dimech
Arend Vast
Mariusz Skowroński
José Luís Lopes da Mota
Elena Dinu
Ladislav Hamran
Malci Gabrijelčič
Juan Antonio García Jabaloy
Ola Laurell
Aled Williams
Cooperation agreements
Agreement with Norway
28 April 2005, Oslo
Liaison Prosecutor for Norway since 1 October 2005
Kim Sundet, joined Eurojust in November 2006
Agreement with the USA
6 November 2006, Washington
Ms Mary Lee Warren, Liaison Magistrate USA
Cooperation agreements
• Existing agreements with:
– Norway (Liaison Prosecutor)
– Iceland
– USA (Liaison Prosecutor)
– Croatia (not yet entered into force)
– Switzerland (not yet entered into
force)
– The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (not yet entered into force)
Cooperation agreements
•
Pending or potential negotiations:
–
–
–
–
Ukraine
Russian Federation
Montenegro (first meeting in July 2008)
Moldova (first meeting in December
2008)
– Liechtenstein (first meeting in December
2008)
– Cape Verde (first meeting in November
2008)
Memorandum of Understanding
• Memorandum of Understanding
–IberRED (signed on 4 May
2009)
–UNDOC
–ICC
–EULEX Mission in Kosovo
Eurojust Third State Contact
Points
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Albania
Argentina
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Canada
Croatia
fYROM
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Liechtenstein
Moldova
Mongolia
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Montenegro
Norway (LP)
Russian Federation
Serbia
Singapore
Switzerland
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
USA (LP)
Case Evolution 2002 - 2008
1193
1200
1085
1000
771
800
588
600
381
400
300
202
200
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
Years
2006
2007
2008
Requesting Countries 1st January - 31st December 2008
120
104
100
95
86
80
77
77
75
64
60
52
50
42
40
41
39
37
39
33
30
28
27
24
30
23
26
24
20
17
14
0
0
25
14
Requested Countries 1st January - 31st December 2008
300
260
250
200
195
200
183
169
166
150
113
100
93
81
75
61
50
43
0
0
65
60
61
48
56
46
39
38
66
61
43
62
45
37
38
Main Crime Types 1st January - 31st December 2008
600
500
500
400
300
223
192
200
143
83
100
20
0
86
23
102
78
40
46
118
Standard/Complex cases 1st January - 31st December 2008
Standard cases
Complex cases
1200
1025
1000
800
600
400
200
0
168
Number of coordination
meetings 2008
oInside Eurojust
oOutside Eurojust
oTotal
110
22
132
Eurojust Premises, The Hague
HI-TECH MEETING ROOMS
WITH TRANSLATION FACILITIES
Working at Different
Levels
• Level 1
– Plenary Meeting of all 27 National
Members
– Twice each week
• Level 2
– Only those national members involved in a
case
• Level 3
– Investigators & prosecutors dealing with a
case
OPERATIONAL COORDINATION MEETINGS
LEVEL I - meeting
SL
F
LU
27 National Members
...
PL
UK
LU
...
I
NL
LEVEL II - meeting
D
L
S
SL Concerned D
NM’s
UK
SL
SL
SL
BE
LU
LU
CONCERNED NAT. MEMBERS
+ JUDICIAL A/O POLICE
AUTHORITIES OF
CONCERNED COUNTRIES
UK
UK
UK
D
D
D
LEVEL III meeting
An Integrated Approach
Intelligence
Information
Evidence
Confiscation of Assets
Eurojust’s Powers
• Power to request competent authorities :
– to investigate or prosecute specific acts*
– to accept that one country is better placed to
prosecute than another*
– to co-ordinate with one another
– to set up a Joint Investigation Team
– to provide Eurojust with any information
necessary to carry out its tasks*
Counterparts
EUROJUST
NON EU
COUNTRIES
NATIONAL
AUTHORITIES
OLAF
EUROPOL
EUROPEAN
JUDICIAL
NETWORK
LIAISON
MAGISTRATES
Contact Points 2007
ICELAND
NORWAY
CANADA
JAPAN
EUROJUST
COLLEGE
’27’
RUSSIA
USA
SWITZERLAND
SOUTH
AMERICA
CHINA
AFRICA
Confiscation and Asset
Recovery:
Role of Eurojust
36
STATISTICS
2006 - 2008
37
Statistics on cases registered
in Eurojust – 2006-2008
18 cases in 2006
30 cases in 2007
55 cases in 2008
CRIME TYPES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Environmental crime
Participation in criminal organization
Drug Trafficking
Tax Fraud
Corruption
Crime against property
Illicit trafficking in arms
Money Laundering
Terrorism
Forgery
Trafficking in Human Beings
Counterfeiting and Product Piracy
Motor Vehicle Crime
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Forgery of Administrative documents
Advanced Fee Fraud
Illegal transfer of Money
Attempted aggravated fraud
Organised robbery
VAT Fraud
Financing of Terrorism
Criminal offences affecting the EU community’s
financial interests
Fraudulent bankruptcy
Murder
Cybercrime
Fraud by forged documents
38
Applicable legislative instruments
• 2000 Palermo Convention (UN)
• 1990 CoE Convention (Laundering, Search,
Seizure and Confiscation proceeds of crime
• 2000 CD cooperation between FIUs
• CFD 2001 on ML, identification, tracing,
freezing, seizing and confiscating proceeds of
crime
• CFD 2003 EU freezing orders for property or
evidence
• CFD 2005 confiscation of crime related
39
proceeds, instrumentalities and property
Applicable legislative instruments
(2)
• 2006 CFD application of mutual recognition to
confiscation orders
• 2006 CFD exchange of information and
intelligence
between
law
enforcement
authorities
• 2007 CD cooperation between AROs
40
Role of Eurojust
• Facilitation of the mutual recognition of
freezing and confiscation orders
• National Authorities should involve Eurojust
for this purpose
• Confiscation of crime proceeds a global issue
• Need for a fast-tracking of asset seizure,
freezing and confiscation proceedings
• Cooperation with Europol
41
Role of Eurojust
Non conviction based
forfeiture
Eurojust as a body that congregates in
the same building experiences and best
practices of both judicial systems can
facilitate requests coming from both
jurisdictions and be an important link of
cooperation and coordination between
the Asset Recovery Offices either they
are from similar judicial systems or
from different ones.
42
Role of Eurojust
Overcoming obstacles
- Ne Bis in Idem principle;
- Dual criminality;
- Assets’ sharing;
- Conflicts between judicial systems;
43
Typology-AR (1)
• Large scale investment fraud case
• AT, LU, BE,FR,ES,UK and Switzerland
• EJ: coordination and solution of conflict of
jurisdiction
Typology-AR (2)
•
•
•
•
Operation “Balena Blanca”
Professional ML
Modus operandi
EJ: coordination/analysis/tactical/strategic
Typology-AR (3)
• Drug Money
• Searches – property in Portugal (bank
accounts and real estate)
• Germany and Italy
• EJ: coordination and organization of searches
and speeding up
Typology-AR (4)
• Luxembourg-Spanish case
- Description of the facts (BRAHIM – AL
QAEDA)
- EJ’s involvement and contribution
The Future :
Eurojust’s Vision
“To be the key player, and a centre of
excellence,
at judicial level for effective action against
organised cross border crime in the EU”
Eurojust : Building More Effective
Judicial Co-operation & Co-ordination