EUROSTAT
Directorate F: Social Statistics and Information Society /
Doc. ESTAT/CR/TF2008/4
Money-laundering – activities by other organisations
european sourcebook of crime & criminal justice statistics
Document for point 5 of the agenda
Task Force, Crime Data Availability
luxembourg, 6-7November 2008
bechbuilding, Quetelet room
European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics
Martin Killias, Chair
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
Synoptical view of Statutes on Money Laundering and Corruption
A Yale law student, Peter McElligott, who spent several weeks at the University of Zurich has tried to synthesize the definitions of money laundering and corruption that come out of the 33 questionnaires[1] that were fully available during this summer.
His analysis has identified a rather wide consistency in definitions, with (too) many deviations, however, out of which many may be due to misunderstandings. The regional coordinators should go to check with the national correspondents, wherever necessary, the reasons for some deviations in definitions.
L.Money Laundering
a) Standard definition
According to the standard definition, money laundering meansspecific financial transactions to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of money or non-monetary property deriving from criminalactivities.
Where possible, the figures include:
-Receiving and handling of illegally obtained property (but not stolen)
-Attempts
Where possible, the figures exclude:
-Receiving/handling stolen property
-Negligence in knowing the identity of customer or origin of funds
b) National deviations from the standard definition
The following countries were unable to meet the definition in all respects and include in their money laundering statistics
- Receiving and handling illegally obtained property
is generally included except in
-Austria
-Sweden
-UK: Northern Ireland
- Attempts
is generally included except in
-Cyprus
-Sweden
-UK: Northern Ireland
-UK: Scotland
- Receiving and handling of stolen property
is generally excluded except in
-Cyprus
-Russia
-Slovakia
- Negligence in knowing the identity of customer or origin of funds
is generally excluded except in
-Cyprus
-Russia
-Switzerland (police statistics but not conviction statistics)
-Ukraine
c) List of countries following the standard definition
Countries that met criteria correctly (not a real category)
-Iceland
-Italy
-Netherlands
-Croatia
-UK: England and Wales
-Estonia
-Lithuania
-Portugal
-Germany
-Bulgaria
-Albania
-Czech Republic
-Armenia
-Finland (?- their info does not match most of the other data sheets but I think their intent is to show that they met the standard definition)
-Ireland
d) Specific problems with national replies
*Poland did not indicate whether it included or excluded negligence in knowing the identity of customer or origin of funds in its data.
*Latvia gave no information regarding its definition of money laundering
*Denmark penal codes do not include a special article concerning money laundering and gave no information regarding money laundering
*Hungary has no data regarding the inclusion of handling illegally obtained property and attempts in conviction statistics.
*France does not have police statistics but matches the standard definition in conviction statistics
*UK: Scotland does not provide information on whether negligence of identity and source of origin is excluded in police statistics
*Belgium’s definition of money laundering is complex makes them unable to indicate whether they excluded negligence in identity of customer or origin and the receiving and handling of stolen property
*Greece does not indicate police statistics
*Turkey does not communicate conviction statistics and does not indicate whether negligence in identity of customer or origin is excluded
*UK: Northern Ireland provided no conviction information
*Georgia provides no criminal information regarding money laundering and does not indicate what defines money laundering
M.Corruption in the Public Sector
a) Standard definition
According to the standard definition, corruption in the public sector means offering or accepting financial or any other advantage in exchange of favorable treatment by public officials. Where possible, the figures include:
-active and passive corruption
-instigation of corruption
-complicity
-corruption of domestic officials
-corruption of foreign officials
-extortion by public officials
-offering officials advantages without immediate interest
-attempts
Where possible, the figures exclude:
-corruption in the private sector
-extortion (except by a public official)
-bribery of the electorate
b) National deviations from the standard definition
- active and passive corruption
is generally included except in
no deviations have been found
- instigation of corruption
is generally included except in
-Finland
-Portugal
-see endnote!
- complicity
is generally included except in
-Finland
-Portugal
-see endnote!
- corruption of domestic officials
is generally included except in
-Austria: In Austrian law, corruption is, with the exception of briberies taken by the “powerful”, included in a much broader offence, called “punishable violation of officials’ duties” that, beyond corruption, covers many other forms of misbehavior. It is not clear, however, whether this concept includes “active” corruption.
- corruption of foreign officials
is generally included except in
-Austria: it is not clear to what extent that “violation of officials’ duties” covers bribery of foreign officials.
-Finland
-Portugal
-Russia
- extortion by public officials
is generally included except in
-Austria: same question as above.
-Czech Republic
-Denmark
-France
-Finland
-Sweden
-Switzerland (doubtful!)
- offering officials advantages without immediate interest
is generally included except in
-Austria: same remark
-Finland
- attemptsare generally included except in
-Georgia
- corruption in private sectors
is generally excluded except in
-Bulgaria
-Estonia
-Lithuania
-Russia
-Slovakia
- extortion (by an offender other than a public official)
is generally excluded except in
-Bulgaria
-Georgia
-Iceland
-Russia
-Slovakia
-UK: England and Wales
- bribery of the electorate
is generally excluded except in
-Bulgaria
-Georgia
-Iceland
-Russia
-Slovakia
c) List of countries following the standard definition
-Poland
-Italy
-Netherlands
-Ukraine
-Croatia
-UK: Scotland
-Belguim
-Greece
-Turkey
-Cyprus
-Germany
-Albania*
-Armenia
-Ireland
d) Specific problems with national replies
*Latvia did not include information on political corruption
*Sweden does not seem to have police data available on corruption. In the questionnaire, however, the responding person indicated, for all items, that they are “excluded”. This eventually needs to be reviewed.
*Finland andPortugal indicate that instigation and complicity are not covered by the criminal provisions against corruption. These countries having, however, a codified continental system, one should expect that these forms of participation are covered by the general rules on complicity and instigation.
*Hungary’s definition seems to be compatible, but it is unclear because much data is missing
*France does not have police statistics and does not provide data on “instigation to corruption”
*Italy does not have police statistics
*Austrian criminal code has no crime statistic code for corruption
*UK: Scotland no police statistics
*Greece does not have police statistics
*Turkey does not have police statistics
*UK: Northern Ireland does not give corruption statistics
*Slovakia’s response on what they exclude is questionable. Also do not provide conviction statistics.
*Switzerland provides no police statistics on corruption. In the Swiss questionnaire, it is indicated that the criminal law provision on corruption does not cover “extortion”. Careful reading of that criminal code section suggests, however, the opposite conclusion.
*Albania does not provide data concerning the exclusion of “extortion (except by public official)” and the state has only recently changed the penal code so that the penal code matches the requirements of international documents so there may be a lag between implementation and results.
1
[1]Note by Cynthia Tavares: The European Sourcebook Group are currently analysing the responses to the Questionnaire covering some 45 European countries for the period 2003-2007. Statistical data on money- laundering was requested for various stages of the criminal justice system (police statistics and suspected offenders, prosecution, conviction, sanction).Respondents were asked to provide detailed information on the definition of money-laundering and the counting rules applied by each criminal justice agency.