11 Co-operation between asset recovery
offices of the Member States
| (a)
27399)
6589/2/06 REV 2
(b)
27474
6589/3/06
|
Proposal by the Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Republic of Finland for a Council Decision concerning arrangements for co-operation between asset recovery offices of the Member States
Draft Council Decision concerning arrangements for cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States
|
| Legal base | Articles 30(1)(a) and (b) and 34(2)(c)EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b) 9 May 2006
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 16 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxviii (2005-06), para 7 (10 May 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Justice and Home Affairs Council 1-2 June 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Both cleared
|
Background
11.1 A number of instruments adopted under the EU Treaty seek
to address the issue of tracing and recovering the proceeds of
crime and other property related to the commission of crimes.
In 2004, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and
the United Kingdom agreed to establish the Camden Assets Recovery
Inter-Agency Network (CARIN). CARIN, which is based in The Hague,
is a network of practitioners and experts in the cross-border
identification, freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds
of crime and other property related to crime and seeks to enhance
knowledge of methods and techniques in this field.
11.2 On 10 May 2006 we considered a draft Council
Decision (document (a)) which was intended to build on the creation
of CARIN by providing for the creation and designation by the
Member States of Asset Recovery Offices, which would operate as
contact points for the CARIN network. The proposal provided for
an obligation to ensure co-operation with other asset recovery
offices regardless of the internal status of the office under
its domestic law.
11.3 We noted that the proposal provided that a Member
State might designate up to two asset recovery offices within
the national territory. We also noted the explanation from the
Minister that the Assets Recovery Agency represented England and
Wales in CARIN and the Scottish Drug Agency represented Scotland,
and that these agencies would be likely to be those designated
as asset recovery agencies under the proposed Framework Decision,
but we asked the Minister for his views on whether the provision
would prevent the UK from designating an asset recovery office
for Northern Ireland. We also asked the Minister for his views
on whether the proposal did have the advantages claimed by the
Austrian Presidency.
The revised draft Council Decision
11.4 Document (b) is a revised draft of the Council
Decision. The only substantial amendment is to Article 1 which
makes it clear that the network may also be involved where the
confiscation proceedings are civil in nature.
The Government's view
11.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 16 May the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office (Mr
Vernon Coaker) informs us that in the latest draft of the proposal
Article 1 has been amended to reflect changes which the UK negotiated
in relation to civil recovery proceedings, so as to ensure that
the network might operate in relation both to criminal confiscation
proceedings as well as in relation to civil recovery cases.
11.6 The Minister answers our question about Northern
Ireland in his Explanatory Memorandum in which he states that
the purpose of the initiative is to improve co-operation in this
area by establishing a more formal structure to develop the present
informal arrangements. The Minister explains that the Asset Recovery
Agency represents England and Wales and Northern Ireland in CARIN,
and that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency represents Scotland
in that informal network. The Minister adds that the original
text of the proposal provided for the designation of only one
asset recovery office, as this was thought to improve efficiency
in the work of cross-border asset recovery as the Member State
sending an asset recovery request would only have to send the
request to one place even if the Member State addressed was divided
into several jurisdictions.
11.7 The Minister further explains that the UK found
this to be unacceptable as the position of Scotland, with its
distinctly different legal jurisdiction, would need to be taken
account of. The Minister explains that the UK negotiated a compromise
whereby no more than two offices could be designated in each Member
State, and adds that this reflects the current arrangements under
CARIN, where the UK representatives are based in the Asset Recovery
Agency (in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland)
and in the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency (in relation to Scotland).
11.8 The Minister states that the proposal is likely
to have value as the basis for improved co-operation in the recovery
of assets and comments:
"While informal arrangements on co-operation
are acceptable among a small group of participants, they become
less attractive where the group is much wider. Rules of engagement
then have to be put in place. There are therefore potential benefits
in having a formal but loose framework now to ensure consistent
development."
Conclusion
11.9 We see no reason to dissent from the Minister's
judgement that the proposal may bring some added value to the
existing informal arrangements. We also note the position in relation
to Northern Ireland, and we infer from what the Minister tells
us that the designation of only two asset recovery offices would
not give rise to practical difficulties.
11.10 We now clear both documents.
| 
