I will begin by providing some information on the background to the negotiation of the draft Council decision. The draft Council decision before the committee for consideration has resulted from an initiative started by the Austrian, Belgian and Finnish authorities. The initiative seeks to copperfasten and further strengthen the exchange of information, the levels of co-operation and the exchange of best practice between asset recovery offices of the member states. The draft Council decision has received overwhelming support from other member states.
In terms of the subject matter to which the draft Council decision refers, there can be little, if any, doubt about the fact that criminals and criminal gangs will seek to exploit opportunities where they can in order to further their own aims. Criminals have attempted to use jurisdictional boundaries on many occasions to frustrate the efforts of law enforcement officials to bring them to book and make them accountable for their actions before the courts. The use of international boundaries has long been a method of hiding ill-gotten gains where the proceeds of crime accrued in one jurisdiction are transferred to another in order to make the job of tracing money and investments harder to accomplish.
The work carried out by agencies dedicated solely to the task of tracing and recovering assets has helped to ensure attempts by criminals to enjoy the fruits of their illegal endeavours are frustrated. There is evidence that the possibility of having illegal assets seized has proved to be a great deterrent to those involved in criminal activities. In this jurisdiction the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau has been a significant thorn in the side of criminals and it is work which, rightly, receives the support of the public and all elected public representatives. It is work of which which I am proud and which receives my full support, as Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The decent, law abiding members of society demand that the assets of criminals are investigated and, where possible, seized by law enforcement agencies. This demand is not unreasonable. Why should those involved in crime profit from their activities to the detriment of those who contribute to society in a positive way?
In order to be truly effective in the process of asset recovery international co-operation between agencies tasked with this work is a necessity. The domestic successes of the Criminal Assets Bureau in seizing the assets of criminals are well documented and need not be revisited in detail. However, regardless of whatever success we achieve domestically, we can never regard ourselves as being fully effective if we limit or restrain our efforts in an international context. The initiative before the committee seeks to ensure attempts by criminals to derive benefit from assets are frustrated through enhanced international co-operation between asset recovery agencies. It is important to highlight the fact that the activities of the Criminal Assets Bureau have in the past ten years attracted significant and wide-ranging interest from other law enforcement communities. The multidisciplinary model in use by the bureau has been adopted by other jurisdictions in order to tackle their own difficulties.
We must always remember that the primary aim of those involved in hiding assets is to prevent those assets becoming targets for law enforcement agencies. In order to combat the international aspects of these activities, it is necessary that information and intelligence be exchanged between law enforcement agencies rapidly. The timely sharing of information can lead to, or greatly assist in, the tracing and seizure of the proceeds of crime and other property belonging to criminals.
The close co-operation between asset recovery agencies helps ensure that there is a co-operative, coherent and effective approach to tackling criminality by member states of the European Union. The ease with which money can be transferred between jurisdictions requires that there be effective co-operation between all the relevant agencies. We must ensure that adequate provision is made to facilitate direct and timely communication between the relevant authorities in order that effective action can be taken before criminals have to opportunity to frustrate the process of investigation.
This draft Council decision provides a legal basis for the exchange of information among asset recovery offices of all the member states. The draft Council decision is further intended to build upon and expand the existing informal network of EU asset recovery offices. This network is called the Camden Assets Recovery Inter-Agency Network, CARIN, and was formally established at a meeting in The Hague on 22 and 23 September 2004 by Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Ireland was the first country to host a meeting of the group and we have participated both as a member and as part of the steering committee of the group.
The main task of the CARIN network is to improve mutual knowledge of methods and techniques in the cross-border identification, freezing, seizure and confiscation of proceeds of crime. We are in the fortunate position, as I indicated earlier, that we already have a very successful asset recovery agency in operation within this State. The successes of the Criminal Assets Bureau are recognised internationally. The bureau has hosted delegations from many countries including, in the recent past, Romania and Bulgaria. Officers from the bureau have travelled to a number of countries to share their expertise. Ireland is regarded as the standard to which other countries aspire.
Other member states are not as far advanced in the process of developing an asset recovery policy as we are. This draft Council decision will require all member states to create, or designate, such agencies. It is worth reiterating that the model in use in this jurisdiction has been adopted by other member states. Indeed, the expertise of CAB has been called upon many times in terms of advising how best to set up such an agency.
I will now briefly highlight some of the main provisions of the draft Council decision. Article 1 of the draft Council decision requires that each member state set up or delegate an asset recovery agency. This process will help ensure a co-ordinated approach to the tracking of assets across all member states.
In terms of facilitating co-operation between agencies, Article 3.1 permits an asset recovery office of a member state to make a request for information to an asset recovery office of another member state. The rules for such interaction will be those already discussed and agreed under the terms of the Council decision relating to the simplification of the exchange of information among the law enforcement authorities of member states. This particular decision was brought before this committee for consideration in May 2006 and its contents were agreed. The application of an already agreed set of rules will help ensure consistency across all asset recovery agencies.
In order to be proactive in the investigative process, provision is made in the decision for the spontaneous exchange of information between agencies, as set out in Article 4, and for the exchange of best practices as provided for in Article 6. The nature of some investigations is such that, on occasion, information may come to light about assets held in another jurisdiction. The ability to share this information proactively will be of very significant benefit to law enforcement agencies. In practical terms, this provision does not have major implications for us as the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2005 already provides for co-operation between the Criminal Assets Bureau and any police force, or any authority, being an authority with functions related to the recovery of proceeds of crime. The Attorney General has advised that an amendment will be required to the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, as section 8(7) restricts the disclosure of information obtained by the Criminal Assets Bureau to an exhaustive list of recipients. In order to permit CAB to disclose information to all asset recovery agencies in all member states, an amendment will be required.
The very important issue of safeguards is covered in Article 5 of the decision. The established norms and standards which apply to the area of data protection will also apply to the material which is covered by this Council decision. Article 7 of the draft Council decision provides that the Council decision is without prejudice to obligations resulting from instruments of the European Union on mutual legal assistance or mutual recognition of decisions regarding criminal matters.
Article 7 also states that the Council decision is without prejudice to bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements between the member states and third countries on mutual legal assistance. In essence, this provision recognises that there are some areas where co-operation already exists and the text of the draft decision seeks not to impinge on those processes. It was always the intention that this decision would build upon rather than replace the existing mechanisms for co-operation between member states.
In more general terms, though we are an island nation physically separated from Europe, we cannot act alone, nor can we ignore our moral or ethical obligations to participate in the international effort to address issues of common concern. This draft Council decision, when implemented fully, will help ensure that no member state can be used as a safe haven for criminal assets. This decision will also ensure that no asset recovery agency will be forced to act alone without the full support of its international counterparts.
As a measure of the level of international interest in the issue of asset recovery, a seminar on the topic was held in the United Kingdom and attracted representatives of some 44 countries and agencies, including representatives of the Criminal Assets Bureau. The World Bank, Europol and Interpol also had delegates in attendance.
The work and ongoing success of the Criminal Assets Bureau continues to attract the attention of international agencies who regard the response of the Irish authorities as being in the forefront of the fight against those who seek to profit from crime. This ongoing interest reflects very positively on those involved at all levels in the process of fighting crime.
The draft Council decision before the committee today represents a further important step along the path to ensuring that criminals cannot use geographical or international boundaries to their benefit. I am sure that this decision will prove to be of major benefit in the ongoing battle to combat the increasing complexities of international crime and will prove to be of significant help to the asset recovery agencies of all member states. As a member of the European Union, the successful work carried out on behalf of this State by the Criminal Assets Bureau has ensured that Ireland is in the forefront of asset recovery. I believe that our willingness to adopt this undertaking will, once again, underline Ireland's determination that criminals will not be permitted to reap the benefits of their activities, regardless of where they seek to hide assets. I thank the committee for its co-operation in dealing with this matter.
