Vabariigi Valituse seisukohad Euroopa Nõukogu rahapesu ja kriminaaltulu avastamise konventsiooni lisaprotokolli läbirääkimisi käsitleva nõukogu otsuse kohta

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 17.4.2024

COM(2024) 177 final

Recommendation for a

COUNCIL DECISION

authorising the European Commission to participate, on behalf of the European Union,

in negotiations on an additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on

Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the

Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198)

EN 1 EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is submitted to the Council in order for the Commission to receive

authorisation to participate in negotiations on behalf of the European Union on an additional

Protocol (the ‘Protocol’) in the area of criminal asset recovery to the Convention on

Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the

Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198).

Reasons for and objectives of the recommendation

Serious and organised crime is a major threat to security within and beyond the EU as well as

the functioning of our economy. A major feature of organised crime is that it is profit driven.

The revenue obtained through illicit activities is used for other criminal activities or invested

to infiltrate the legal economy. This has far-reaching and destabilising consequences for

society, the rule of law and trust in public authorities.

Approximately EUR 4.1 billion of criminal assets were frozen on average per year in 2020

and 2021 in EU Member States. This represents an increase compared to earlier years, but

it still remains less than 2% of the estimated yearly proceeds of organised crime1.

Depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains is essential for effectively fighting organised

crime. Effective asset recovery deters criminal activity by removing its main driver, while

protecting the integrity of the financial system and broader economy through reducing the

circulation of assets from illicit origin. Moreover, asset recovery allows for the compensation

of the victims of crime, supporting social cohesion and justice. In addition, effective

application of asset recovery measures, including tracing, freezing, confiscation, asset

management and disposal of assets, is proven to be a key tool in uncovering and dismantling

the criminal networks operating at an international level.

The European Union signed the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation

of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198) (‘Warsaw

Convention’ or ‘Convention’)2 on 2 April 2009. The European Union has not ratified the

Convention yet. As of 18 December 2023, 25 Member States3 have signed the Convention, 23

of which4 have ratified it.

The Warsaw Convention, adopted on 16 May 2005, covers multiple aspects of the prevention

and the combatting of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The Warsaw

Convention builds on the Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the

proceeds from crime (CETS No. 141) (‘Strasbourg Convention’)5.

1 Europol (2023), European Financial and Economic Crime Threat Assessment 2023 - The Other Side of

the Coin: An Analysis of Financial and Economic Crime, Publications Office of the European Union,

Luxembourg. 2 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from

Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, CETS No. 198, adopted on 16 May 2005. 3 All EU Member States except Czechia and Ireland have signed the Convention No. 198. 4 All EU Member States except Czechia, Finland, Ireland and Luxembourg have ratified the Convention

No. 198. A number of Member States have made reservations with regard to individual provisions of

the Convention. 5 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds

from Crime, ETS No. 141, adopted on 8 November 1990. The Union is not a Party to this Convention

which does not contain a clause allowing the Union to become a party to the Convention.

EN 2 EN

The Convention criminalises money laundering (Article 9), including negligent money

laundering and stand-alone money laundering. Furthermore, the Convention covers issues

such as corporate liability (Article 10), Financial Intelligence Units (Article 12), investigative

powers and techniques, including the tracing, freezing and seizing of assets (Article 4),

international cooperation, including cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units, the

exchange of information for banking data and mutual legal assistance for investigative

purposes (Articles 15 to 20). Finally, and most importantly for the Additional Protocol, the

Convention covers domestic rules on confiscation (Article 5), including value confiscation,

extended confiscation, asset management (Article 6) and rules on confiscated property

(Article 25) including the return of assets to victims and asset sharing agreements as well as

rules on judicial cooperation for the purposes of asset freezing and confiscation (Articles 21 to

30) and procedural rights and safeguards of affected persons (Articles 31 and 32).

Background for negotiations for an additional Protocol for the Convention

In the area of criminal asset recovery, the criminality landscape has been evolving rapidly

since the adoption of the Convention in 2005. As there are new challenges, and as criminal

proceeds are not confiscated sufficiently, there is an urgent need to have a stronger legal

framework and to facilitate international cooperation regarding asset recovery.

Therefore, the possible need to enhance the effectiveness of the existing legal framework on

asset recovery has been discussed by experts during various intiatives. The Conference of

Parties to the Warsaw Convention (‘C198-COP’) agreed that a new instrument could be

needed to enable Parties to respond to challenges in the areas that are covered by the

Convention.

In 2019, the Committee of Experts on the Operation of European Conventions on Cooperation

in Criminal Matters (‘PC-OC’) completed a comprehensive study on the possible added value

and feasibility of preparing a new binding instrument in the Council of Europe on

international co-operation as regards the management, recovery and sharing of assets derived

from crime.

Further to the findings of this study, the C198-COP and the PC-OC held a number of

consultative meetings. These meetings culminated in the organisation of a Joint session of

C198-COP and PC-OC in November 2022. That session gathered representatives from both

committees and experts from around the globe, including relevant international organisations

and specialised institutes, to discuss and consider the development of an additional instrument

in the field of asset recovery. In the course of the discussions, experts identified the following

topics as most pressing: international cooperation in management and sharing of confiscated

assets (including the enhancement on asset sharing arrangements between States), the

application and execution of non-conviction-based forfeiture and the effective management of

seized and confiscated assets.

The Council of Europe took into account that some of these issues were, at the time, also

addressed in the proposal of the European Commission for a new Directive on asset recovery

and confiscation6. Therefore, it was also essential for the Council of Europe to integrate these

elements into a wider pan-European framework in a timely manner.

At the 15th meeting of the 198-COP on 9 and 10 November 2023 the 198-COP took note of

the planned set-up of a committee of experts on criminal asset recovery, working under the

6 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and

confiscation of 25 May 2022 (COM/2022/245 final).

EN 3 EN

authority of the Committee of Ministers and of the European Committee on Crime Problems

(‘CDPC’)7. Draft terms of reference for a committee of Experts on Criminal Asset Recovery

(‘PC-RAC’) responsible for the drafting of an additional Protocol to the Warsaw Convention

had been prepared and presented at the meeting. According to these draft terms of reference,

the Committee “shall ensure that the draft Additional Protocol includes, inter alia, the

following:

 provisions to enhance certainty and consistency in the sharing of confiscated

assets between States Parties in transnational cases;

 provisions to ensure efficient and effective management of seized, confiscated

and repatriated assets, including the execution of confiscation decisions;

 provisions to facilitate the introduction of non-conviction-based confiscation

procedures and of extended confiscation in criminal matters, including

cooperation regarding and execution of requests in transnational cases;

 any other issue which it deems to be of consequence to strengthen co-operation

among Parties with respect to asset recovery.”

Such issues would in any case relate to the areas covered by the Convention.

On 23 November 2023, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the

Terms of Reference establishing the Committee of Experts on Criminal Asset Recovery. The

Committee of Experts on Criminal Asset Recovery is entrusted, under the authority of the

Committee of Ministers and the European Committee on Crime Problems, to elaborate an

Additional Protocol supplementing the Council of Europe Convention on laundering, search,

seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from crime and on the financing of terrorism, as well

as a draft explanatory report. In line with the discussions held within the 198-COP, this work

was proposed to start on 29 May 2024 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.

Specific objectives of the recommendation

This recommendation is submitted to the Council in order for the Commission to receive

authorisation to negotiate, on behalf of the European Union, an Additional Protocol to the

Convention, to adopt negotiating directives and to appoint the Commission as negotiator,

pursuant to Article 218 TFEU.

The European Union is a signatory to the Warsaw Convention. As regards the subject matters

to be covered by the envisioned Protocol, i.e., the field of asset recovery, the EU has exercised

its competence by adopting common rules based on Articles 82(1), 83(1) and (2), 87(2) of the

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) through in particular Regulation

(EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council8 and the new Directive on

asset recovery and confiscation9.

The aim of the Union in the negotiations should be to ensure the effective recovery of

criminal assets by parties to the Convention and to promote cross-border cooperation in the

7 Meeting report, 15th meeting of the conference of parties of the Council of Europe Convention on

Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of

Terrorism (CETS No. 198) on 9 and 10 November 2023, C198-COP(2023)10. 8 Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on

the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1–38). 9 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and

confiscation of 25 May 2022 (COM/2022/245 final).

EN 4 EN

area of asset recovery, to avoid any discrepancies with Union legislation and to ensure that the

matters regulated in the Protocol at Council of Europe level are compatible with the rules laid

down in the Union’s acquis on asset recovery and the new Directive on asset recovery and

confiscation.

The successful outcome of the negotiations is expected to lead to clearer rules on asset

recovery among Members States of the Council of Europe.

Consistency with existing provisions in the policy area

The negotiations on a new Protocol to the Warsaw Convention directly relate to common EU

rules on asset recovery.

The new Directive on asset recovery provides for standard forms of confiscation, including

rules on extended confiscation. Furthermore, the new Directive provides for non-conviction-

based confiscation in specific circumstances. The new Directive also provides for the

confiscation of unexplained wealth where a conviction is not possible, but the court is

satisfied that the property to be confiscated stems from criminal offences. On asset

management, rules on the establishment of asset management offices and the possibility to

sell frozen property before the confiscation are set out in the new Directive on asset recovery

and confiscation. Joint Action 98/699/JHA10, point (a) of Article 1 and Articles 3 and 4 of

Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA11, and the first four indents of Article 1 and Article 3 of

Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA12, remain in force as regards Denmark.

Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 sets out rules on judicial co-operation between Member States for

the purpose of the recognition and execution of freezing and confiscation orders. This

includes, inter alia, rules on the transmission, recognition and procedure for the execution of

freezing and confiscation orders, the management and disposal of frozen and confiscated

property (including interlocutory sales), restitution of property to victims as well as the

disposal of confiscated property or money obtained after the sale of property, including with a

view to victim compensation and to regulating the sharing of assets between Member States.

Moreover, the Regulation contains rules on the bearing and sharing of costs related to the

execution of cross-border freezing orders and on procedural rights of affected persons,

including as regards notification obligations and legal remedies. Regulation (EU) 2018/1805

replaced Council Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA13 and 2006/783/JHA14, which remain

in force as regards cooperation with Ireland and Denmark, who do not participate in

Regulation (EU) 2018/1805.

In addition, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is the Union body competent to

investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, criminal

offences affecting the financial interests of the Union which are provided for in Directive

10 Joint Action 98/699/JHA of 3 December 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the

Treaty on European Union, on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and

confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds from crime (OJ L 333, 9.12.1998, p. 1). 11 Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification,

tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (OJ L 182,

5.7.2001, p. 1). 12 Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on confiscation of crime-related

proceeds, instrumentalities and property (OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 49). 13 Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of

orders freezing property or evidence (OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45–55). 14 Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of

mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 59–78).

EN 5 EN

(EU) 2017/1371.15 The EPPO should be entitled to order or request the freezing of

instrumentalities or proceeds of crime, including assets, that are expected to be subject to

confiscation by the trial court, where there is reason to believe that the owner, possessor or

controller of those instrumentalities or proceeds will seek to frustrate the judgement ordering

confiscation. To perform its tasks, the EPPO should be in a position to cooperate, including in

the field of asset recovery, with the competent authorities Member States that do not

participate in the EPPO – and it does so on the basis of, among others, Regulation (EU)

2018/1805 – as well as with the competent authorities of non-EU countries.

Given the Union acquis covering the subject-matter of the negotiations, the Union should aim

to ensure coherence, and, to the level appropriate, consistency, between the new rules on asset

recovery at Council of Europe level and those under Union law.

2. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE RECOMMENDATION

• Legal basis

Article 218(3) TFEU provides that the Commission shall submit recommendations to the

Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and nominating

the Union negotiator. The Commission shall be appointed as the negotiator. According to

Article 218(4) TFEU, the Council may address directives to the negotiator. The procedural

legal basis for the Council Decision authorising the Commission to participate, on behalf of

the Union, in the negotiations on the additional Protocol is therefore Article 218(3) and (4)

TFEU.

The substantive legal basis for the envisaged Protocol can only be determined when its

precise scope and content are known. According to Article 4(2)(j) TFEU, the Union has

competence in the area of freedom, security and justice, which is, in principle, shared with the

Member States. Article 83(1) and (2) TFEU empower the Union to establish minimum rules

concerning the definition of criminal offences and the sanctions for such offences, including

the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime. Article 82(1) TFEU empowers the Union

to adopt rules in order to facilitate cooperation between judicial or equivalent authorities of

the Member States in relation to proceedings in criminal matters, and the enforcement of

decisions. Article 82(2) TFEU provides for the approximation of the laws and regulations of

the Member States as regards certain aspects of criminal procedure, including the rights of

individuals in criminal procedure and the rights of victims of crime. While the scope of

Article 83(1) and (2) TFEU is limited in terms of the criminal offences covered, such is not

the case as regards Article 82(1) and (2) TFEU. Measures on asset tracing and asset

identification, or cooperation between asset recovery offices and asset management offices

are covered by Article 87(2) TFEU.

Article 3(2) TFEU provides that the Union has exclusive competence “for the conclusion of

an international agreement (...) in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter

their scope”. In particular, the European Court of Justice has clarified that a “finding that there

is such a risk [of affectation or alteration of EU rules by international commitments] does not

presuppose that the areas covered by the international commitments and those covered by the

EU rules coincide fully” but that “the scope of common EU rules may be affected or altered

by such commitments also where those commitments fall within an area which is already

15 Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight

against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29–

41).

EN 6 EN

largely covered by such rules”16. The analysis of the nature of the Union competence must

take into account the areas covered by the EU rules and by the provisions of the agreement

envisaged, their foreseeable future development and the nature and content of those rules and

those provisions, in order to determine whether the envisaged agreement is capable of

undermining the uniform and consistent application of the EU rules and the proper

functioning of the system which they establish.

The Union has exercised its competence in the area of freedom, security and justice by the

adoption of numerous instruments on law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal

matters and the establishment of minimum rules on measures concerning freezing and

confiscation. Moreover, the Union has adopted several directives that reinforce procedural

rights of suspects and accused persons. The following instruments are particularly relevant

with regard to the elements being considered for the envisaged Protocol, namely the sharing

and management of frozen and confiscated assets, execution of confiscation decisions,

procedures for non-conviction-based confiscation and extended confiscation and cooperation

in transnational cases:

 New Directive on asset recovery and confiscation, which replaces, inter alia

Directive 2014/42 and Framework Decisions 2001/500 and 2005/212;

 Regulation 2018/1805 on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscations

orders;

 Framework Decisions 2003/577 and 2006/783, which provide for mutual

recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders, respectively, remain

applicable for relations between Member States not bound by Regulation

2018/1805 and for relations between the latter Member States and Member

States bound by Regulation 2018/1805 (see recital 52 of Regulation

2018/1805).

In light of the above, the area of criminal asset recovery must be considered as an area which

is largely covered by Union law.

Since the envisaged protocol is likely to contain rules in the area of criminal asset recovery, it

must be regarded as capable of affecting or altering the scope of common rules in the area of

criminal asset recovery.

Therefore, the Union has exclusive external competence based on Article 3(2) TFEU, as

interpreted by the European Court of Justice, in so far as the conclusion of the envisaged

protocol may affect common EU rules or alter their scope.

• Fundamental rights

A variety of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights

of the European Union (‘the Charter’)17 have to be taken into account during the negotiations

on the Protocol. The rights which are particularly relevant include the rights to privacy and

the protection of personal data (Article 7 and 8 of the Charter), the right to property (Article

17 of the Charter) the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47 of the Charter),

the presumption of innocence and the right of defence (Article 48 of the Charter), the

principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties (Article 49 of the

Charter) and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same

16 Case C-114/12, Commission v. Council, ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2014:2151, paragraph 69-70. 17 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 389–405.

EN 7 EN

criminal offence (ne bis in idem, Article 50 of the Charter). As the participation in the

negotiations on behalf of the European Union should not compromise the level of protection

of fundamental rights in the Union, this initiative proposes to pursue a high level of protection

of fundamental rights.

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

Not applicable.

• Proportionality

This initiative does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the policy objectives at stake.

The Union is best placed to act as the Union has already exercised internal competence in this

area through the adoption of various legal instrument in the area of asset recovery.

Therefore, a common EU approach should be taken in the negotiations to avoid discrepancies

between the the rules on asset recovery at Council of Europe level with Union law.

EN 8 EN

Recommendation for a

COUNCIL DECISION

authorising the European Commission to participate, on behalf of the European Union,

in negotiations on an additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on

Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the

Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular

Article 218(3) and (4) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The Union signed the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation

of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198) on 2

April 2009. As of 18 December 2023, 25 Member States1 have signed the

Convention, 23 of which2 have ratified it.

(2) On 23 November 2023, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

adopted the Terms of Reference establishing the Committee of Experts on Criminal

Asset Recovery. The Committee of Experts on Criminal Asset Recovery is entrusted,

under the authority of the Committee of Ministers and the European Committee on

Crime Problems, to elaborate an additional Protocol supplementing the Council of

Europe Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds

from crime and on the financing of terrorism. This work was proposed to start on 29

May 2024 and to be completed by the end of 2025.

(3) According to the Terms of Reference, the envisaged additional Protocol is likely to

contain provisions "to enhance certainty and consistency in the sharing of confiscated

assets between States Parties in transnational cases, provisions to ensure efficient and

effective management of seized, confiscated and repatriated assets, including the

execution of confiscation decisions, provisions to facilitate the introduction of non-

conviction-based confiscation procedures and of extended confiscation in criminal

matters, including cooperation regarding and execution of requests in transnational

cases and any other issue which it deems to be of consequence to strengthen co-

operation among Parties with respect to asset recovery”.

(4) The Union has already adopted common rules that overlap to a large extent with

certain elements being considered for the content of the envisaged additional

Protocol. Those common rules include in particular the Directive on asset recovery

1 All EU Member States except Czechia and Ireland have signed the Convention No. 198 with or without

reservations. 2 All EU Member States except Czechia, Finland, Ireland and Luxembourg have ratified the Convention

No. 198.

EN 9 EN

and confiscation and Regulation 2018/18053 on the mutual recognition of freezing

orders and confiscation orders Moreover, Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA4 and

2006/783/JHA5 remain applicable in the relations between certain Member States.

Therefore, the area of criminal asset recovery is an area already covered to a large

extent by Union rules which risk being affected or altered in scope by the elements

being considered for the envisaged additional Protocol.

(5) Therefore, the Union should participate in the negotiations on an additional Protocol

supplementing the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of

the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198).

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Commission is hereby authorised to negotiate, on behalf of the Union, the additional

Protocol of the Council of Europe Convention Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure

and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No.

198).

Article 2

The negotiating directives are set out in the Annex.

Article 3

The negotiations shall be conducted in consultation with the [name of the special committee to

be inserted by the Council].

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Commission.

3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on

the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1805/oj). 4 Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of

orders freezing property or evidence (OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45,

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2003/577/oj). 5 Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of

mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 59, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2006/783/oj).

EN 10 EN

Done at Brussels,

For the Council

The President

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 17.4.2024

COM(2024) 177 final

Recommendation for a

COUNCIL DECISION

authorising the European Commission to participate, on behalf of the European Union,

in negotiations on an additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on

Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the

Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198)

EN 1 EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is submitted to the Council in order for the Commission to receive

authorisation to participate in negotiations on behalf of the European Union on an additional

Protocol (the ‘Protocol’) in the area of criminal asset recovery to the Convention on Laundering,

Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism

(CETS No. 198).

Reasons for and objectives of the recommendation

Serious and organised crime is a major threat to security within and beyond the EU as well as

the functioning of our economy. A major feature of organised crime is that it is profit driven.

The revenue obtained through illicit activities is used for other criminal activities or invested

to infiltrate the legal economy. This has far-reaching and destabilising consequences for society,

the rule of law and trust in public authorities.

Approximately EUR 4.1 billion of criminal assets were frozen on average per year in 2020 and

2021 in EU Member States. This represents an increase compared to earlier years, but it still

remains less than 2% of the estimated yearly proceeds of organised crime1.

Depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains is essential for effectively fighting organised crime.

Effective asset recovery deters criminal activity by removing its main driver, while protecting

the integrity of the financial system and broader economy through reducing the circulation of

assets from illicit origin. Moreover, asset recovery allows for the compensation of the victims

of crime, supporting social cohesion and justice. In addition, effective application of asset

recovery measures, including tracing, freezing, confiscation, asset management and disposal of

assets, is proven to be a key tool in uncovering and dismantling the criminal networks operating

at an international level.

The European Union signed the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation

of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198) (‘Warsaw

Convention’ or ‘Convention’)2 on 2 April 2009. The European Union has not ratified the

Convention yet. As of 18 December 2023, 25 Member States3 have signed the Convention, 23

of which4 have ratified it.

The Warsaw Convention, adopted on 16 May 2005, covers multiple aspects of the prevention

and the combatting of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The Warsaw

Convention builds on the Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the

proceeds from crime (CETS No. 141) (‘Strasbourg Convention’)5.

1 Europol (2023), European Financial and Economic Crime Threat Assessment 2023 - The Other Side of

the Coin: An Analysis of Financial and Economic Crime, Publications Office of the European Union,

Luxembourg. 2 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from

Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, CETS No. 198, adopted on 16 May 2005. 3 All EU Member States except Czechia and Ireland have signed the Convention No. 198. 4 All EU Member States except Czechia, Finland, Ireland and Luxembourg have ratified the Convention

No. 198. A number of Member States have made reservations with regard to individual provisions of the

Convention. 5 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds

from Crime, ETS No. 141, adopted on 8 November 1990. The Union is not a Party to this Convention

which does not contain a clause allowing the Union to become a party to the Convention.

EN 2 EN

The Convention criminalises money laundering (Article 9), including negligent money

laundering and stand-alone money laundering. Furthermore, the Convention covers issues such

as corporate liability (Article 10), Financial Intelligence Units (Article 12), investigative powers

and techniques, including the tracing, freezing and seizing of assets (Article 4), international

cooperation, including cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units, the exchange of

information for banking data and mutual legal assistance for investigative purposes (Articles

15 to 20). Finally, and most importantly for the Additional Protocol, the Convention covers

domestic rules on confiscation (Article 5), including value confiscation, extended confiscation,

asset management (Article 6) and rules on confiscated property (Article 25) including the return

of assets to victims and asset sharing agreements as well as rules on judicial cooperation for the

purposes of asset freezing and confiscation (Articles 21 to 30) and procedural rights and

safeguards of affected persons (Articles 31 and 32).

Background for negotiations for an additional Protocol for the Convention

In the area of criminal asset recovery, the criminality landscape has been evolving rapidly since

the adoption of the Convention in 2005. As there are new challenges, and as criminal proceeds

are not confiscated sufficiently, there is an urgent need to have a stronger legal framework and

to facilitate international cooperation regarding asset recovery.

Therefore, the possible need to enhance the effectiveness of the existing legal framework on

asset recovery has been discussed by experts during various intiatives. The Conference of

Parties to the Warsaw Convention (‘C198-COP’) agreed that a new instrument could be needed

to enable Parties to respond to challenges in the areas that are covered by the Convention.

In 2019, the Committee of Experts on the Operation of European Conventions on Cooperation

in Criminal Matters (‘PC-OC’) completed a comprehensive study on the possible added value

and feasibility of preparing a new binding instrument in the Council of Europe on international

co-operation as regards the management, recovery and sharing of assets derived from crime.

Further to the findings of this study, the C198-COP and the PC-OC held a number of

consultative meetings. These meetings culminated in the organisation of a Joint session of

C198-COP and PC-OC in November 2022. That session gathered representatives from both

committees and experts from around the globe, including relevant international organisations

and specialised institutes, to discuss and consider the development of an additional instrument

in the field of asset recovery. In the course of the discussions, experts identified the following

topics as most pressing: international cooperation in management and sharing of confiscated

assets (including the enhancement on asset sharing arrangements between States), the

application and execution of non-conviction-based forfeiture and the effective management of

seized and confiscated assets.

The Council of Europe took into account that some of these issues were, at the time, also

addressed in the proposal of the European Commission for a new Directive on asset recovery

and confiscation6. Therefore, it was also essential for the Council of Europe to integrate these

elements into a wider pan-European framework in a timely manner.

At the 15th meeting of the 198-COP on 9 and 10 November 2023 the 198-COP took note of the

planned set-up of a committee of experts on criminal asset recovery, working under the

authority of the Committee of Ministers and of the European Committee on Crime Problems

6 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation

of 25 May 2022 (COM/2022/245 final).

EN 3 EN

(‘CDPC’)7. Draft terms of reference for a committee of Experts on Criminal Asset Recovery

(‘PC-RAC’) responsible for the drafting of an additional Protocol to the Warsaw Convention

had been prepared and presented at the meeting. According to these draft terms of reference,

the Committee “shall ensure that the draft Additional Protocol includes, inter alia, the

following:

 provisions to enhance certainty and consistency in the sharing of confiscated

assets between States Parties in transnational cases;

 provisions to ensure efficient and effective management of seized, confiscated

and repatriated assets, including the execution of confiscation decisions;

 provisions to facilitate the introduction of non-conviction-based confiscation

procedures and of extended confiscation in criminal matters, including

cooperation regarding and execution of requests in transnational cases;

 any other issue which it deems to be of consequence to strengthen co-operation

among Parties with respect to asset recovery.”

Such issues would in any case relate to the areas covered by the Convention.

On 23 November 2023, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Terms

of Reference establishing the Committee of Experts on Criminal Asset Recovery. The

Committee of Experts on Criminal Asset Recovery is entrusted, under the authority of the

Committee of Ministers and the European Committee on Crime Problems, to elaborate an

Additional Protocol supplementing the Council of Europe Convention on laundering, search,

seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from crime and on the financing of terrorism, as well

as a draft explanatory report. In line with the discussions held within the 198-COP, this work

was proposed to start on 29 May 2024 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.

Specific objectives of the recommendation

This recommendation is submitted to the Council in order for the Commission to receive

authorisation to negotiate, on behalf of the European Union, an Additional Protocol to the

Convention, to adopt negotiating directives and to appoint the Commission as negotiator,

pursuant to Article 218 TFEU.

The European Union is a signatory to the Warsaw Convention. As regards the subject matters

to be covered by the envisioned Protocol, i.e., the field of asset recovery, the EU has exercised

its competence by adopting common rules based on Articles 82(1), 83(1) and (2), 87(2) of the

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) through in particular Regulation

(EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council8 and the new Directive on asset

recovery and confiscation9.

The aim of the Union in the negotiations should be to ensure the effective recovery of criminal

assets by parties to the Convention and to promote cross-border cooperation in the area of asset

recovery, to avoid any discrepancies with Union legislation and to ensure that the matters

7 Meeting report, 15th meeting of the conference of parties of the Council of Europe Convention on

Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of

Terrorism (CETS No. 198) on 9 and 10 November 2023, C198-COP(2023)10. 8 Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the

mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1–38). 9 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation

of 25 May 2022 (COM/2022/245 final).

EN 4 EN

regulated in the Protocol at Council of Europe level are compatible with the rules laid down in

the Union’s acquis on asset recovery and the new Directive on asset recovery and confiscation.

The successful outcome of the negotiations is expected to lead to clearer rules on asset recovery

among Members States of the Council of Europe.

Consistency with existing provisions in the policy area

The negotiations on a new Protocol to the Warsaw Convention directly relate to common EU

rules on asset recovery.

The new Directive on asset recovery provides for standard forms of confiscation, including

rules on extended confiscation. Furthermore, the new Directive provides for non-conviction-

based confiscation in specific circumstances. The new Directive also provides for the

confiscation of unexplained wealth where a conviction is not possible, but the court is satisfied

that the property to be confiscated stems from criminal offences. On asset management, rules

on the establishment of asset management offices and the possibility to sell frozen property

before the confiscation are set out in the new Directive on asset recovery and confiscation. Joint

Action 98/699/JHA10, point (a) of Article 1 and Articles 3 and 4 of Framework Decision

2001/500/JHA11, and the first four indents of Article 1 and Article 3 of Framework Decision

2005/212/JHA12, remain in force as regards Denmark.

Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 sets out rules on judicial co-operation between Member States for

the purpose of the recognition and execution of freezing and confiscation orders. This includes,

inter alia, rules on the transmission, recognition and procedure for the execution of freezing

and confiscation orders, the management and disposal of frozen and confiscated property

(including interlocutory sales), restitution of property to victims as well as the disposal of

confiscated property or money obtained after the sale of property, including with a view to

victim compensation and to regulating the sharing of assets between Member States. Moreover,

the Regulation contains rules on the bearing and sharing of costs related to the execution of

cross-border freezing orders and on procedural rights of affected persons, including as regards

notification obligations and legal remedies. Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 replaced Council

Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA13 and 2006/783/JHA14, which remain in force as regards

cooperation with Ireland and Denmark, who do not participate in Regulation (EU) 2018/1805.

In addition, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is the Union body competent to

investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, criminal

offences affecting the financial interests of the Union which are provided for in Directive (EU)

2017/1371.15 The EPPO should be entitled to order or request the freezing of instrumentalities

or proceeds of crime, including assets, that are expected to be subject to confiscation by the trial

court, where there is reason to believe that the owner, possessor or controller of those

10 Joint Action 98/699/JHA of 3 December 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the

Treaty on European Union, on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and

confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds from crime (OJ L 333, 9.12.1998, p. 1). 11 Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification,

tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (OJ L 182,

5.7.2001, p. 1). 12 Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on confiscation of crime-related

proceeds, instrumentalities and property (OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 49). 13 Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of

orders freezing property or evidence (OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45–55). 14 Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of

mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 59–78). 15 Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight

against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29–41).

EN 5 EN

instrumentalities or proceeds will seek to frustrate the judgement ordering confiscation. To

perform its tasks, the EPPO should be in a position to cooperate, including in the field of asset

recovery, with the competent authorities Member States that do not participate in the EPPO –

and it does so on the basis of, among others, Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 – as well as with the

competent authorities of non-EU countries.

Given the Union acquis covering the subject-matter of the negotiations, the Union should aim

to ensure coherence, and, to the level appropriate, consistency, between the new rules on asset

recovery at Council of Europe level and those under Union law.

2. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE RECOMMENDATION

• Legal basis

Article 218(3) TFEU provides that the Commission shall submit recommendations to the

Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and nominating

the Union negotiator. The Commission shall be appointed as the negotiator. According to

Article 218(4) TFEU, the Council may address directives to the negotiator. The procedural legal

basis for the Council Decision authorising the Commission to participate, on behalf of the

Union, in the negotiations on the additional Protocol is therefore Article 218(3) and (4) TFEU.

The substantive legal basis for the envisaged Protocol can only be determined when its precise

scope and content are known. According to Article 4(2)(j) TFEU, the Union has competence in

the area of freedom, security and justice, which is, in principle, shared with the Member States.

Article 83(1) and (2) TFEU empower the Union to establish minimum rules concerning the

definition of criminal offences and the sanctions for such offences, including the freezing and

confiscation of proceeds of crime. Article 82(1) TFEU empowers the Union to adopt rules in

order to facilitate cooperation between judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States

in relation to proceedings in criminal matters, and the enforcement of decisions. Article 82(2)

TFEU provides for the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States as

regards certain aspects of criminal procedure, including the rights of individuals in criminal

procedure and the rights of victims of crime. While the scope of Article 83(1) and (2) TFEU is

limited in terms of the criminal offences covered, such is not the case as regards Article 82(1)

and (2) TFEU. Measures on asset tracing and asset identification, or cooperation between asset

recovery offices and asset management offices are covered by Article 87(2) TFEU.

Article 3(2) TFEU provides that the Union has exclusive competence “for the conclusion of an

international agreement (...) in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their

scope”. In particular, the European Court of Justice has clarified that a “finding that there is

such a risk [of affectation or alteration of EU rules by international commitments] does not

presuppose that the areas covered by the international commitments and those covered by the

EU rules coincide fully” but that “the scope of common EU rules may be affected or altered by

such commitments also where those commitments fall within an area which is already largely

covered by such rules”16. The analysis of the nature of the Union competence must take into

account the areas covered by the EU rules and by the provisions of the agreement envisaged,

their foreseeable future development and the nature and content of those rules and those

provisions, in order to determine whether the envisaged agreement is capable of undermining

the uniform and consistent application of the EU rules and the proper functioning of the system

which they establish.

16 Case C-114/12, Commission v. Council, ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2014:2151, paragraph 69-70.

EN 6 EN

The Union has exercised its competence in the area of freedom, security and justice by the

adoption of numerous instruments on law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal

matters and the establishment of minimum rules on measures concerning freezing and

confiscation. Moreover, the Union has adopted several directives that reinforce procedural

rights of suspects and accused persons. The following instruments are particularly relevant with

regard to the elements being considered for the envisaged Protocol, namely the sharing and

management of frozen and confiscated assets, execution of confiscation decisions, procedures

for non-conviction-based confiscation and extended confiscation and cooperation in

transnational cases:

 New Directive on asset recovery and confiscation, which replaces, inter alia

Directive 2014/42 and Framework Decisions 2001/500 and 2005/212;

 Regulation 2018/1805 on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscations

orders;

 Framework Decisions 2003/577 and 2006/783, which provide for mutual

recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders, respectively, remain

applicable for relations between Member States not bound by Regulation

2018/1805 and for relations between the latter Member States and Member

States bound by Regulation 2018/1805 (see recital 52 of Regulation 2018/1805).

In light of the above, the area of criminal asset recovery must be considered as an area which

is largely covered by Union law.

Since the envisaged protocol is likely to contain rules in the area of criminal asset recovery, it

must be regarded as capable of affecting or altering the scope of common rules in the area of

criminal asset recovery.

Therefore, the Union has exclusive external competence based on Article 3(2) TFEU, as

interpreted by the European Court of Justice, in so far as the conclusion of the envisaged

protocol may affect common EU rules or alter their scope.

• Fundamental rights

A variety of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights

of the European Union (‘the Charter’)17 have to be taken into account during the negotiations

on the Protocol. The rights which are particularly relevant include the rights to privacy and the

protection of personal data (Article 7 and 8 of the Charter), the right to property (Article 17 of

the Charter) the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47 of the Charter), the

presumption of innocence and the right of defence (Article 48 of the Charter), the principles of

legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties (Article 49 of the Charter) and

the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence

(ne bis in idem, Article 50 of the Charter). As the participation in the negotiations on behalf of

the European Union should not compromise the level of protection of fundamental rights in the

Union, this initiative proposes to pursue a high level of protection of fundamental rights.

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

Not applicable.

17 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 389–405.

EN 7 EN

• Proportionality

This initiative does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the policy objectives at stake.

The Union is best placed to act as the Union has already exercised internal competence in this

area through the adoption of various legal instrument in the area of asset recovery.

Therefore, a common EU approach should be taken in the negotiations to avoid discrepancies

between the the rules on asset recovery at Council of Europe level with Union law.

EN 8 EN

Recommendation for a

COUNCIL DECISION

authorising the European Commission to participate, on behalf of the European Union,

in negotiations on an additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on

Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the

Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article

218(3) and (4) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The Union signed the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of

the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198) on 2

April 2009. As of 18 December 2023, 25 Member States1 have signed the Convention,

23 of which2 have ratified it.

(2) On 23 November 2023, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted

the Terms of Reference establishing the Committee of Experts on Criminal Asset

Recovery. The Committee of Experts on Criminal Asset Recovery is entrusted, under

the authority of the Committee of Ministers and the European Committee on Crime

Problems, to elaborate an additional Protocol supplementing the Council of Europe

Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from crime

and on the financing of terrorism. This work was proposed to start on 29 May 2024

and to be completed by the end of 2025.

(3) According to the Terms of Reference, the envisaged additional Protocol is likely to

contain provisions "to enhance certainty and consistency in the sharing of confiscated

assets between States Parties in transnational cases, provisions to ensure efficient and

effective management of seized, confiscated and repatriated assets, including the

execution of confiscation decisions, provisions to facilitate the introduction of non-

conviction-based confiscation procedures and of extended confiscation in criminal

matters, including cooperation regarding and execution of requests in transnational

cases and any other issue which it deems to be of consequence to strengthen co-

operation among Parties with respect to asset recovery”.

(4) The Union has already adopted common rules that overlap to a large extent with certain

elements being considered for the content of the envisaged additional Protocol. Those

common rules include in particular the Directive on asset recovery and confiscation

1 All EU Member States except Czechia and Ireland have signed the Convention No. 198 with or without

reservations. 2 All EU Member States except Czechia, Finland, Ireland and Luxembourg have ratified the Convention

No. 198.

EN 9 EN

and Regulation 2018/18053 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and

confiscation orders Moreover, Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA4 and

2006/783/JHA5 remain applicable in the relations between certain Member States.

Therefore, the area of criminal asset recovery is an area already covered to a large

extent by Union rules which risk being affected or altered in scope by the elements

being considered for the envisaged additional Protocol.

(5) Therefore, the Union should participate in the negotiations on an additional Protocol

supplementing the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the

Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198).

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Commission is hereby authorised to negotiate, on behalf of the Union, the additional

Protocol of the Council of Europe Convention Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and

Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198).

Article 2

The negotiating directives are set out in the Annex.

Article 3

The negotiations shall be conducted in consultation with the [name of the special committee to

be inserted by the Council].

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Commission.

Done at Brussels,

For the Council

The President

3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the

mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1805/oj). 4 Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of

orders freezing property or evidence (OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45,

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2003/577/oj). 5 Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of

mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 59, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2006/783/oj).

1

SELETUSKIRI

1. Sissejuhatus

Vabariigi Valitsuse seisukoht antakse Euroopa Liidu nõukogu otsuse eelnõu kohta:

- nõukogu otsus, millega antakse Euroopa Komisjonile luba osaleda Euroopa Liidu nimel

läbirääkimistel rahapesu, kriminaaltulu avastamist, arestimist ja konfiskeerimist ning

terrorismi rahastamist käsitleva Euroopa Nõukogu konventsiooni (CETS nr 198)

lisaprotokolli üle.

Otsuse eelnõu eesmärk on anda Euroopa Komisjonile luba ja läbirääkimisjuhised Euroopa

Liidu nimel läbirääkimiste pidamiseks uue rahapesu, kriminaaltulu avastamist, arestimist ja

konfiskeerimist ning terrorismi rahastamist käsitleva Euroopa Nõukogu konventsiooni

lisaprotokolli üle. Kuna organiseeritud kuritegevuse põhiajendiks on rahaline kasu, on selle

vastu tõhusalt võitlemiseks oluline kurjategijatelt kriminaaltulu ära võtta ning seeläbi tagada,

et kuritegevus ei tasu ära. Koos inimeste ja kaupadega liigub ka ebaseaduslik vara, mistõttu

tuleb tagada kriminaatulu avastamise, arestimise ja konfiskeerimise riikidevahelist

õigusraamistikku ja seeläbi tugevdada riikidevahelist koostööd.

Seetõttu on vajalik Euroopa Nõukogu rahapesu ning kriminaaltulu avastamist, arestimist ja

konfiskeerimist ning terrorismi rahastamist käsitleva konventsiooni täiendamine uue

lisaprotokolliga ning seeläbi tugevdada ühtset õigusraamistikku ja muuta piiriülene koostöö

tõhusamaks. Uue lisaprotokolli loomine toimub pärast Euroopa Liidu uue kriminaatulu

tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiivi väljatöötamist, mille osas liikmesriigid, Euroopa

Komisjon ja Euroopa Parlament on 2024.a aprillis leppinud kokku direktiivi heakskiitmises.

Eesti jaoks on oluline, et Euroopa Liidul oleks uue Euroopa Nõukogu konventsiooni

lisaprotokolli läbirääkimistel võimalik kaasa rääkida ning tagada kooskõla kahe uue

kirinaaltulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise õigusakti vahel.

Otsuse eelnõuga kaasnev peamine muudatus:

- Kriminaaltulu avastamise valdkonnas ei konfiskeerita kriminaatulu piisavalt, mistõttu

on organiseeritud kuritegevuse vastu tõhusalt võitlemiseks vajalik vara jälitamise,

arestimise, konfiskeerimise, haldamise ja vara võõrandamise õigusraamistiku

tugevdamine ja selle kaudu riikidevahelise koostöö tugevdamine. Euroopa Nõukogu

rahapesu, kriminaaltulu avastamist, arestimist ja konfiskeerimist ning terrorismi

rahastamist käsitleva konventsiooni on ratifitseerinud 36 riiki.

- Kuna Euroopa Nõukogu konventsiooni kavandatava lisaprotokolli ja uue Euroopa

Liidu kriminaatulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiivi eesmärk ja sisu kattuvad

suures osas, on oluline tagada, et Euroopa Liidul oleks Euroopa Nõukogu

konventsiooni kavandatava lisaprotokolli läbirääkimistel võimalik kaasa rääkida ning

tagada kooskõla kahe uue kirinaaltulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise õigusakti vahel.

Nii uue kriminaatulu avastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiivi kui ka Euroopa

Nõukogu kavandatava konventsiooni lisaprotokolli vastuvõtmiseks on vajalik muuta

karistusseadustikku ja kriminaalmenetluse seadustikku.

- Euroopa Nõukogu konventsiooni kavandatava lisaprotokolli vastuvõtmisega kaasneb

lisaks kuritegeliku vara tõhusamale avastamisele, arestimisele ja konfiskeerimisele

ka võimalik mõju avaliku sektori korraldusele ja riigieelarvele.

2

Euroopa Nõukogu konventsiooni kavandatav lisaprotokoll esitatakse välissuhtlemisseaduse

kohaselt ratifitseerimiseks Riigikogule ning selle vastuvõtmisel on tõenäoliselt vajalik

karistusseadustiku ja kriminaalmenetluse seadustiku muutmine. Olulisemate muudatustena

saab välja tuua laiendatud konfiskeerimise laiendamise nn kataloogikuritegude nimekirja

täiendamisega, süüdimõistva otsuseta konfiskeerimise võimaluse ettenägemise, kriminaatulu

avastamise talituste pädevuse laiendamise piiriülese koostöö tõhustamiseks ning arestitud ja

konfiskeeritud vara haldamisega seonduva täpsustamise. Kriminaatulu avastamise ja

kuritegeliku vara arestimise ja konfiskeerimisega seonduvate muudatuste sihtgrupiks on

Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet, Maksu- ja Tolliamet, Konkurentsiamet, prokuratuur, kellele

võivad muudatused tuua kaasa töökoormuse tõusu teataval määral. Kriminaatulu tõhusama

tuvastamise, arestimise ja konfiskeerimisega kaasneb eelduslikult positiivne mõju

riigieelarvele.

Organiseeritud kuritegevus kujutab endast suurt ohtu Euroopa Liidu (edaspidi EL) majanduse

toimimisele ning julgeolekuohtu nii EL-is kui ka sellest väljaspool. Organiseeritud kuritegevuse

põhiajendiks on rahaline kasu. Sellist kriminaaltulu kasutatakse muuks kuritegelikuks

tegevuseks või investeeritakse seaduslikku majandusse, millel on kaugeleulatuvad ja

destabiliseerivad tagajärjed ühiskonnale, õigusriigile ja avaliku sektori asutuste vastu olevale

usaldusele. EL-i liikmesriikides arestiti 2020. ja 2021. aastal keskmiselt ligi 4,1 miljardi euro

väärtuses kuritegelikku vara aastas. Kuigi arestitud kuritegeliku vara suurus on aastatega

tõusnud, moodustub see kuritegelike ühenduse iga-aastasest hinnangulisest teenitavast tulust

endiselt alla 2%1.

Tõhusalt organiseeritud kuritegevuse vastu võitlemiseks on oluline ebaseaduslik tulu

kurjategijatelt ära võtta ning seeläbi tagada, et kuritegevus ei oleks tulus. Kriminaaltulu

avastamine ja vara arestimine ning konfiskeerimine on tõhusaks meetmeks kuritegevuse

vastases võitluses, kuna selle kaudu on võimalik kõrvaldada kuritegevuse peamine ajend –

rahaline kasu – ning kaitsta ebaseadusliku vara ringluse vähendamise kaudu ka finantssüsteemi

ja kogu majanduse terviklikkust. Kriminaatulu avastamise ja vara tagasivõitmise meetmed nagu

vara jälitamine, arestimine, konfiskeerimine, vara haldamine ja vara võõrandamine on osutunud

piiriülese organiseeritud kuritegevuse vastases võitluses põhivahendiks.

Euroopa Nõukogu võttis 16.05.2005.a vastu rahapesu ning kriminaaltulu avastamist, arestimist

ja konfiskeerimist ning terrorismi rahastamist käsitleva konventsiooni (edaspidi Varssavi

konventsioon)2, mis hõlmab rahapesu ja terrorismi rahastamise tõkestamise ja selle vastu

võitlemise erinevaid tahke. Varssavi konventsioon tugineb rahapesu ning kriminaaltulu

avastamise, arestimise ja konfiskeerimise konventsioonile3. Varssavi konventsiooniga

kriminaliseeritakse rahapesu ning nähakse ette sätted juriidilise isiku vastutuse, rahapesu

andmebüroode tegevuse, uurimisalluvus ja uurimismeetodid, sealhulgas varade jälitamine,

külmutamine ja arestimine, rahvusvaheline koostöö ja vastastikuse õigusabi uurimiseesmärkide

kohta. Varssavi konventsioon hõlmab ka sätted, mis käsitlevad konfiskeerimist, laiendatud

konfiskeerimist, vara haldamist ja konfiskeeritud vara käsutamise reegleid, samuti reegleid

1 Europol (2023), „European Financial and Economic Crime Threat Assessment 2023 - The Other Side of the

Coin: An Analysis of Financial and Economic Crime“ (finants- ja majanduskuritegevuse ohu hinnang Euroopas

2023 – medali teine külg: finants- ja majanduskuritegevuse analüüs), Euroopa Liidu Väljaannete Talitus,

Luxembourg. 2 https://rm.coe.int/168008371f 3 Euroopa Nõukogu konventsioon rahapesu ning kriminaaltulu avastamise, arestimise ja konfiskeerimise kohta

(ETS nr 141), vastu võetud 8. novembril 1990.

3

õigusalase koostöö kohta vara arestimiseks ja konfiskeerimiseks ning puudutatud isikute õigusi.

EL kirjutas Varssavi konventsioonile alla 02.05.2009.a, kuid ei ole Varssavi konventsiooni veel

ratifitseerinud. 18.12.2023. a seisuga on konventsioonile alla kirjutanud 25 EL liikmesriiki

(kokku 43 riiki), kellest 23 (kokku 39 riiki) on selle ratifitseerinud. Eesti allkirjastas Varssavi

konventsiooni 07.03.2013 ja ratifitseeris selle 01.09.2022.

Kuna kriminaaltulu avastamise valdkonnas ei konfiskeerita kriminaaltulu piisavalt, on Euroopa

Nõukogus jõutud järeldusele, et kriminaaltulu avastamise ja tagasivõitmise kehtivat

õigusraamistikku tuleb uuendada. Varssavi konventsiooni osaliste konverents (edaspidi C198-

COP) leppis kokku, et vaja võib minna uut vahendit, et osalistel oleks võimalik

konventsiooniga hõlmatud valdkondades probleemidele reageerida. Kriminaalasjades tehtava

koostöö Euroopa konventsioonide toimimise eksperdikomitee (edaspidi PC-OC) viis 2019. a

läbi põhjaliku uuringu selle kohta, millist lisaväärtust annaks Euroopa Nõukogus loodav uus

siduv vahend, mis käsitleks rahvusvahelist koostööd kuritegelikul teel saadud vara haldamisel,

tagasivõitmisel ja jagamisel, ja kui teostatav sellise vahendi loomine oleks. C198-COP ja PC-

OC ühiskohtumistel toimunud arutelude tulemusena kaardistati küsimused, mida oleks Euroopa

Nõukogu tasandil vaja täiendavalt reguleerida. Euroopa Nõukogu võttis ka arvesse, et

25.05.2022 tuli Euroopa Komisjon (edaspidi komisjon) välja ettepanekuga Euroopa parlamendi

ja nõukogu direktiiviga vara tagasivõitmise ja konfiskeerimise kohta4. 23.11.2023 kinnitas

Euroopa Nõukogu ministrite komitee ettepaneku luua kuritegeliku vara tagasivõitmise

ekspertide komitee, mis tegutseks ministrite komitee ja Euroopa Kriminaalasjade Komitee

alluvuses eesmärgiga töötada välja Varssavi konventsiooni lisaprotokoll ja selle seletuskiri

2025. a lõpuks, mis mh sisaldab järgmisi teemasid:

- sätteid, millega suurendatakse piiriüleste juhtumite korral kindlust ja järjepidevust

konfiskeeritud vara jagamisel osalisriikide vahel;

- sätteid, millega tagatakse arestitud, konfiskeeritud ja repatrieeritud vara tõhus ja

tulemuslik haldamine, sealhulgas konfiskeerimisotsuste täitmine;

- sätteid, millega hõlbustatakse ilma süüdimõistva kohtuotsuseta konfiskeerimise

menetluste ja laiendatud konfiskeerimise kehtestamist kriminaalasjades, sealhulgas

piiriüleste juhtumite alaste taotlustega seotud koostööd ja nende taotluste täitmist;

- mis tahes muid küsimusi, mida komitee peab oluliseks, et tugevdada vara

tagasivõitmisel pooltevahelist koostööd.

Lisaprotokolli läbirääkimised on otseselt seotud EL õigusaktidega, mis käsitlevad kriminaaltulu

tuvastamist ja vara tagasivõitmist. EL-is on Coreperi tasemel võetud vastu kriminaatulu

tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiiv)5, kus on ette nähtud konfiskeerimise sätted, mh

laiendatud konfiskeerimine ja süüdimõistva otsuseta konfiskeerimine ja seletamatu päritoluta

vara konfiskeerimine, ning kriminaatulu tuvastamise üksuste volituste laiendamine ning sätted

vara haldamise kohta. Määruses (EL) 2018/18056 on sätestatud liikmesriikidevahelise

õigusalase koostöö normid arestimis- ja konfiskeerimisotsuste tunnustamisel ja täitmisel.

Euroopa Prokuratuur on pädev uurima direktiivis (EL) 2017/13717 sätestatud liidu finantshuve

kahjustavaid kuritegusid, esitama nende toimepanijatele ja neist osavõtjatele süüdistusi ja viima

nad kohtu ette. Oma ülesannete täitmiseks peaks Euroopa Prokuratuuril olema võimalik teha

koostööd, sealhulgas vara tagasivõitmise valdkonnas, liikmesriikide pädevate asutustega, kes

4 Ettepanek: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv vara tagasivõitmise ja konfiskeerimise kohta (COM(2022)

245 final, 25. mai 2022). 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:PE_3_2024_INIT&qid=1713182385589 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32018R1805 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017L1371

4

ei osale Euroopa Prokuratuuris, muu hulgas määruse (EL) 2018/1805 alusel, samuti kolmandate

riikide pädevate asutustega.

Kuna lisaprotokolli kavandatav sisu ja eesmärk on suures osas kehtiva EL õigusega kaetud, on

oluline, et EL-il oleks läbirääkimiste käigus võimalus nende eesmärkide saavutamisele kaasa

aidata ning hoida ära lahknevused lisaprotokolli ja EL õiguses sätestatud õiguslike määratluste,

terminoloogia ja kohustuste vahel.

Seetõttu on komisjon 18.04.2024 esitanud soovituse nõukogule vastavalt EL toimimise lepingu

(edaspidi ELTL) artikli 218 lõigetele 3 ja 4, et saada luba pidada EL nimel läbirääkimisi

lisaprotokolli läbivaatamise üle ja kinnitada läbirääkimisjuhised. Euroopa Nõukogu uus

ekspertide komitee, mis tegeleb kriminaaltulu avastamisega (Committee of Experts on Criminal

Asset Recovery – PC-RAC), alustab lisaprotokolli teksti koostamist 29.-31.05.2024. Euroopa

Liidu Nõukogu otsuse vastuvõtmine on planeeritud enne seda.

Välissuhtlemisseaduse § 20 punkti 2 kohaselt ratifitseerib konventsiooni Riigikogu.

Vabariigi Valitsuse otsuse eelnõu ja seletuskirja koostas Justiitsministeeriumi

kriminaalpoliitika osakonna karistusõiguse ja menetluse talituse nõunik Mare Tannberg

([email protected]). Valdkonna eest vastutav asekantsler on kriminaalpoliitika

asekantsler Laidi Surva ([email protected]).

2. Eelnõude menetlemise hetkeseis

Nõukogu otsuse õiguslik alus: ELTL artiklid 218 lg 3 ja 4.

Hetkeseisu lühikirjeldus: Euroopa Komisjon esitas nõukogu otsuse eelnõu 18.04.2024. Eelnõu

on arutatud EL nõukogu COPEN töögrupi tasandil 24.04. Eesistuja ei ole andnud teada, et mis

kuupäeval ta plaanib esitada otsuse eelnõu heakskiitmiseks Coreperile.

3. Eelnõude sisu ja Eesti seisukohad

3.1. Eelnõu sisu

Artikkel 1: Komisjonile antakse luba pidada liidu nimel läbirääkimisi rahapesu, kriminaaltulu

avastamist, arestimist ja konfiskeerimist ning terrorismi rahastamist käsitleva Euroopa

Nõukogu konventsiooni (CETS nr 198) lisaprotokolli üle.

Otsuse eelnõuga antakse komisjonile luba pidada EL-i nimel läbirääkimisi lisaprotokolli üle.

Lisaks kinnitatakse läbirääkimisjuhised ning seisukohad EL-i ja liikmesriikide jaoks ning

läbirääkijaks nimetatakse komisjon.

Sarnaselt teiste selliste läbirääkimistega esitatakse otsuse eelnõu kohaselt eelnõu nõukogule

ainult vastavalt ELTL artikli 218 lõigetele 3 ja 4. ELTL art 218 lg 3 kohaselt peab komisjon

esitama nõukogule soovituse läbirääkimiste alustamiseks ning läbirääkija määramiseks. ELTL

art 218 lg 4 kohaselt võib nõukogu anda läbirääkijale juhised läbirääkimistel osalemiseks.

Komisjon on otsuse eelnõu seletuskirjas selgitanud, et kavandatava lisaprotokolli

materiaalõigusliku aluse saab kindlaks määrata alles siis, kui selle täpne ulatus ja sisu on teada.

Komisjon on otsuse eelnõu seletuskirjas asunud seisukohale, et tegemist on valdkonnaga, mis

on suures osas reguleeritud EL-i õigusega, ning kuna kavandatav lisaprotokoll sisaldab

5

tõenäoliselt kuritegeliku vara tagasivõitmise valdkonna norme, võib uus lisaprotokoll neid

norme mõjutada või nende kohaldamisala muuta, mistõttu on EL-il ainupädevus ELTL artikli

3 lõike 2 alusel nagu seda on tõlgendanud Euroopa Kohus. Liikmesriigid on toonud välja, et

otsuse õiguslikuks aluseks peaks lisaks ELTL artikli 218 lõigetele 3 ja 4 olema ka ELTL art 83

lg 2, mis annab Euroopa Liidule pädevuse materiaalkaristusõiguse ühtlustamiseks raskete

piiriüleste kuriteoliikude puhul, ning art 83 lg 1 ja 87 lg 2 nagu uues konfiskeerimise direktiivi

õiguslikus aluses.

Artikkel 2: Läbirääkimisjuhised on esitatud lisas.

Lisaprotokolli kavandatavad eesmärgid ja hõlmatavad küsimused on suures osas hõlmatud EL

õigusega kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja vara tagasivõitmise valdkonnas, eelkõige uue

kriminaatulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiiviga ja määrusega (EL) 2018/1805. Nii

nimetatud EL õigusaktide kui ka uue lisaprotokolli eesmärgiks on tagada kriminaaltulu

tulemuslik avastamine ja kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja vara tagasivõitmise valdkonnas piiriülese

koostöö edendamine. Uue lisaprotokolli eesmärk on tõhustada piiriülest koostööd, tagada

arestitud ja konfiskeeritud vara tõhus ja tulemuslik haldamine ning konfiskeerimisotsuste

täitmine, süüdimõistva otsuseta konfiskeerimise ja laiendatud konfiskeerimise võimaldamine

ning muud kriminaaltulu tuvastamist tugevdavad küsimused.

Kuna kriminaaltulu tuvastamisega seonduv on EL-i tasandil ühtlustatud, on oluline, et EL-il

oleks läbirääkimiste käigus võimalus nende eesmärkide saavutamisele kaasa aidata ning hoida

ära lahknevused uues lisaprotokollis ja EL-i õiguses sätestatu vahel. Uue Varssavi

konventsiooni lisaprotokolli sisulise osa koostamisega alustatakse 29.05.2024 ning on oluline,

et komisjon suhtleks tihedalt Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu vastutava töörühmaga (COPEN) ning

kaasaks liikmesriike selle kaudu lisaprotokolli sisulise osa koostamisse.

Läbirääkimisjuhised on toodud välja otsuse lisas ning keskenduvad järgmistele aspektile.

Läbirääkimiste üldeesmärkide puhul peaks EL püüdlema alljärgneva poole:

 Lisaprotokoll on kooskõlas kriminaatulu tuvastamist reguleeriva liidu õigusega.

Eelkõige on oluline tagada kooskõla järgmiste liidu õigusaktidega. Määrus (EL)

2018/1805 käsitleb arestimis- ja konfiskeerimisotsuste vastastikust tunnustamist, ning

raamotsuseid 2003/577/JSK ja 2006/783/JSK, mida tuleb endiselt kohaldada Iirimaa ja

Taaniga seotud piiriüleste juhtumite korral. Varssavi konventsiooni lisaprotokolli

kohaldamisel tuleb arvestada ka määrusega (EL) 2017/1939 Euroopa Prokuratuuri

asutamise kohta.

 Lisaprotokoll on kooskõlas uue kriminaatulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise

direktiiviga.

 Lisaprotokollis lähtutakse EL õiguses kriminaalmenetlusõiguste kohta sätestatust.8

 Konventsiooniga on tagatud Euroopa Liidu aluslepingutes ja Euroopa Liidu põhiõiguste

hartas sätestatud põhiõiguste ja -vabaduste austamine.

8 Eelkõige direktiivi 2010/64/EL õiguse kohta suulisele ja kirjalikule tõlkele kriminaalmenetluses, Euroopa

Parlamendi ja nõukogu 22. mai 2012. aasta direktiivi 2012/13/EL, milles käsitletakse õigust saada

kriminaalmenetluses teavet, Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 22. oktoobri 2013. aasta direktiivi 2013/48/EL, mis

käsitleb õigust kaitsjale kriminaalmenetluses ja Euroopa vahistamismäärusega seotud menetluses ning õigust

lasta teavitada vabaduse võtmisest kolmandat isikut ja suhelda vabaduse võtmise ajal kolmandate isikute ja

konsulaarasutustega, ning direktiivi (EL) 2016/343, millega tugevdatakse süütuse presumptsiooni teatavaid

aspekte ja õigust viibida kriminaalmenetluses kohtulikul arutelul .

6

Läbirääkimiste sisu puhul peaks EL püüdlema alljärgneva poole:

 Jõutakse allpool üksikasjalikult kirjeldatud konkreetsete eesmärkideni ja tagatakse

samal ajal, et läbirääkimiste tulemused on kooskõlas asjakohaste liidusiseste

õigusnormidega kriminaaltulu tuvastamise kohta. Need liidusisesed normid

moodustavad liidu läbirääkimispositsiooni lähtekoha.

 Lisaprotokoll ja liidu õigus kriminaaltulu tuvastamise valdkonnas ning uus direktiiv

kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise kohta aitavad vastastikku kaasa

eesmärgile suurendada kriminaaltulu tuvastamise tulemuslikkust.

 Lisaprotokolli sätted piiriülestel juhtudel konfiskeeritud vara riikide vahel jagamise

kohta on selged ja kooskõlas määruse (EL) 2018/1805 sätetega, eelkõige mis käsitlevad

piiriüleste arestimis- ja konfiskeerimisotsuste täitmisega seotud kulude kandmist ja

jagamist, kuriteoohvritele hüvitise maksmist ja kuriteoohvritele vara tagastamist.

 Lisaprotokolli sätted varade haldamise kohta tagavad arestitud ja konfiskeeritud vara

tõhusa ja tulemusliku haldamise ning on kooskõlas uues kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja

konfiskeerimise direktiivis sätestatud varahalduse õigusnormidega, sealhulgas

võimalusega arestitud vara enne konfiskeerimist müüa ning seda ka piiriüleses

kontekstis.

 Lisaprotokolli sätted hõlbustavad piiriülestes juhtumites kuriteoohvritele hüvitise

maksmist ja kuriteoohvritele vara tagastamist ning on kooskõlas määruses (EL)

2018/1805 sätestatud õigusnormidega. Piiriülestes juhtumites kohaldatavad

konfiskeeritud vara enneaegse müügi ja käsutamise normid ei tohiks kuriteoohvrite

õigusi kuidagi piirata.

 Lisaprotokolli sätted hõlbustavad ilma süüdimõistva kohtuotsuseta konfiskeerimise

menetluste ja laiendatud konfiskeerimise vajalikul määral kehtestamist ning on

kooskõlas uues kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiivis sätestatuga ning

ei piira direktiivis sätestatud laiendatud konfiskeerimise ja süüdimõistva otsuseta

konfiskeerimise võimalusi.

 Lisaprotokolli sätted piiriülestes juhtumites vara arestimise või konfiskeerimise otsuste

tunnustamise ja täitmise kohta hõlbustavad rahvusvahelist koostööd ja on kooskõlas

liidu õigusega, eelkõige määrusega (EL) 2018/1805.

 Muu lisaprotokolli läbirääkimistel arutatava valdkonna puhul plaanitavad muudatused

on kooskõlas liidu õigusega, samuti mis puudutab koostööd Euroopa Prokuratuuriga.

 Lisaprotokoll tagab varade tulemusliku jälitamise ja kindlakstegemise, luues selleks

spetsiaalsed vajalike volitustega kriminaaltulu jälitamise talitused, kes aitavad

hõlbustada piiriülest koostööd.

Konventsiooni toimimise suhtes peaks EL püüdlema järgneva poole:

 Lisaprotokolliga säilitatakse olemasolevad ülemaailmsed ja piirkondlikud õigusaktid,

mille osaline EL on.

 Lisaprotokoll sisaldab eraldumisklauslit, mis võimaldab liikmesriikidel jätkata

vastastikustes suhetes lisaprotokolli kohaldamisalasse kuuluvates küsimustes EL õiguse

kohaldamist.

 Lisaprotokoll sisaldab eelkõige rakendusmehhanisme käsitlevaid ning vaidluste

lahendamise, ratifitseerimise, vastuvõtmise, heakskiitmise ja ühinemise, jõustumise,

muutmise, peatamise ja denonsseerimise sätteid, mis võimaldavad EL-il täielikult

teostada oma välispädevust.

7

Artikkel 3: Läbirääkimiste käigus konsulteeritakse [erikomiteega, mille nime lisab nõukogu].

Artikli 2 kohaselt toimuvad läbirääkimised läbirääkimisjuhise alusel ning artikli 3 kohaselt

konsulteeritakse nende käigus nõukogu vastava töögrupiga, milleks on antud juhul COPEN-i

töögrupp. Vastav sellekohane viide tulev otsuse eelnõusse lisada.

Artikkel 4: Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud komisjonile.

Deklaratiivne säte, mille eraldiseisev vajadus on küsitav.

3.2 Eesti seisukohad ja nende põhjendused:

3.2.1 Eesti toetab nõukogu otsuse eelnõu ning selle juurde lisatud läbirääkimisjuhiseid,

mille eesmärk on hoida ära lahknevused uue rahapesu ja kriminaaltulu avastamise

konventsiooni lisaprotokolli ja Euroopa Liidu uues kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja

konfiskeerimise direktiivis sätestatu vahel.

Nõustume komisjoni volitamisega pidama EL-i nimel läbirääkimisi, kuivõrd EL on teostanud

oma pädevust kriminaaltulu tuvastamise valdkonnas, olles võtnud vastu uue kriminaaltulu

tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiivi ning määruse (EL) 2018/1805, ja vajalik on tagada

ühtne lähenemine nendel teemadel EL tasandil. Eesti jaoks on oluline, et komisjon võtaks

Euroopa Nõukogus peetavatel läbirääkimistel arvesse viidatud kehtivat EL õigust ning ei läheks

sellest kaugemale ja suhtleks tihedalt Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu vastutava töörühmaga.

3.2.2 Eesti leiab, et uue rahapesu ja kriminaaltulu avastamise konventsiooni lisaprotokolli

läbirääkimistel Euroopa Nõukogus on liikmesriikidel ja Euroopa Komisjonil jagatud

pädevus ning nõukogu otsuse täiendavaks õiguslikuks aluseks peaks olema Euroopa Liidu

toimimise lepingu artiklid 82 lg 2, 83 lg 1 ja 2 ja 87 lg 2, mis annavad Euroopa Liidule

pädevuse materiaalõiguse ühtlustamiseks raskete piiriüleste kuriteoliikide puhul, kui

ühtlustamine on möödapääsmatu liidu poliitika tulemusliku elluviimise tagamiseks ning

tagamaks arstimis- ja konfiskeerimismeetmete tulemuslik rakendamine. Ka kavandatav

konventsiooni lisaprotokoll peaks keskenduma vara kriminaaltulu tuvastamise,

haldamise ning vara arestimise ja konfiskeerimise tõhusamaks muutmisele ega peaks

minema kaugemale, kui on hädavajalik. Eesti jaoks on oluline nõukogu otsuses

selgesõnaliselt sätestada, et Euroopa Komisjonile antakse luba Euroopa Liidu nimel

läbirääkimistel osaleda Euroopa Liidu pädevuse raames ning et läbirääkimised viiakse

läbi liikmesriike kaasates ning neile läbirääkimiste käigust tagasisidet andes.

Otsuse eelnõu kohaselt esitatakse eelnõu nõukogule ainult vastavalt ELTL artikli 218 lõigetele

3 ja 4 ning komisjoni hinnangul on tegemist EL ainupädevusega ELTL art 3 lõike 2 alusel.

Sarnaselt teistele sellistele läbirääkimistele, on ka antud otsuse eelnõu läbirääkimistel toonud

liikmesriigid esile, et otsuse õiguslikuks aluseks peaks lisaks ELTL artikli 218 lõigetele 3 ja 4

olema ka ELTL art 82 lg 2, 83 lg 1 ja 2 ja 87 lg 2. Nimetatud sätted sisalduvad ka uue

kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiivi õiguslikus aluses. Oleme sarnaselt EL

Nõukogu Õigusteenistuse varasemalt korduvalt väljendatud seisukohale arvamusel, et ELTL

art 218 on pelgalt protseduuriline õiguslik alus, mis ei ole autonoomne. Seepärast tuleb välja

tuua ka asjakohane materiaalne õiguslik alus. Antud juhul on asjakohane õiguslik alus ELTL

art 83 lg 2, mis tähendab, et rakendub Taani ja Iirimaa eriline positsioon ELi kriminaalasjades.

Komisjoni väitega nende ainupädevuse kohta ei saa nõustuda, kuna kuigi lisaprotokolliga

8

planeeritakse enamuses reguleerida juba EL tasandil harmoneeritut, on uue lisaprotokolli

väljatöötamisel võimalik ette näha ka muud meetmed, mille harmoneerimine ei ole EL

pädevuses ning mida kehtivas EL õiguses ei ole. Eeltoodud põhjustel tuleb nõukogu otsuse

õiguslikku alusesse lisada ka ELTL art 83 lg 2. Kuna komisjonile läbirääkimistel EL nimel

osalemiseks mandaadi andmise eesmärgiks on EL pädevuses olevas valdkonnas ühtsuse

tagamine, on oluline, et komisjonile antakse mandaat EL nimel läbirääkimistel osaleda ainult

selles osas, mis kuulub EL pädevusse. Muus osas komisjonile liikmesriikide esindamise

mandaati ei tuleks anda ning selles osas peaks liikmesriikidel olema võimalus ise lisaprotokolli

läbirääkimistel osaleda, pidades silmas ELTL art 4 lg-s 3 sätestatud lojaalse koostöö põhimõtet.

Art 2 kohaselt nähakse läbirääkimiste juhised ette lisas ning artikli 3 kohaselt konsulteerib

komisjon läbirääkimistel asjakohase töögrupiga, milleks on karistusõiguse (COPEN) töögrupp.

Kuna Eesti hinnangul on tegemist jagatud pädevusega, peab see peegelduma sätetes, mis

sätestavad läbirääkimiste juhistega seonduva. Artiklis 2 tuleks selgesõnaliselt sätestada, et

läbirääkimised viiakse läbi liikmesriike COPEN-i töögrupis kaasates ning komisjonil on

kohustus teavitada liikmesriike regulaarselt läbirääkimiste käigust.

4. Otsuse eelnõu vastavus subsidiaarsuse ja proportsionaalsuse põhimõttele:

Kuna komisjoni hinnangul on tegemist ainupädevusse kuuluva valdkonnaga, siis ei ole

komisjon subsidiaarsuse küsimust nõukogu otsuse eelnõus analüüsinud. Eesti on seisukohal, et

tegemist on jagatud pädevuse olukorraga ning et nõukogu otsuse eelnõu õiguslikku alust tuleks

vastavalt muuta. Jagatud pädevuse puhul on Eesti hinnangul nõukogu otsuse eelnõu kooskõlas

subsidiaarsuse põhimõttega. Organiseeritud kuritegevusega võitlemine ning kurjategijatelt

kriminaaltulu ära võtmiseks on kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise võimaluste

tõhustamine oluline. Seetõttu on oluline, et liikmesriikide pädevad asutused teeksid piiriülest

koostööd. Lisaprotokolli eesmärgiks on kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja kriminaaltulu

konfiskeerimise võimaluste laiendamine ning piiriülese koostöö lihtsustamine ja seda laiemalt

kui ainult EL tasandil. Euroopa Nõukogus toimuva kriminaaltulu tuvastamise õigusraamistiku

uuendamisel on oluline tagada, et ELil oleks läbirääkimistel võimalus kaasa rääkida, mistõttu

komisjonile sellise mandaadi andmine on põhjendatud.

Nõukogu otsuse eelnõu vastab ka proportsionaalsuse põhimõttele. Ei minda kaugemale sellest,

mis on vajalik seatud poliitiliste eesmärkide saavutamiseks. EL on oma sisemist pädevust selles

valdkonnas juba teostanud, võttes vastu uue kriminaatulu tuvastamise ja konfiskeerimise

direktiivi ja määruse (EL) 2018/1805. Seetõttu tuleks läbirääkimistel lähtuda EL-i ühisest

lähenemisviisist, et vältida lahknevusi vastava Euroopa Nõukogu konventsiooni lisaprotokolli

ja ELi õiguse vahel.

5. Otsuse majanduslikud, sotsiaalsed ja õiguslikud mõjud

Eestile toob konventsiooni lisaprotokolli üle võtmine kaasa kuritegeliku vara tõhusama

avastamise, arestimise ja konfiskeerimise. Koos inimeste ja teenustega liigub samamoodi

piiriüleselt ka kuritegelik vara, mistõttu on ebaseadusliku vara avastamise, arestimise ja

konfiskeerimise tõhusamaks muutmiseks äärmiselt oluline ka piiriülese

kriminaalmenetlusalase koostöö tõhustamine. Ühtlustatud kriminaaltulu avastamise, vara

arestimise ja konfiskeerimise reeglid EL-is tõhustavad liikmesriikidevahelist koostööd.

Lisaprotokolli ratifitseerimine võimaldaks samal moel tõhustada koostööd nende Euroopa

riikidega, kes ei ole EL-i liikmesriigid.

9

Eelduslikult on konventsiooni lisaprotokollist ja kriminaaltulu avastamise ja konfiskeerimise

direktiivist tulenevad nõuded üldjuhul kattuvad. Selliselt tähendaks konventsiooni

lisaprotokolli ülevõtmine Eesti jaoks karistusseadustiku ja kriminaalmenetluse seadustiku

muutmist, millest olulisema muudatusena saab välja tuua süüdimõistva otsuseta

konfiskeerimise sätestamise. Vajalik võib olla ka laiendatud konfiskeerimise võimaluste

laiendamine nn kataloogikuritegude nimekirja täiendamine. Sellist konfiskeerimisviisi Eesti

õiguses hetkel ette ei nähta ning süüdimõistva otsuseta konfiskeerimine mõjutab põhiseaduses

sätestatud põhiõigusi nagu PS §-s 32 sätestatud omandipõhiõigus ja PS §-s 22 sätetatud süütuse

presumptsioon. On oluline tagada, et süüdimõistva otsuseta konfiskeerimine ei oleks käsitatav

isiku süüstamisena ega võrreldav kriminaalkaristusega. Kriminaaltulu avastamise ja

konfiskeerimise direktiivi süüdimõistva otsuseta konfiskeerimise sätte puhul leidis Eesti, et

sättes võib lugeda isiku põhiõiguste kaitse piisavalt saavutatuks, mistõttu Eesti sai seda toetada.

Lisaprotokolli ülevõtmisel on ilmselt vajalik ka kriminaatulu avastamise talituste pädevuse

täiendamine piiriülese koostöö tõhustamiseks. Tõenäoliselt tuleb täiendada ka arestitud ja

konfiskeeritud vara haldamisega seonduvat. Toome välja, et Eestil ei ole kohustust

konventsiooni lisaprotokolli ratifitseerida. Juhul kui komisjonil õnnestub tagada läbirääkimistel

lisaprotokolli kooskõla EL-i õigusega ning selleks hetkeks on Eesti õigusesse uus kriminaaltulu

avastamise ja konfiskeerimise direktiiv üle võetud, siis saaks Eesti konventsiooni ratifitseerida

ka üksnes ratifitseerimisseaduse vastuvõtmisega, ilma muid õigusakte muutmata.

Kriminaaltulu avastamisega ja kuritegeliku vara arestimise ja konfiskeerimisega seonduvate

muudatuste sihtgrupiks on menetlejad, kes menetlevad kriminaalasju, milles on võimalik vara

arestida või konfiskeerida, ning kes tegelevad ebaseadusliku vara liikumise tuvastamisega.

Vara arestimine konfiskeerimise tagamiseks ning konfiskeerimine toimub eelkõige Politsei- ja

Piirivalveameti, Maksu- ja Tolliameti ning Konkurentsiameti poolt menetlevate kuritegude

puhul, kelle töökoormus võib muudatuste tõttu suureneda. Tõhusama kriminaatulu tuvastamise,

arestimise ja konfiskeerimisega kaasneb eelduslikult positiivne mõju riigieelarvele. Täpsemad

kulud ja tulud on võimalik välja tuua uue konventsiooni lisaprotokolli läbirääkimiste hilisemas

etapid, kuna hetkel hakatakse alles lisaprotokolli teksti välja töötama.

6. Kooskõlastamine

Otsuse eelnõu on esitatud arvamuse avaldamiseks Siseministeeriumile ja

Rahandusministeeriumile, kes sisulisi märkuseid ei esitanud. Vabariigi Valitsuse seisukohad on

Siseministeeriumi ja Rahandusministeeriumiga kooskõlastatud ja nende kommentaaridega

arvestatud.

EELNÕU

VABARIIGI VALITSUS

ISTUNGI PROTOKOLL

Tallinn, Stenbocki maja

.05.2024

Päevakorrapunkt nr …

Eesti seisukohad Euroopa Nõukogu rahapesu ja kriminaaltulu avastamise

konventsiooni lisaprotokolli läbirääkimisi käsitleva nõukogu otsuse kohta

1. Kiita heaks järgmised justiitsministri esitatud seisukohad nõukogu otsuse, millega

antakse Euroopa Komisjonile luba osaleda Euroopa Liidu nimel läbirääkimistel

Euroopa Nõukogu rahapesu ning kriminaaltulu avastamist, arestimist ja

konfiskeerimist ning terrorismi rahastamist käsitleva konventsiooni lisaprotokolli üle,

samuti selle seletuskirja eelnõu üle, eelnõu suhtes.

1.1. Eesti toetab nõukogu otsuse eelnõu ning selle juurde lisatatud läbirääkimisjuhiseid,

mille eesmärk on hoida ära lahknevused uue rahapesu ja kriminaaltulu avastamise

konventsiooni lisaprotokolli ja Euroopa Liidu uues kriminaaltulu tuvastamise ja

konfiskeerimise direktiivis sätestatu vahel.

1.2. Eesti leiab, et uue rahapesu ja kriminaaltulu avastamise konventsiooni

lisaprotokolli läbirääkimistel Euroopa Nõukogus on liikmesriikidel ja Euroopa

Komisjonil jagatud pädevus ning nõukogu otsuse täiendavaks õiguslikuks aluseks

peaks olema Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklid 82 lg 2, 83 lg 1 ja 2 ja 87 lg 2,

mis annavad Euroopa Liidule pädevuse materiaalõiguse ühtlustamiseks raskete

piiriüleste kuriteoliikide puhul, kui ühtlustamine on möödapääsmatu liidu poliitika

tulemusliku elluviimise tagamiseks ning tagamaks arstimis- ja konfiskeerimismeetmete

tulemuslik rakendamine. Ka kavandatav konventsiooni lisaprotokoll peaks

keskenduma vara kriminaaltulu tuvastamise, haldamise ning vara arestimise ja

konfiskeerimise tõhusamaks muutmisele ega peaks minema kaugemale, kui on

hädavajalik. Eesti jaoks on oluline nõukogu otsuses selgesõnaliselt sätestada, et

Euroopa Komisjonile antakse luba Euroopa Liidu nimel läbirääkimistel osaleda

Euroopa Liidu pädevuse raames ning et läbirääkimised viiakse läbi liikmesriike

kaasates ning neile läbirääkimiste käigust tagasisidet andes.

2. Eesti esindajatel Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu erinevatel tasanditel väljendada ülaltoodud

seisukohti.

3. Riigikantseleil esitada punktis 1 nimetatud eelnõu ja seisukohad Riigikogu juhatusele

ja teha seisukohad teatavaks Eestist valitud Euroopa Parlamendi liikmetele ning Eestist

nimetatud Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee ja Regioonide Komitee liikmetele.

Kaja Kallas

Peaminister Taimar Peterkop

Riigisekretär

Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / +372 620 8100 / [email protected] / www.just.ee Registrikood 70000898

Riigikantselei [email protected] Vabariigi Valituse seisukohad Euroopa Nõukogu rahapesu ja kriminaaltulu avastamise konventsiooni lisaprotokolli läbirääkimisi käsitleva nõukogu otsuse kohta Esitan Vabariigi Valitsuse istungile heakskiitmiseks Eesti seiskohad Euroopa Nõukogu rahapesu ja kriminaaltulu avastamise konventsiooni lisaprotokolli läbirääkimisi käsitleva nõukogu otsuse kohta. Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Madis Timpson Minister Lisad:

1. Protokollilise otsuse eelnõu 2. Seletuskiri 3. Nõukogu otsuse eelnõu 4. Nõukogu otsuse eelnõu lisa

Mare Tannberg 59002103 [email protected]

Teie 19.04.2024 nr 2-5/24-00667, 9.13.1/24-0182/-1T

Meie 30.04.2024 nr 7-1/3693