Europol Unclassified - Basic Protection Level

Asset Recovery
Offices (AROs)
Jill THOMAS
Specialist
Europol Criminal Assets Bureau

TAIEX Seminar on Asset Recovery Offices

Ankara – 14 & 15 December 2011
Content

• Introduction: Europol Criminal Assets Bureau

• Asset Recovery Offices

 Origin
 Purpose
 Legal Basis
 Functions

• Questions and Answers

2
 EUROPOL

• THE OBJECTIVE OF EUROPOL – “to support and strengthen

action by the competent authorities of the Member States and
their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating organised
crime, terrorism and other forms of serious crime affecting two or
more Member States” (Art.3 ECD)

• Corresponding Judicial Agency is EUROJUST

3
 Europol Organisation Chart

Internal Audit Function (IAF)

Director
Management Board Secretariat (MBS)

Operations Governance
Department Capabilities
Department Department
Deputy Director Deputy Director
Assistant Assistant Deputy Director
Director Director
Assistant Director

O1 G1
Operational Centre 24/7 Office of the Director C1
ICT Infrastructure & Facilities
O2 G2
Analysis & Knowledge Strategic & External Affairs C2
O3 Business Demand & Products
Criminal Finances & Technology G3
Legal Affairs C3
O4 IT Solution Engineering
Counter Terrorism G4 C4
Corporate Communications Programmes & Architecture
O5
Forgery of Money
G5 C5
O6 Security Human Resources
OC Networks
O7 C6
OC Networks Data Protection Office Finance
O8
OC Networks

Member States’ Liaison Bureaux

4 Third Parties’ Liaison Bureaux
Introduction

•70 % of all crimes are committed for

financial gain

• At present only a small amount of

crime proceeds are seized and
confiscated

5
 Asset tracing/confiscation

Regarded as efficient law enforcement tool, especially

to tackle organised crime by

◊ locating the proceeds from crime (LE authorities)

◊ freezing the proceeds from crime (judicial
authorities, MLA)
◊ and finally confiscating the proceeds from crime
by Court (criminal or civil)

in order to disrupt the financial basis of the criminal

organisation (prevention) and to dismantle its internal
structure
6
 Legal Background

•Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure

and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime – 1990

•2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime

•2005 Warsaw Convention

and within the EU…

•1997 EU Action Plan to combat organised crime

•1999 Tampere European Council

7
 EU AROs Operational background

• Establishment of specialised offices in some EU

Member States, e.g. BOOM in the Netherlands
(1992), COSC in Belgium (1994) and the CAB in
Ireland (1996)

• Europol Established it‘s Criminal Asset Bureau in

2004

• Establishment of Asset Recovery Offices in all EU

Member States according to the EU Council
Decision 2008
8
 Europol Criminal Assets Bureau
ECAB

Operational

• supports MS investigators in the asset

identification phase of any criminal investigation

• assists to identify what information/intelligence

is available and through which official channel
investigators need to go through to get that
information

• helps Member States to build capacities and to

improve cooperation to recover crime proceeds
worldwide
9
 Europol Criminal Assets Bureau –
responsibilities

Strategic

• To hold the permanent Secretariat of the ‘The

Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network –
CARIN ‘
• To manage The Europol Financial Crime
Information Centre Web Site – FCIC
• To support Member States in the establishment
of Asset Recovery Offices in line with European
Law (Council Decision 2007/845/JHA)

10
 EU Council Decision on Asset
Recovery Office(s)

Background

• CARIN Network

• Austrian Presidency initiaitive, supported by

Belgium and Finland

11
 EU Council Decision on Asset
Recovery Offices

Added value:

• Creates legal EU framework for existing, informal

network

• Obliges every Member State to set up ARO

• Establishes legal obligation for co-operation

between AROs of different legal nature (Article
2(2))

12
 EU Council Decision on Asset Recovery
Office(s)

ARO = Office charged with

• the facilitation of the tracing and identification of

proceeds of crime and other crime related
property
 which may become the object of an order made by a
competent judicial authority for freezing or seizure or for
confiscation in the course of criminal or, as far as
possible under the national law of the Member State
concerned, civil proceedings

13
 EU Council Decision on Asset
Recovery Office(s)

►Principal obligation to set up/ designate 1 (or

2) AROs per Member State

• Legal/constitutional set-up of every MS

• Acknowledgment of role of other units charged

with the faciltation of tracing and identification of
assets

14
 EU Council Decision on Asset Recovery
Office(s)

► Obligation to exchange infomation and best

practices

• Regardless of legal nature of ARO

► Reference to existing/future regimes of law

enforcement co-operation

• Co-operation is aimed at exchanging information

on location and identification of seizable property
= police co-operation
15
 EU Council Decision on Asset
Recovery Office(s)

►Reference to the Framework Decision on

simplifying the exchange of information
between the law enforcement authorties of
the MS of the EU

• Procedures
• Channel
• Data protection regime
• Time limits

16
ARO Matrix

Multi-
COUNTRY Police Judiciary
disciplinary

Austria P

Belgium J

Bulgaria M

Cyprus M

Czech Republic P

Denmark M

Estonia P M

Finland P

Germany (2) P J

Hungary P

Ireland M

Latvia P

Luxembourg J

Netherlands J M

Poland P

Romania P Countries 20

Slovak Republic P ARO's 24

Countries with 2
P J 4
Spain (2) ARO's

Sweden (2) P J Police 13

UK-England, Wales & NI M Judiciary 6

UK-Scotland P Multisiciplinary 7

17
 Conclusion EU Council Decision on
AROs

EU Council Decision on AROs

• Important ‘instutional brick’ in the EU framework

for confiscation of criminal proceeds

• Mutual recognition of freezing orders/confiscation

orders is contingent upon the swift exchange of
information between AROs

18
High Level Conference on Establishing National Asset
Recovery Offices Brussels 6 & 7 March 2008

•Joint project of the Austrian Bundeskriminalamt, the Belgian

Federal Police, the Belgian Central Office for Seizure and
Confiscation and Europol supported by the European Commission
and the ISEC Funding Program

•To discuss the best ways to establish national AROs – common

understanding on their roles and to provide for an efficient
exchange of operational information following the EU Council
Decision of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between
the Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States

19
 Ideal Structure of an ARO

• Have a multidisciplinary structure comprising expertise from:

◊ law enforcement;
◊ judicial authorities;
◊ tax authorities;
◊ social welfare;
◊ customs;
and any other relevant services.
These agencies should be able to exercise their usual powers
and have access to all relevant databases in order to identify
and trace assets.
• Have access to a central bank account register at national
level
• Be adequately resourced
20
 Ideal Structure of an ARO

• Provide a central point for all incoming requests

relating to asset tracing

• Collect all relevant statistics on freezing and

confiscation

• And where AROs do not directly manage seized

assets, they at least should collect information from
competent authorities on seized assets.

21
 New EU legal framework

Under a Commission strategic initiative to protect the

EU economy against criminal infiltration, proposals are
being prepared to amend the legal framework:

• Two separate proposals (one on substantive

legislation and one on mutual recognition)

• Timetable: end 2011

• Importance of respecting fundamental rights

(effective legal remedies)

22
Questions?

Thank you