Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

▸5 unchanged paragraphs

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation

(COM(2022)0245 – C90186/2022 – 2022/0167(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0245),

Changed– having regard to Article 294(2) and ArticlesArticle 82(2), ArticlesArticle 83(1) and (2) and Article 87(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C90186/2022),

▸4 unchanged paragraphs

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 December 2022,

– having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Budgets,

Changed– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A90000/2023),(A9-0199/2023),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Change 1

AddedRecital 1: (1) Europol’s 2021 Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA) highlighted the rising threat from organised crime and criminal infiltration. Driven by the large revenues generated by organised crime, which amount to at least EUR 139 billion every year, and which are increasingly laundered through a parallel underground financial system, the availability of such proceeds from criminal activities poses a significant threat to the integrity of the economy and society, eroding the rule of law and fundamental rights. The EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-2025 aims at addressing these challenges by promoting cross-border cooperation, and the exchange of information between Member States, supporting effective investigations against criminal networks, eliminating proceeds from criminal activities, and making law enforcement and the judiciary fit for the digital age.

AddedRecital 2: (2) The main motive for cross-border organised crime, including high-risk criminal networks, is financial gain. Therefore, to tackle the serious threat posed by organised crime, competent authorities should be given more operational capacity and necessary means to effectively trace and identify, freeze, confiscate and manage the instrumentalities and proceeds of crime and property that stems from criminal activities.

AddedRecital 2 a (new): (2a) Criminal organisations usually reinvest part of their profits from criminal activities to create a financial base enabling them to continue those activities. In addition, criminal organisations often resort to violence, threats or intimidation in order to acquire the control or management of economic activities, concessions, authorisations, procurement and public services, or to achieve illicit profits or advantages, thereby adversely affecting the freedom of competition, or to prevent or to hinder the free exercise of the right to vote or to otherwise alter voting results in elections, thus affecting democratic life. Organised crime has therefore become an economic worldwide operator with an entrepreneurial vocation and specialised in both the legal and illegal supply of goods and services. Depriving criminals of illicit profits is essential in order to disrupt their activities and to prevent them from infiltrating the legitimate economies.

AddedRecital 2 b (new): (2b) Economic and financial crime, in particular organised crime, often operate through legal persons, and the criminal offences included in the scope of this Directive can be committed in the interest or for the benefit of such legal persons. Therefore, freezing and confiscation orders should be issued also against legal persons.

Recital 3: (3) An effective asset recovery system requires the swift tracing and identification of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime, and property suspected to be of criminal origin. Such proceeds, instrumentalities, and property should be frozen in order to prevent its disappearance, following which it should be confiscated upon conclusion of proceedings in criminal matters. An effective asset recovery system further requires the effective management of frozen and confiscated property to maintain its value for the State or for the restitution for victims.

Change 2

RemovedRecital 9: (9) Due to the poly-criminal nature of and the systemic and profit-oriented cooperation of criminal organisations involved in a wide range of illicit activities in different markets, an effective fight against organised crime requires that freezing and confiscation measures are available to cover the profits from all offences where organised crime groups are active in. These crimes include the areas of crime listed in Article 83(1), including the illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives as defined in the Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime, to which the Union is party. In addition to the crimes listed in Article 83(1), the scope of the Directive should also cover all crimes that are harmonised at EU level, including frauds against the financial interests of the European Union in light of the increasing involvement of organised criminal groups in such crime area. The scope of the Directive should further include environmental crimes, which are a core business for organised criminal groups and are often connected to money laundering, document fraud, economic fraud, tax evasion and corruption or concern waste trafficking in breach of national and international law and standards regulating the collection, treatment and disposal of waste, including residues produced in the context of drug production and …

AddedRecital 5: (5) Therefore, the existing legal framework should be updated, so as to facilitate and ensure effective asset recovery and confiscation efforts across the Union. To that end, the Directive should lay down minimum rules on tracing and identification, freezing, confiscation and management of property within the framework of proceedings in criminal matters. In this context, proceedings in criminal matters is an autonomous concept of Union law interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, notwithstanding the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The term covers all types of freezing and confiscation orders issued following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence. It also covers other types of orders issued without a final conviction. Proceedings in criminal matters could also encompass criminal investigations by the police and other law enforcement authorities. Where the national legal system of the Member States allows, Member States should be able to apply this Directive to different types of national proceedings provided that it is ensured that any procedure satisfies essential characteristics of a criminal procedure, in particular its safeguards. It is necessary to reinforce the capacity of competent authorities to deprive criminals of the proceeds from criminal activities. For this purpose, rules should be laid down to strengthen asset tracing and identification, as well as freezing capabilities, to improve management of frozen and confiscated pr…

RemovedRecital 10: (10) Other crimes committed within the framework of a criminal organisation play a pivotal role in generating revenues and in enabling further crimes, including serious crimes with a cross-border nature. Such crimes should be included in the scope of the Directive to the extent to which they are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation. The counterfeiting and piracy of products is linked to money laundering and the forgery of documents, and threatens the functioning of the single market and fair competition. The illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art, is often intertwined with money laundering and constitutes an important source of financing for organised criminal groups. Forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein, including bank documents or identification documents, is a key enabling tool for money laundering, trafficking in human beings, or migrant smuggling, and should as such be covered in the scope of this Directive. Other crimes which are often carried out within the framework of an organised crime group include murder or grievous bodily harm, as well as the illicit trade in human organs and tissue, which are a source of revenue for organised crime groups in the context of contract killings, intimidation and trafficking in human beings. Similarly kidnapping, illegal restraint or hostage taking, as well as racketeering and extortion, are utilized either as source of revenue through the collection of r…

AddedRecital 8: (8) The rules should facilitate cross-border cooperation by providing the competent authorities with the necessary powers and resources to respond in a swift and effective way to requests from authorities in other Member States. Provisions laying down rules on early tracing and identification, urgent action to freeze, or efficient management contribute to improving the possibilities for asset recovery across borders. Given the global nature of in particular organised crime, and the fleeting nature of criminal assets that can easily be moved or concealed cooperation with third countries should also be strengthened, in full respect of fundamental rights.

RemovedRecital 17: (17) In order to perform effective asset tracing investigations, and to swiftly respond to cross-border requests, asset recovery offices should have direct access to the information that allows them to establish the existence, ownership or control of property that may become object of a freezing or a confiscation order. Therefore, asset recovery offices should have access to the relevant data such as fiscal data, national citizenship and population registries, commercial databases and social security information. This should include law enforcement information in so far as data such as criminal records, vehicles stops, property searches and previous legal actions such as freezing and confiscation orders or seizures of cash can be of value to identify relevant property. To the extent possible and where such information is contained in databases and automated systems, such access should be direct and immediate. Where an additional intervention to make such information available is required in order to provide access, the competent authorities should provide such information swiftly in order to allow the asset recovery offices to discharge their tasks under this Directive effectively. Access to information should be subject to specific safeguards that prevent the misuse of the access rights. These safeguards should be without prejudice to Article 25 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 . The direct and immediate access to this information do…

AddedRecital 8 a (new): (8a) There is a clear need for closer and more effective cooperation between all asset recovery authorities, including between asset recovery offices and asset management offices and their counterparts in other Member States.

AddedRecital 9: (9) Due to the poly-criminal nature of and the systemic and profit-oriented cooperation of criminal organisations involved in a wide range of illicit activities in different markets, an effective fight against organised crime requires that freezing and confiscation measures are available to cover the profits from all offences where organised crime groups are active in. These crimes include the areas of crime listed in Article 83(1), In addition to the crimes listed in Article 83(1), the scope of the Directive should also cover all crimes that are harmonised at EU level, including frauds against the financial interests of the European Union in light of the increasing involvement of organised criminal groups in such crime area. The scope of the Directive should further include environmental crimes, which are a core business for organised criminal groups and are often connected to money laundering , document fraud, economic fraud, tax evasion and corruption or concern waste trafficking in breach of national and international law and standards regulating the collection, treatment and disposal of waste, including residues produced in the context of drug production and trafficking. The facilitation of unauthorized entry and residence constitute a core business for organised criminal groups and is typically connected to the trafficking in human beings. The criminal offence of facilitating unauthorised entry and residence should be understood within the meaning of Council Directive 2…

AddedRecital 10: (10) Other crimes committed within the framework of a criminal organisation play a pivotal role in generating revenues and in enabling further crimes, including serious crimes with a cross-border nature. Such crimes as defined in the national law of the Member States should be included in the scope of the Directive to the extent to which they are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation. The counterfeiting and piracy of products is linked to money laundering and the forgery of documents, and threatens the functioning of the single market and fair competition. The illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art, is often intertwined with money laundering and constitutes an important source of financing for organised criminal groups. The same applies to the illegal trade and trafficking of endangered animal and plant species, including their body parts or products derived from them. Forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein, including bank documents or identification documents, is a key enabling tool for money laundering, trafficking in human beings, or migrant smuggling, and should as such be covered in the scope of this Directive. Other crimes which are often carried out within the framework of an organised crime group include murder or grievous bodily harm, as well as the illicit trade in human organs and tissue, which are a source of revenue for organised crime groups in the context of contract killings, intimida…

AddedRecital 12: (12) In order to capture property which might be transformed and transferred in order to conceal its origin, and in order to ensure harmonisation and clarity of definitions across the Union, property that can be subject to freezing and confiscation should be defined broadly. It should cover legal documents or instruments, in any form, including in electronic or digital form evidencing title or interest in property subject to freezing and confiscation including, for example, financial instruments, or documents that may give rise to creditor claims and are normally found in the possession of the person affected by the relevant procedures, as well as trusts. This Directive is without prejudice to the existing national procedures for keeping legal documents or instruments evidencing title or interest in property, as they are applied by the competent national authorities or public bodies in accordance with national law. The definition should cover all forms of property, including crypto assets.

AddedRecital 14: (14) In order to facilitate cross-border cooperation, the tracing and identification of property at an early stage of a criminal investigation is of essence to ensure the prompt identification of instrumentalities, proceeds, or property, which might be subsequently confiscated, including property related to criminal activities located in other jurisdictions. To ensure that financial investigations are sufficiently prioritised in all Member States, to address a crime of cross-border nature, it is necessary to require competent authorities to launch asset tracing from the moment there is a suspicion of criminal activities that are likely to generate substantial economic benefits. It is possible that financial investigations also include minimum thresholds for the value of instrumentalities, proceeds or property related to the criminal offence triggering the initiation of asset tracing investigations. All Member States should therefore have an effective set of procedures for the freezing, management and confiscation of criminal assets that is underpinned by the necessary institutional, financial and human resources.

AddedRecital 17: (17) In order to perform effective asset tracing investigations, and to swiftly respond to cross-border requests, asset recovery offices should have access direct to the information that allows them to establish the existence, ownership or control of property that may become object of a freezing or a confiscation order. Therefore, asset recovery offices should have access to the relevant data such as fiscal data, national citizenship and population registries, commercial databases and social security information. This should include law enforcement information in so far as data such as criminal records, vehicles stops, property searches and previous legal actions such as freezing and confiscation orders or seizures of cash can be of value to identify relevant property. To the extent possible and where such information is contained in databases and automated systems, such access should be direct and immediate. Where an additional intervention to make such information available is required in order to provide access, the competent authorities should provide such information swiftly in order to allow the asset recovery offices to perform their tasks under this Directive effectively. Access to information should be subject to specific safeguards that prevent the misuse of the access rights. These safeguards should be without prejudice to Article 25 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 . The direct and immediate and indirect access to this inf…

Recital 18: (18) To ensure the security of the information shared between asset recovery offices, the use of the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA), managed by Europol in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council26 , should be mandatory for all communications among asset recovery offices under this Directive. Therefore, in order to be able to fulfil all the tasks assigned by this Directive, all asset recovery offices should have direct access to SIENA.

Change 3

RemovedRecital 24: (24) The practice by a suspected or accused person of transferring property or proceeds to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and widespread. Acquisition by a third party refers to situations where, for example, property has been acquired, directly or indirectly, for example through an intermediary, by the third party from a suspected or accused person, including when the criminal offence has been committed on their behalf or for their benefit, and when an accused person does not have property that can be confiscated. Such confiscation should be possible in cases where, on the basis of concrete facts and circumstances, a national court has established that third parties knew or could be expected to have known that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation or that the transferred property was directly or indirectly linked to criminal conduct, on the basis of concrete facts and circumstances, including that the transfer was carried out free of charge or in exchange for an amount significantly lower than the market value. The rules on third party confiscation should extend to both natural and legal persons, without prejudice to the right of third parties to be heard, including the right to claim ownership of the property concerned. The rights of bona fide third parties who have provided fair market-value consideration for the acquisition of the asset should not be affected. Such third parties should be given the opport…

AddedRecital 21: (21) Given the limitation on the right to property imposed by freezing orders, such provisional measures should not be maintained longer than necessary to preserve the availability of the property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. A review by the national court should be ensured in case a freezing order has been taken by a competent authority other than a judicial authority in order to ensure that the purpose of preventing the dissipation of property remains valid.

RemovedRecital 26: (26) Confiscation should also be possible where a court is satisfied that the instrumentalities, proceeds, or property in question is derived from criminal conduct but where a final conviction is not possible because of illness, absconding or death of the suspected or accused person, or because the suspected or accused person cannot be held liable because of immunity or amnesty as provided for under national law. The same should be possible where the time limits prescribed under national law have expired, where such time limits are not sufficiently long to allow for the effective investigation and prosecution of the relevant criminal offences. In such cases, it is appropriate and proportionate to introduce a time limit of 15 years. A number of Member States already have in place such non-conviction based confiscation tools, which have proven to be highly effective, especially when compared to traditional mechanisms of confiscation. Non-conviction based mechanisms for asset recovery have also long been recognised in key international treaties, including the UN Convention Against Corruption, and by standard-setting bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism calls on Parties to the Convention to assist other Parties in the execution of freezing and confiscation orders that are not based upon a criminal conviction. The Union-…

AddedRecital 24: (24) The practice by a suspected or accused person of transferring property or proceeds to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and widespread. Acquisition by a third party refers to situations where, for example, property has been acquired, directly or indirectly, for example through an intermediary, by the third party from a suspected, accused or convicted person, including when the criminal offence has been committed on their behalf or for their benefit, and when an accused person does not have property that can be confiscated. Such confiscation should be possible in cases where, on the basis of concrete facts and circumstances of the case, a national court has established that the instrumentalities, proceeds or property to be confiscated are derived from or directly or indirectly linked to a criminal offence and third parties knew or could be expected to have known that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation or that the transferred property was directly or indirectly linked to criminal conduct. Concrete facts and circumstances could include that the transfer was carried out free of charge or in exchange for an amount significantly lower than the market value. The rules on third party confiscation should extend to both natural and legal persons, without prejudice to the right of third parties to be heard, including the right to claim ownership of the property concerned. The rights of bona fide third parties who …

RemovedRecital 28: (28) Due to the intrinsically opaque nature of organised crime, it is not always possible to link property derived from criminal activities to a specific criminal offence and confiscate such property. Nevertheless, it should still be possible to confiscate assets in order to disrupt criminal activities and ensure that profits resulting from criminal activities are not reinvested into the licit economy. In such situations, confiscation should be possible under certain conditions including in particular: the property is frozen based on suspicion of crimes committed within the framework of a criminal organisation, these criminal offences are liable to give rise to substantial economic benefits and the court is satisfied that the frozen property is derived from criminal activities carried out within the framework of a criminal organisation. These conditions should ensure that confiscation of property not linked to a specific offence for which the owner has been convicted is limited to criminal activities of criminal organisations that are serious in nature and liable to generate substantial benefits. When determining whether the offences are liable to give rise to significant benefits, Member States should take into account all relevant circumstances of the offence, including whether the criminal activities were committed with the intention to generate regular substantial profits. While it should not be a precondition for the national court to be satisfied that a criminal offence…

AddedRecital 26: (26) Confiscation should also be possible where a court is satisfied that the instrumentalities, proceeds, or property in question is derived from criminal conduct but where a final conviction is not possible because of illness, absconding or death of the suspected or accused person, or because the suspected or accused person cannot be held liable because of immunity or amnesty as provided for under national and international law. The same should be possible where the time limits prescribed under national law have expired, where such time limits are not sufficiently long to allow for the effective investigation and prosecution of the relevant criminal offences. In such cases, it is appropriate and proportionate to introduce a time limit of fifteen years. A number of Member States already have in place such non-conviction based confiscation tools, which have proven to be highly effective, especially when compared to traditional mechanisms of confiscation. Non-conviction based mechanisms for asset recovery have also long been recognised in key international treaties, including the UN Convention Against Corruption, and by standard-setting bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism calls on Parties to the Convention to assist other Parties in the execution of freezing and confiscation orders that are not based upon a criminal…

RemovedRecital 28 a (new): (28a) It should be possible to trace and identify property to be frozen and confiscated even after a final conviction for a criminal offence or following non-conviction based confiscation proceedings. However, that possibility should not prevent Member States from setting reasonable time limits after final convictions or final decisions in non-conviction based confiscation proceedings, following which it would no longer be possible to trace and identify such property.

AddedRecital 27: (27) For the purposes of this Directive, illness should be understood to mean the inability of the suspected or accused person, corroborated by an ascertainable medical report, to attend the criminal proceedings, even remotely, for an extended period, as a result of which the proceedings cannot continue after a certain delay.

RemovedRecital 29: (29) To ensure that property which is or may become subject to a freezing or confiscation order maintains its economic value Member States should put in place effective management measures. Such measures should include a systematic assessment of how to best preserve and optimise the value of property before the adoption of freezing measures, also known as pre-seizure planning. Pre-seizure planning should be used in all cases unless the urgency of the matter would require limiting or foregoing that step.

AddedRecital 28: (28) Due to the intrinsically opaque nature of organised crime, it is not always possible to link property derived from criminal activities to a specific criminal offence and confiscate such property. Nevertheless, it should be possible to confiscate assets in order to disrupt criminal activities and to ensure that profits resulting from criminal activities are not reinvested into the licit economy. In such situations, confiscation should be possible under certain conditions including in particular: the property is frozen based on suspicion of crimes committed within the framework of a criminal organisation, these criminal offences are liable to give rise to substantial economic benefits and the court is satisfied that the frozen property is derived from criminal activities carried out within the framework of a criminal organisation. These conditions should ensure that confiscation of property not linked to a specific offence for which the owner has been convicted is limited to criminal activities of criminal organisations that are serious in nature and liable to generate substantial benefits. When determining whether the offences are liable to give rise to significant benefits, Member States should take into account all relevant circumstances of the offence, including whether the criminal activities were committed with the intention to generate regular substantial profits. While it should not be a precondition for the national court to be satisfied that a criminal offence ha…

Change 4

ChangedRecital 2928 a (new): (29a) Member(28a) StatesIt should take the necessarybe measurespossible to ensure thattrace victims’and claimsidentify areproperty fullyto respectedbe priorfrozen toand theconfiscated finaleven confiscationafter measure.a Memberfinal Statesconviction shouldfor paya particularcriminal attentionoffence toor victims’following claimsnon-conviction inbased allconfiscation proceedingsproceedings. andHowever, especiallythat inpossibility cross-bordershould cases.not Furthermore,prevent Member States should, where possiblefrom andsetting asreasonable atime matterlimits ofafter priority,final takeconvictions theor necessaryfinal measuresdecisions toin restitutenon-conviction thebased propertyconfiscation concernedproceedings, or,following wherewhich thatit is not possible,no alonger valuebe equivalentpossible to the property intrace questionand toidentify thesuch victim.property.

Change 5

RemovedRecital 29 b (new): (29b) Member States should take the necessary measures to allow confiscated property to be used for public interest or social purposes. Considering the significant costs associated with tracing and identification, freezing and confiscation, such property can be kept as State property for justice, law enforcement, public service or economic purposes or be transferred to the local or regional authorities responsible for the area in which the property is located for institutional, social or economic purposes, including for assignment to organisations carrying out work of social interest.

AddedRecital 28 b (new): (28b) Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure that victims’ claims are fully respected prior to the adoption of the final confiscation measure. Member States should pay particular attention to victims’ claims in all proceedings and especially in cross-border cases. Furthermore, Member States should, where possible and as a matter of priority, take the necessary measures to restitute the property concerned or, where that is not possible, a value equivalent to that property to the victim.

RemovedRecital 29 c (new): (29c) Where the confiscated assets originated in a third country, Member States should return them to the third country based on a return agreement. Such return agreements should be made publicly available. Such return agreements could set out, inter alia, how the funds would be reinvested, for example compensating victims’ losses or contributing to projects with a high social impact that have been selected based on the needs of the affected populations and following a transparent procedure.

AddedRecital 28 c (new): (28c) Member States should take the necessary measures to allow confiscated property to be used for public interest or social purposes. Considering the significant costs associated with tracing and identification, freezing and confiscation, such property can be kept as State property for justice, law enforcement, public service or economic purposes or be transferred to the local or regional authorities responsible for the area in which the property is located for institutional, social or economic purposes, including for assignment to organisations carrying out work of social interest. Several Member States have already adopted, more than twenty years ago, specific legislation providing for the direct or indirect reuse of confiscated property for purposes of public or social interest, benefiting from multiple positive aspects deriving from the reuse, both for public finances and for its symbolic value, as a visible counter-message for the affirmation of the values of justice and legality and the reconstruction of the territories marked by the presence of organised crime.

RemovedRecital 31: (31) Member States should set up asset management offices with the purpose of establishing specialised authorities tasked with the management of frozen and confiscated property in order to effectively manage the property frozen before confiscation and preserve its value, pending a final decision on the confiscation. Without prejudice to the Member States’ internal administrative structures, asset management offices should either be the sole authority managing frozen or confiscated property, or should provide support to decentralised actors according to national management set-ups, and support relevant authorities with pre-seizure planning. For the sake of efficiency, Member States should consider setting up asset recovery and asset management offices within a single legal and organisational structure.

AddedRecital 28 d (new): (28d) Where the confiscated assets originated in a third country, Member States should return them to the third country based on a return agreement. Such return agreements should be made publicly available. Such return agreements could set out, inter alia, how the funds would be reinvested, for example compensating victims’ losses or contributing to projects with a high social impact that have been selected based on the needs of the affected populations and following a transparent procedure.

RemovedRecital 34: (34) Freezing, confiscation, and interlocutory sales orders should be communicated to the affected person without delay. The purpose of communicating those orders is, inter alia, to allow the affected person to challenge them before a court. Therefore, such communications should, as a general rule, indicate the reason or reasons for the order concerned. The affected party should have the effective possibility to challenge the freezing, confiscation, and interlocutory sales orders. In the case of confiscation orders where all elements of the criminal offence are present but a criminal conviction is impossible, the defendant should have a possibility to be heard before the adoption of the order. The same possibility should be provided for the owner affected by an order to sell the property before confiscation.

AddedRecital 28 e (new): (28e) The Commission and the Member States should facilitate coordination between competent authorities and with third countries where instrumentalities, proceeds and property have been confiscated following the violation of Union restrictive measures.

RemovedRecital 39: (39) An effective recovery system requires concerted efforts of a wide range of authorities, from law enforcement, including customs authorities, tax authorities and tax recovery authorities to the extent that they are competent for asset recovery, asset recovery offices, judicial authorities and asset management authorities, including asset management offices. In order to ensure coordinated action by all competent authorities, it is necessary to establish a more strategic approach to asset recovery and promote a greater cooperation between the relevant authorities, and to obtain a clear overview of the results of asset recovery. For this purpose, Member States should adopt and regularly review a national strategy on asset recovery to guide actions in relation to financial investigations, freezing and confiscation, management as well as final disposal of the relevant instrumentalities, proceeds, or property. National strategies should include a description of the roles and responsibilities of all the competent authorities involved in asset recovery, confiscation and management and the particular mechanisms of cooperation among them. Furthermore, Member States should provide competent authorities with the necessary resources and legal powers to be able to fulfil their tasks effectively. Competent authorities should be understood as the authorities entrusted with the carrying out of the tasks as outlined under this Directive and according to national set-ups.

AddedRecital 28 f (new): (28f) In order to facilitate the compensation, restitution and reparations towards States affected by international crimes, the Commission should issue guidelines on the use of the confiscated instrumentalities, proceeds and property for compensation, restitution and reparations towards States, insofar as the interests at stake are directly or indirectly affected by the criminal activities covered by this Directive. Where the assets are confiscated in connection with the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine or associated crimes, without prejudice to restitution to and compensation of the victims or the public concerned by the criminal offence, the confiscated assets or the net proceeds resulting from the liquidation of such assets should be assigned to contributions towards the reconstruction efforts of Ukraine.

RemovedRecital 41: (41) To ensure consistent approaches among Member States in the collection of statistics, Member States should include, for all criminal offences, at least the number of freezing orders executed, the number of confiscation orders executed, the value of property frozen, the value of property recovered, the number of requests for freezing orders to be executed in another Member State, the number of requests for confiscation orders to be executed in another Member State, the value of the property recovered following execution in another Member State, the value of the property destined to be reused for law enforcement, prevention or social purposes, the number of cases in which confiscation was ordered in correlation with the number of convictions for the criminal offences covered by this Directive, the number of requests for freezing and confiscation orders rejected by the courts, the type of use to which the confiscated property has been put and the length of the procedures for allocating the confiscated property. The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to supplement this directive by providing more detailed rules on the information to be collected, the methodology for the collection and transmission of the data to the Commission.

AddedRecital 29: (29) To ensure that property which is or may become subject to a freezing or confiscation order maintains its economic value Member States should put in place effective management measures. Such measures should include a systematic assessment of how to best preserve and optimise the value of property before the adoption of freezing measures, also known as pre-seizure planning. Pre-seizure planning should be used in all cases unless the urgency of the matter would require limiting or foregoing that planning.

RemovedRecital 43 a (new): (43a) In order to advise the Commission on the implementation of the measures provided for in this Directive, to exchange information on the efficiency and effectiveness of the cooperation with third countries and to analyse the national strategies on asset recovery adopted by Member States to identify best practices, a platform on asset recovery and confiscation (the ‘platform’) should be established under the aegis of the Commission. The platform should be composed of representatives from asset recovery offices and asset management offices and should be chaired by a representative of the Commission. It should be possible to invite representatives from Europol, Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutors Office to participate to the meetings of the platform.

AddedRecital 34: (34) Freezing, confiscation, and interlocutory sales orders should, in principle, be communicated to the affected person without delay, except in circumstances wherein such communication can put at risk the confidentiality or integrity of a criminal investigation. The purpose of communicating those orders is, inter alia, to allow the affected person to challenge them before a court. Therefore, such communications should, as a general rule, indicate the reason or reasons for the order concerned. The affected party should have the effective possibility to challenge the freezing, confiscation, and interlocutory sales orders. In the case of confiscation orders where all elements of the criminal offence are present but a criminal conviction is impossible, the defendant should have a possibility to be heard, before the adoption of the order. The same possibility should be provided for the owner affected by an order to sell the property before confiscation.

RemovedRecital 45: (45) Asset recovery offices should also closely cooperate with EU bodies and agencies, including Europol and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, in accordance with their respective mandates, insofar as it is necessary to trace and identify property within the cross-border investigations supported by Europol or within the investigations undertaken by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Asset recovery offices should also cooperate with Europol in accordance with its mandate, insofar as it is necessary to trace and identify property to prevent, detect or investigate criminal offences related to the violation of Union restrictive measures.

AddedRecital 39: (39) An effective asset tracing and recovery system as well as maintaining the value of frozen assets requires concerted efforts of a wide range of authorities, from law enforcement, including customs authorities, tax authorities and tax recovery authorities to the extent that they are competent for asset recovery, asset recovery offices, judicial authorities and asset management authorities, including asset management offices. In order to ensure coordinated action by all competent authorities, it is necessary to establish a more strategic approach to asset recovery and promote a greater cooperation between the relevant authorities, and to obtain a clear overview of the results of asset recovery. For this purpose, Member States should adopt and regularly review a national strategy on asset recovery to guide actions in relation to financial investigations, freezing and confiscation, management as well as final disposal of the relevant instrumentalities, proceeds, or property. National strategies should include a description of the roles and responsibilities of all the competent authorities involved in asset recovery, confiscation and management and the particular mechanisms of cooperation among them. Furthermore, Member States should provide competent authorities with the necessary resources and legal powers to be able to fulfil their tasks effectively. Competent authorities should be understood as the authorities entrusted with the carrying out of the tasks as outlined under …

RemovedRecital 45 a (new): (45a) In accordance with its mandate, Eurojust should support national authorities in all stages of the asset recovery process from the tracing and identification, freezing, confiscation and asset management of assets to the disposal of assets. Asset recovery offices and asset management offices should closely cooperate with Eurojust for the purpose of facilitating the entire asset recovery process. Such cooperation encompasses the tracing and identification of instrumentalities, proceeds, or property that may become or is the object of a freezing or confiscation order made by a competent authority in the course of proceedings in criminal matters and subsequent disposal, including the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences related to the violation of Union restrictive measures.