PAPERS(Page 14)
Main Index
Index:

  * Position of the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CCBE)
-------------------------------------------------------------


  * Position of the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CCBE)

Position of the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CCBE) on the requirements on a lawyer to report suspicions of money laundering and on the European Commission Proposal for a Third EU Directive On Money Laundering Regulations
November 2004

Conseil des Barreaux de l’Union européenne – Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union
association internationale sans but lucratif
Avenue de la Joyeuse Entrée 1-5 – B 1040 Brussels – Belgium – Tel. +32 (0)2 234 65 10 – Fax.+32 (0)2 234 65 11/12 – E-mail ccbe@ccbe.org – www.ccbe.org
Représentant les avocats d’Europe
Representing Europe’s lawyers


CCBE position on the requirements on a lawyer to report suspicions of money laundering and on the European Commission Proposal for a Third EU Directive on Money Laundering.

Introduction
1. The Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CCBE), which through its
member Bars represents more than 700,000 European lawyers, submits these comments on
the requirements on a lawyer to report suspicions of money laundering, and on the European
Commission Proposal for a Third EU money laundering Directive.

2. In November 2001, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers agreed on a text for
amending Directive 91/308/EEC, the principal EU money laundering Directive. The new text,
the 2001 Directive (Directive 2001/97/EC), resulted in new money laundering obligations
which were to be incorporated into national legislation before 15 June 2003.

3. The 2001 Directive obliged Member States to combat laundering of the proceeds of all serious
crime. This was in contrast to the 1991 Directive, in which obligations applied only to the
proceeds of drug offences.

4. Of great concern to the CCBE, the 2001 Directive extended the coverage of the 1991
Directive, which was limited to the financial sector, to a series of non-financial activities and
professions, including lawyers.

5. The 2001 Directive imposed upon financial institutions and professionals obligations with
regard to client identification, record keeping and the reporting of suspicious transactions.

6. The European legal profession has continuing and serious concerns with regard to the
reporting of suspicious transactions and other obligations under the 2001 Directive.

7. It now appears as if the general principle will be for lawyers to be subject to disclosing
suspicions, with the exception being that only some information will be exempted from this
obligation. Even if the recital of the directive provides that legal advice remains subject to the
obligation of professional secrecy (recital 17), this general principle infringes upon professional
secrecy, as the lawyer is de plano subject to disclose suspicions, and the exception does not
concern lawyers themselves but only some information obtained in some circumstances which
are more limited than legal advice.

8. The requirements on a lawyer to report suspicions regarding the activities of clients based
upon information disclosed by clients in strictest confidence is in the view of the CCBE a
violation of a fundamental right. As a result, the essence of the lawyer/client relationship has
in our view now been infringed upon as a result of the 2001 EU money laundering Directive.

9. For this reason the CCBE, on behalf of all European Bars and Law Societies, continues to call
for the removal of the reporting requirement in relation to members of the legal profession.

Current developments – general reporting obligations of lawyers
10. There are a number of developments taking place, all of which lend support to the seriousness of the current obligations:
(a) Petition submitted by the French Bars to the European Parliament:

On Thursday 30th September 2004, a hearing took place in the European Parliament, before
the Committee on Petitions. The hearing was a result of a petition submitted by the French
Bars in May 2003. This petition concerned the reporting obligations contained in the 2001 EU
money laundering Directive.

The Petitions Committee agreed to refer the issue to the European Parliament Committee on
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the European Parliament Committee on Legal
Affairs. The Committee has also asked the Legal Service of the European Parliament for its
opinion. This outcome illustrates in our view that a real concern has been raised by the legal
profession, a concern that has been recognised at this stage by the European Parliament
Committee on Petitions.
(b) Challenge mounted in Belgium by the Belgian Bars against the 2001 Money Laundering
Directive:

In August 2004, the Belgian Bars mounted a challenge in Belgium before the Belgian
Constitutional Court against certain provisions of the 2001 Money Laundering Directive. This
challenge has been made by the French and German speaking bars on the one hand (Ordre
des Barreaux Francophones et Germanophones and the Ordre français des Avocats du
barreau de Bruxelles) and the Flemish speaking bars on the other hand (Vereniging van
Vlaamse Balies and the Nederlandse orde van advocaten bij de balie te Brussel).
In its challenge, the Belgian Bars have included a request to the Belgian Constitutional Court
to refer a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice on the expansion of the scope
of the first money laundering Directive to lawyers, and thereafter to annul various provisions of
Belgian law.

The Belgian Bars have put forward four arguments. One of these arguments is based, among
other grounds, on Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention (the general principles of law in
connection with rights of the defence), Article 6, § 2, of the European Union Treaty and Article
8, § 2, of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. It is argued that the expansion of the scope of
the first Directive to lawyers infringes upon the principles of independence and professional
secrecy of lawyers, which lie at the very heart of the rights of the defence, the importance of
which has been acknowledged by both the Court of Justice of the European Communities and
by the European Court of Human Rights.

It is expected that a decision will be issued by the Belgian Constitutional Court before the end
of 2004. The CCBE is intervening in support of the Belgian Bars.

(c) Canada:
In November 2001, certain parts of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act came into
force in Canada. The obligations imposed under Part 1 of the Act included the recording and
reporting requirements respecting suspicious, large cash and terrorist financing related
transactions, and the requirement to implement a compliance regime.

This Act required lawyers to secretly report suspicious transactions of their clients to the
Canadian federal government. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada, on the same day
as the Act came into force, commenced legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia with a view to obtaining a declaration of nullity and /or unconstitutionality of the
relevant provisions of the Act.

The Canadian federal government, in March 2003, repealed several regulations, relieving
Canadian lawyers from Part 1 of the Act, and there will be a hearing on the constitutional
challenge in November 2004. The CCBE believes that the outcome of this case will have wide
implications for the obligation on lawyers to report suspicions.

Additional observation
11. The CCBE would like to refer to Article 2 of the 2001 Directive. This Article refers to an
examination by the Commission on the implementation of the Directive with regard to the
specific treatment of lawyers.

12. The Article provides as follows:
“Within three years of the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall
carry out a particular examination, in the context of the report provided for in Article
17 of Directive 91/308/EEC, of aspects relating to the implementation of the fifth
indent of Article 1(E), the specific treatment of lawyers and other independent legal
professionals, the identification of clients in non-face to face transactions and
possible implications for electronic commerce.”

13. In December 2004, three years will have passed since the 2001 Directive entered into force.
The CCBE believes that no such report has been produced by the Commission on the
implementation of the Directive with regard to the specific treatment of lawyers, and no such
report is expected to be produced by the Commission. The CCBE deplores both that such
important provisions have been introduced without discovering their impact, and that the
Commission has ignored one of the articles in a directive.

Proposal for a Third Money Laundering Directive
14. In June 2004, despite the limited period of time that has elapsed since the deadline for
implementation of the 2001 Directive (June 2003), the European Commission published a
proposal for a third EU money laundering Directive.
15. The CCBE informed the Commission that an insufficient period of time would have elapsed
between the implementation of the second directive and a proposal for a third directive.

16. The CCBE member bars had already raised a number of preliminary concerns with regard to
the obligations that arise under the provisions of the 2001 directive. In addition, the CCBE
raised before the Commission the question of how the Commission is evaluating the
implementation of the second money laundering Directive in each of the old Member States
and accession States.

17. The CCBE has deep concerns as to the timing of this Directive, and above all, the fact that the validity of the reporting obligations under the 2001 Directive are now being called into question and will be soon tested (see previous section on Current Developments).
18. Without prejudice to the CCBE objection to the requirements on a lawyer to report suspicions
regarding the activities of clients based upon information disclosed by clients in strictest
confidence, the CCBE believes that it is necessary to make the following comments on the
draft proposal for a Third EU Money Laundering Directive.

CCBE Comments on the proposal for a Third Directive
General:
The CCBE believes that non-regulated professions, that might provide legal advice and
possibly assist their clients or represent them in judicial matters in some European States, are
not subject to any reporting obligation. Only regulated professions that are subject to
deontological obligations are obliged to disclose professional secrecy, whereas non-regulated
professions do not have any such obligation imposed upon them.

Article 2.1. : The ambit of the third Directive is strictly limited to lawyers as natural persons
when they participate for their client or when they assist him/her in the planning or execution of
transactions concerning five definite items1 (Article 2.1.(3)(b)). Therefore, lawyers should not
be subject to due diligence or reporting of suspicious transactions falling outside the above
mentioned ambit of the provision. Thus, one could:

o Either insert Article 20 into Article 2.1 and specify that ''Member States shall not be
obliged to apply the obligations laid down in this Directive to independent legal
professionals (...), who are subject to the present Directive under Article 2 § 1 (b) in
the exercise of their professional activity, in the course of ascertaining the legal
position for their client or performing their task of defending or representing that
client in, or concerning judicial proceedings, including advice on instituting or
avoiding proceedings, whether such information is received or obtained before,
during or after such proceedings ''.

o Or modify Article 20 of the proposal for a Directive as follows : '' Member States
shall not be obliged to apply the obligations laid down in Chapter II, Articles 17 and
19 § 1, 21, 2 6, 2 7 and 28 to independent legal professionals (...) who are subject
to the present Directive under Article 2 § 1 (b) in the exercise of their professional
activity, in the course of ascertaining the legal position for their client or performing
their task of defending or representing that client in, or concerning judicial
proceedings, including advice on instituting or avoiding proceedings, whether such
information is received or obtained before, during or after such proceedings ''.

Without prejudice to the above-mentioned comments, the CCBE would also like to make the
following observation in relation to Article 2 and in particular Article 2 (1) (3) (b)
The Directive applies to lawyers when they participate on behalf of their client in any financial
or real estate transaction, or by assisting in the planning or execution of transactions for their
client. This is regardless of whether a payment in made in cash and regardless of whether the
amount is EUR 15.000 or more. To other persons trading in goods or providing services the
Directive only applies if the payment is made in cash and in an amount of EUR 15.000 or
more. The Directive therefore only applies for example to luxury goods if payment is made in
cash or in an amount of EUR 15.000 or more. The buying and selling of real property or
business entities or the managing of client money, securities or other assets by the lawyer,
however, falls in every case within the scope of application of the Directive, even if only EUR
1.000 is managed or if an agricultural crop land shall be sold for EUR 5.000.

In the opinion of the CCBE, the Directive should only apply to lawyers if the mentioned
transactions exceed the amount of EUR 50.000 and if they are made in cash. There is no
empirical evidence that money laundering appears particularly during the buying or selling of
real property below the amount of EUR 50.000. The discrimination between lawyers or
notaries on the one hand who are supposed to be particularly susceptible to money laundering
and jewellers on the other hand is not justified. It seems incorrect to consider the profession
rather than the real transaction to be crucial for scrutinising whether or not there are money
laundering activities and obligations.
1 Buying and selling of real property or business entities; managing of client money, securities or other assets;
opening or management of bank, savings or securities accounts; organisation of contributions necessary for the creation, operation or management of companies; creation, operation or management of trusts, companies or similar structures.

• Article 3.2.: Member States should be able to decide not to apply the Directive to lawyers who
are engaged in activities mentioned in Article 2.1 on an occasional or limited basis and where
there is little risk of money laundering. This provision currently applies to financial institutions:
“2. Member States may decide not to apply this Directive in the case of financial
institutions which engage in a financial activity on an occasional or very limited
basis and where there is little risk of money laundering occurring. ”

• Article 3 (7) (f): The definition of serious crime with reference to the penalty does not appear
appropriate. The European judicial area requires homogeneity of the underlying offences.
Some offences exist in some countries which do not exist in others, or the same offences are
punishable by different penalties, some above the threshold of one year of deprivation of
liberty and some below. It appears that the criterion of the penalty will not achieve
harmonization of the national legislations, which is the aim of the directive.
“ (7)“serious crimes” means, at least:

(f) all offences which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order
for a maximum of more than one year or, as regards those States which have a
minimum threshold for offences in their legal system, all offences punishable by
deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a minimum of more than six months.”
• Article 3 (11) This Article provides as follows:
“ Business relationship” means a business, professional or commercial relationship
which is expected, at the time when the contact is established, to have an element
of duration”.

Concerning this definition, the CCBE believes that the definition of “businesss relationship“
under Article 3 (11) is confusing with regard to the activities of lawyers because the provision
regarding the element of duration is not an accurate guide to the establishment of a lawyer
client relationship).

In this regard, it might be useful to make a distinction between the concept of a business
relationship - banks and financial institutions (sometimes lawyers) - and the concept of a
professional relationship.
The business relationship could be defined as in Article 3 (11), but for a professional
relationship there should be a definition of a client (as opposed to a consumer in a business
relationship) as follows:
“Any individual who has a professional relationship under a mandate providing for the
provision of services”.

• Article 7: Article 7 provides as follows:
“1. Customer due diligence procedures shall comprise the following activities:
(a) identifying the customer and verifying the customer's identity;

(b) identifying, where applicable, the beneficial owner and taking
reasonable measures to verify the identity of the beneficial owner such that the
institution or person is satisfied that it knows who the beneficial owner is,
including, as regards legal persons, trusts and similar legal arrangements,
taking reasonable measures to understand the ownership and control structure
of the customer;

(c) obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the
business relationship;

(d) conducting ongoing due diligence on the business relationship including
scrutiny of transactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to
ensure that the transactions being conducted are consistent with the institution's
or person's knowledge of the customer, the business and risk profile, including,
where necessary, the source of funds and ensuring that the documents, data or
information held are kept up-to-date.

2. The institutions and persons covered by this Directive shall apply each of the
customer due diligence requirements in paragraph 1, but may determine the
extent of such measures on a risk-sensitive basis depending on the type of
customer, business relationship, product or transaction. ”

The CCBE welcomes the Commission’s attempts towards making the customer due
diligence provisions of the Third Directive more risk sensitive. This approach is preferable to
prescriptive requirements which are overly burdensome and disproportionate when weighed
against the potential benefit to law enforcement. The CCBE believes that prescriptive
legislation in this area is not appropriate for businesses and activities. The danger of
legislating on specific know-your-customer procedures is that it produces an inflexible
minimum standard which will not be appropriate to all businesses and activities and which
cannot be changed easily to meet new demands and situations that may arise in the global
fight against money laundering.

The CCBE is also concerned by the obligation to carry out ‘ongoing due diligence’ as set out
in Article 7 (1) (d) of the draft Directive. Although the CCBE would encourage ongoing due
diligence as a matter of best practice, we do not think it should be mandatory, as this would
be unduly onerous for smaller firms. We note with approval however that the customer due
diligence requirements have been made more risk-based. Article 7 (2) provides that “the
institutions and persons subject to the Directive shall apply the customer due diligence
requirements ... but may determine the extent of such measures on a risk-sensitive
basis......”

• Article 8 (2):
1. “Member States shall require that the institutions and persons covered by this
Directive apply customer due diligence before or during the course of
establishing a business relationship or executing a transaction for occasional
customers.

2. Member States shall require that, where the institution or person concerned is
unable to comply with points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 7(1), it may not open the
account, establish a business relationship or perform the transaction, or shall
terminate the business relationship, and shall consider making a report to the
financial intelligence unit in accordance with Article 19 in relation to the
customer.

3. Member States shall require that institutions and persons covered by this
Directive apply the customer due diligence procedures not only to all new
customers but also at appropriate times to existing customers on a risksensitive
basis”.

The CCBE would have a strong objection under Article 8.2 to the restriction on a
lawyer establishing a client relationship where he may not have carried out a due
diligence exercise. This is the responsibility of the lawyer concerned and he will
have to accept the consequences. Under no circumstances should the State dictate
for whom a lawyer may or may not act.

• Article 10 (1) (a): This Article provides as follows:
1. ” By way of derogation from Articles 6, 7 and 8(2) Member States may
allow the institutions and persons covered by this Directive not to apply
customer due diligence in respect of customers who represent a low risk of
money laundering, such as:

(a) credit and financial institutions from the Member States, or from third
countries provided that they are subject to requirements to combat money
laundering consistent with international standards and are supervised for
compliance with those requirements; ”

This Article provides that the requirement to apply customer due diligence may not be
applied to credit and financial institutions who are credit and financial institutions in another
Member State or in a third country where similar anti money laundering procedures exist.
However this relaxation of the due diligence requirements is not extended to lawyers and law
firms where they are acting on behalf of another lawyer or law firm in another Member State
or in a third country. Apart from being discriminatory it could be of practical significance as
there will be occasions where in a referral situation a lawyer may only wish to act solely on
behalf of the lawyer in the other Member State and bill that lawyer / client accordingly.

• Article 10.1 (c): Lawyers should be entitled not to apply due diligence procedures with
regard to clients' funds for a transaction where the funds are deposited in accounts
guaranteeing a secured management of the movement of capital by the lawyer for their
clients (i.e. the CARPA system in France, where the president of the bar manages all the
lawyers’ client funds for lawyers who are members of that bar). For this reason, this Article
could be amended as follows: ''Lawyers may [be allowed] not [to] apply due diligence in
respect of customers who represent a low risk of money laundering ( ... ) such as the
beneficial owners of accounts held directly or indirectly for them by an independent legal
professional established in a Member State or in a third country provided they are subject to
anti-money laundering requirements meeting international standards and that the respect of
such requirements is controlled.

• Article 11 (1) (a): Article 11 says that the customer’s identity is established by additional
documentary evidence. It is not obvious what is meant by “additional documentary
evidence”. It should be sufficient if the identification of the customer is proven by
documentary evidence.

1. “Member States shall require the institutions and persons covered by this
Directive to apply, on a risk-sensitive basis, enhanced customer due diligence
measures, in addition to the measures referred to in Articles 6, 7 and 8(2), in
situations which by their nature can present a higher risk of money laundering,
and at least in the following situations in accordance with the second, third and
fourth subparagraphs of this paragraph.

Where the customer has not been physically present for identification purposes,
Member States shall require those institutions and persons to apply one or
more of the following measures:
(a) measures such as ensuring that the customer’s identity is established
by additional documentary evidence;“

• Article 11 (1) (b): In Article 11 (1) (b), the words “and persons” should be added after
“requiring confirmatory certification by an institution”. There is no reason why only institutions
and not persons can render confirmatory certifications.
“(b) supplementary measures to verify or certify the documents supplied, or
requiring confirmatory certification by an institution covered by this Directive;“

• Article 12: Article 12 provides as follows:
“Member States may permit the institutions and persons covered by this
Directive to rely on third parties to perform the requirements laid down in
Article 7(1)(a), (b) and (c).

However, the ultimate responsibility shall remain with the institution or person
covered by this Directive which relies on the third party.”
Without prejudice to the CCBE comments on Article 14, the CCBE has concerns about
Article 12 which appears to undermine the whole concept of introduced business by
placing ultimate responsibility, and therefore liability, upon the person subject to the
Directive who is relying upon the introducer. In order to be confident in carrying out their
business activities without fear of prosecution, persons in the regulated sector will still need
to repeat the identification procedures. Unless persons subject to the Directive can gain
comfort from a declaration that the introduced business has been identified according EU
standards, it is pointless to have the concept of performance by third parties.

• Article 14: Article 14 provides as follows:
“Third parties shall make information based on the requirements laid down in
Article 7(1) (a), (b) and (c) immediately available to the institution or person to
which the customer is being referred.

Relevant copies of identification and verification data and other relevant
documentation on the identity of the customer or the beneficial owner shall
immediately be forwarded by the third party to the institution or person to which
the customer is being referred on request.”

The CCBE is opposed to this provision as a lawyer cannot be expected to pass on
information without the permission of the client.

• Article 19: Lawyers' staff (whether lawyers are natural or legal persons) should not be
covered by the ambit of the requirements laid down in this Directive because, not being
lawyers, they are subject neither to lawyers’ professional ethics, nor to the exceptions within
the Directive applicable to lawyers.
“Member States shall require the institutions and persons covered by this
Directive, and where applicable their directors and employees, to cooperate fully”

• Article 19(a): Article 19 (a) provides as follows:
“Member States shall require the institutions and persons covered by this
Directive, and where applicable their directors and employees, to cooperate fully:
(a) by directly and promptly informing the financial intelligence unit, on their own
initiative, where the institution or person covered by this Directive knows,
suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering is being
committed or attempted. ”

The CCBE believes that, for the first time, an EU Money Laundering Directive has now
introduced the word “suspects” into the main text by using the expression “suspects or has
reasonable grounds to suspect”. It would appear to the CCBE that these are two mutually
exclusive tests. The CCBE also believes that such a provision is at risk of being applied in
an inconsistent manner.

• Article 21 § 3: There should be no ambiguity with regard to the attitude of the lawyer when
confronted with a suspicious transaction. The following words should therefore be deleted:
''or is likely to frustrate efforts to pursue the beneficiaries of a suspected money laundering
operation''.

“Member States shall require the institutions and persons covered by this
Directive to refrain from carrying out transactions which they know or suspect to
be related to money laundering until they have informed the financial
intelligence unit.

The financial intelligence unit may, under conditions to be determined by
the national legislation, give instructions not to execute the operation.
Where such a transaction is suspected of giving rise to money laundering and
where to refrain in such manner is impossible or is likely to frustrate efforts to
pursue the beneficiaries of a suspected money laundering operation, the
institutions and persons concerned shall apprise the financial intelligence unit
immediately afterwards.“

• Article 24: Member States are not in a position to ensure the safety of natural persons who
report suspicions of money laundering. Thus, no effective measure can be taken by the
Member States which will then be held responsible for the lethal consequences or the
injuries caused. Since the Member States have no technical possibility nor human means
to protect the persons covered by this Directive from any threat or hostile actions, these
persons should only be subject to due diligence requirements and not to reporting
suspicions. For this reason, it is appropriate to wait for the assessment of the 2nd Directive
on this very point in order to give the European Parliament the possibility to assess the
opportunity of keeping natural persons subject to the reporting of suspicions:
“Member States shall take all appropriate measures in order to protect
employees of the institutions or persons covered by this Directive who report
suspicions of money laundering either internally or to the financial intelligence
unit from being exposed to threats or hostile action. ”

• Article 25: The right to inform the client should be preserved (i.e. tipping off). In order to
give effect to lawyers’ special duties to their client, Article 25 must include a carve out
which enables lawyers to make a disclosure to a client or a representative of a client in
connection with the giving of legal advice to the client or to any person in connection with
legal proceedings or contemplating legal proceedings.
“The institutions and persons covered by this Directive and their directors and
employees shall not disclose to the customer concerned nor to other third
persons that information has been transmitted to the financial intelligence unit in
accordance with Articles 19, 20 and 21 or that a money laundering investigation
is being or may be carried out.

Where independent legal professionals, notaries, auditors, accountants and tax
advisors, acting as independent legal professionals seek to dissuade a client
from engaging in illegal activity, this shall not constitute a disclosure within the
meaning of the first paragraph. ”

• Article 30: Because of the obligations on lawyers arising out of professional secrecy, the
internal control procedures should not be applied to natural persons nor delegated to third
parties. Generally, the procedures imposed on lawyers should be proportionate in order to
take into account the fact that they are organised by and applied by natural persons.
“Member States shall require that the institutions and persons covered by this
Directive establish adequate policies and procedures of customer due diligence,
reporting, record keeping, internal control, risk assessment, risk management
and communication in order to forestall and prevent operations related to
money laundering. ”

• Article 33: The monitoring by the Presidents of the Bars and of the Law Societies should
be exercised within their current disciplinary powers. Thus, the control should not be
exercised a priori but a posteriori, as happens with current disciplinary powers. This will
allow compliance with the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations and a distinction
to be made between monitoring and supervising.

1. “Member States shall require the competent authorities to effectively monitor
compliance with the requirements of this Directive by all the institutions and
persons covered by this Directive.

2. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have
adequatepowers, including the possibility to obtain information, and have
adequate resources to perform their functions.“

• Section 3: In the case of a regulated profession such as lawyers, disciplinary sanctions
should be the appropriate penalty, and should be applied only to natural persons.

Conclusion
19. The CCBE urges that the above recommendations be taken into account. The CCBE can
not stress enough that requirements on a lawyer to report suspicions regarding the
activities of clients based upon information disclosed by clients in strictest confidence is a
violation of a fundamental right.

20. The CCBE requests that the Commission, Council and the Parliament bear in mind that a
lawyer is a member of a regulated profession, is part of the process which ensures the rule
of law, and has the duty to apply the law and have it applied. The CCBE emphasises that
when lawyers actually provide legal advice on money laundering, they are party to an
offence and should not benefit from any exemption.
.
21. On behalf of European Bars and Law Societies, the CCBE calls for the removal of the
reporting requirement in relation to members of the legal profession. Without prejudice to
that, we would also like to see the changes mentioned above brought into the draft of the
third money-laundering directive.
Up
Main Index

 *English
Lawyer Search <  
Francias* 
 *كانون جهاني (IBA)

اتحاديه كانونها
 *سوابق و اساسنامه
 *همايش و بيانيه‌ها
 *كميسيون‌انفورماتيك

كانونهاي وكلا
 *فارس و بنادر
 *آذربايجان شرقي
 *آذربايجان غربي
 *اصفهان
 *مازندران
 *خراسان
 *گيلان
 *قزوين و زنجان
 *كرمانشاه و ايلام
 *خوزستان و لرستان
 *همدان
 *قم
 *كردستان
 *گلستان
 *اردبيل
 *مركزي

امور وكلا و كارآموزان
 *مصوبات کانون
 *كميسيون حقوقي
 *كارآموزي و اختبار
 *آزمون وكالت
 *نظرات وكلا
 *انتخابات كانون

نشريه داخلي

مجله حقوقي

منابع حقوقي
 *بانك قوانين
 *آراء قضائي
 *نظرات مشورتي
 *كتابخانه
 *مقالات حقوقي
 *تازه‌هاي حقوقي

امور حقوقي
 *مراجع قضايي
 *لوايح و اوراق
 *نكته‌ها و لطائف
 *دانشكده‌هاي حقوق
 *چهره‌هاي تاريخي

سايتهاي اطلاع رساني
 *حقوقي و داخلي
 *حقوقي خارجي

گوناگون
 *انجمن‌هاي حقوقي
 *آموزش غيرحضوري
 *پرسش و پاسخ
 *نيازمنديها
 *امور ورزشي