ZPPDFT-1: 68. Article 6. Paragraph

6. paragraph of the 68. Article of Slovene AML law states:

"Minister for finance may issue gudeliness for which business entities do not have to report cash transactions under this article."

The guideliness were put on call for discussion back in January. Before a public call, the guideliness were not found in the public domain for citizens to discuss. On 8.5.2018, the minister of finance issued the guideliness and they state in 5 articles (last one just states that the guidelines are put into force) the following: (on this post, I am just translaring the document for the public doman, so people outside of the republic of Slovenia can understand my concerns - critique will follow with connecting the dots wit 213(18) and EU 849/15).

Based on 6th paragraph of 68. arricle of the law ZPPDFT-1 (legal tender #68/16) the minister of finance is issuing

Gudelines

to set the terms, under which some customers are not obliged to report cash transactions.

Article 1

article sets conditions, under which from the 4th article of ZPPDFT-1 some customers are not obliged to report cash transactions set foreward by the 68. article ZPPDFT-1.

Article 2

Mandatory reporting of data on cash transactions from the 1. paragraph of the 68. article ZPPDFT-1does not hold for auditing firms, independent auditors and for legal and physical persons that conduct accounting services or services related to tax consulting.

Article 3

Taxpayers from 4. article of ZPPDFT-1 do not have to report data on cash transactions, if all the following criteria is fulfilled:

1. customer is a legal entity,

2. customers is registered for operating within a business domain that are listed under the standard qualification of business activity:

- class G: shops; repair of motor veichles and items of mass usage,

- class I: catering.

3. Ccustomers list as its main business activity at least one of activities listed in paragraph 2.

4. if a cash transaction is the daily cash intake from selling of goods or services for the benefit of the account that the customer has opened in any one taxpayer listed in 1. and 2. paragraph of the 4th article ZPPDFT-1.

P2. taxpayers from 1.,.2.,.4., and 16. paragraph of 4. article ZPPDFT-1 do not have to report cash transactions that is carried between taxpayers from 1.,2., or 4. paragraph of 4. article ZPPDFT-1 and 16. paragraph and it also involves buying and selling of foreign currency.

P3. taxpayer from 1.,2., and 4. paragraph of 4. article ZPPDFT-1 do not have to report cash transactions, if the cash transaction is connected with cash intake related to work orders made by public officials, that operated in accordance with domestic laws.

Article 4.

With the issuance of this guidelines the old guidelines under which some customers are not obliged to report cash transactions (Legal tender 10/08 and 68/16 - ZPPDFT-1).

213(18) - chapter 3 critique

Grasping on data exchange and the desired framework that the party of interest wants the EU parlament to put into force with AML5 is not a design that an EU citizen would apprisciate to have. Even tough there are some important verification ponts made for abuse purposes, it shall also be properly critiqued.

Definition of prevention:

"The action of stopping something from happening or arising".

This term is extensivelly used troughout the directive and I believe the word itself is not a 100% guarantee that there is no room for abuse. Certanly this shall be valid for Europol, but not for Member states. Which means, that many innocent citizens may fall subject to monitoring and consequently having bank account closing or opening problems even tough they have done nothing wrong. This proposed framework, as its layout is seen in the attachment of this post, gives too much decision power to member states to either hide the relevant information or destroy it before the competent investigators and agencies obtain feed back from their Europol National unit. Not to mention, this proposal does not even give a rime limit for a member state to reply on request made by Europol. On this note, the authors of this proposal want to completely exclude independent EU agencies from prosecuting individuals of interest in specific member states. When taking the republi of slovenia as an example, who gives the power to the minister of finance to excuse specific entities from reporting cash transactions within its national laws, one does not need to be a lawer to understand specific interes groups interest for a push for such a framework. In addition, log activity is only done to direct queries from FIU to the bank account register and again, the data protection officer of the register is responsible for verification of lawfullness and admissability. Given that there is no time limit for replies of MS to Europol, a MS can simply use the given information and warn the party of interest and perhaps even destroying the evidence. If the EU wants to protect its citizens, I am the first one to appeal against the addmitance of such AML framework. Hope this helps! (please flip the image, I am working from my phone).

213 - Article 15

Restriction on data subject rights

As most of the inqueries and limitation to competent working groups may be limited by a restricting authorisation of member states, so is the willing limitation imposed by Article 15 in the proposed directive. Why shall Member states have the power in adopting legislative measures restricting, in whole or in part, the data subject's rights of access to personal data relating to him or her self?

The proposed directive argues that asking for personal data may interfere with fiu properly fulfilling its task and that the 3 elements (prevention, investigation, and detection) proposed are not jeopardized.

The argent proposed by the authors of the directive has a double sided coin. It there is an individual investigated under this claims, the subject must have the right to know for what reasons and what purpose he or she ended up in the investigative procedure and wether it was justified or not. Such impleentarion may be fair and of use when all laws are cleard up so that abuse of hidden bank account when the owners do not know they exist, shall not be hold liable for a crime they did not commit.

And again, as only police channels will be used in this manner, until the states is not in pair with other directive and all the legal holes fixed, such restriction on rights under data protection regime shall never be applied. Individuals must have a right to know to obtain data dor defense and argumentation purposes. But, I will gice this article another thought before I break it into pieces.

213(18) - copy

The most unjustifiable description regarding the 213 implementation is that it incapacitates competent authorities to do the real thig. One is certain, with one hidden account and a small amount of people keeping legalized, one can manipulate the world. Solution, if competent authorities cannot ask or question the setting, then move it to a place where there is no longet such limitation. Indeed, it is time to give presious things, to the one that can respect it. Whatever legal document is produced, it can certainly be turned within. Let's move it guys.

213(18) - Page 13, point 3

In 213(18) page 13, point 3 states:

"Comission is commited to explore the possibility o a dedicated legal instrument to broden the access to centralized bank accounts registers by Member States authorities" on this note, the listed authorities are:

- Asset recovery office (sponsored by public funds)

- Tax authorities (sponsored by public funds),

- Anti-corruption authorities (sponsored by public funds)

Question 1

How do you assure integrity of a person put in office that will act possibly, against the people and political parties that granted them this position?

Question 2:

How can you entrust tax authorities of some member states who outsourced its tax office IT system to companies from non eu member states? When statistic was done of wrongfully charged taxes in 2015, it showed a 60% funds return rate and to to mention a 2 year process of obtaining money back for missadministration.

Question 3:

If the so called public offices are in charged of giving fines and monitoring of ML and TF when the state stipulation are granted by Ministry of finance for public offices to not report on cash transactoons due to "too much of an administrative burden", how can you prevent official unbiased work conduct? In other words, those who abuse the system for their personal gain just created themselves a nice "never be charged with white collar crime" deal (meaning, they can break all the rules because there is no FIU controlling transactions for paid fines, and this includes, the tax fines. What I mean, the big fish that set this up can get away with everything because therw will be no brave men to report them for 2 reasons: because they dont understand the set up and because they are keept entertained to not even think about the set up ;) On this note, let me ask you dear evaluators of truth and entities that set criminals free, who are a more reliable source when doing an investigation: a person independent of the political lobby, or one that got a public office job by political means with banding the truth? But...there are solutions... give to people what belongs to them. First listen and look at evidence - it is always easier to trash somebody than to admit the truth or that you havr made a mistake.

My new hobby - AML

Instead of addressing questions on a one to one basis and relying on hope of intent delivery, maybe is more effective do address questions publically, without releasing too much details on the crucial matter when a proper framework is formed for data retrival efficiency. Maybe is better to just keep digital footprints of the progress done on the topic, maybe claiming what ia good and what is not good for communication purposes with the selected few of my choice to whom questions were directed in the past days and weeks. Today is the day to have a fresh start and still wonder if it is better to facilitate reading for others with useful links, or let people struggle with the well constructed and logically extremelly sound but scattered text. I have extreme joy reading the material and constructing the puzzle to form the picture....

Decision Notes are my private thing and if there were immages of my notes taken and distributed to strangers, then they shall become subject of destruction. Finding out that people can open my closet when I am asleep (or put in a coma) its a bit unfair. Anyhow, each person has its own place. Inserting a false person in wrong shoes based on poor kyc is not a problem of the individual but of profit generating monsters. My biggest chalange now is, how and for how much private entities need to be charged for data discrepancy and dissrespect of data protection laws. In any case, if the problem does not get resovled properly, then there will be digital footprints of this and dissemination.