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.