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).
No comments:
Post a Comment