Proposition 51K1974

Projet de loi portant suppression des titres au porteur.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Aug. 1, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

share securities financial instrument

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 17, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. by

We had discussions in committee on certain points that might deserve clarification. But, in absolute terms, a relative unanimity emerged from all the political groups.

In this regard, the votes that were issued during this time of noon are quite exemplary. For the draft as a whole, depending on the amendments that had been approved or rejected, was the subject of an approval by eleven votes for one abstention. We can therefore consider that there is a relative unanimity.

This bill aims to modernise the Belgian law on securities, ⁇ securities issued by companies. This is a promising request from, among other things, the GAFI, established with the OECD. He highlighted the danger presented by this form of securities and called for Member States, including Belgium, to take measures that seriously limit their use or remove the anonymity attached to them.

It seems to me that the concern, in the head of Belgium, to comply with these FATF recommendations, constitutes an attitude that will strengthen the international credibility of Belgium, in particular since holding securities can also be a source of tax fraud as well as a cause of infringements on the inheritance reserve. Finally, it is not unnecessary to point out that the holding securities, in the current state, and given the evolution of society, are poorly adapted to the modern requirements of securities - their preservation and the collection of coupons appearing to be heavy and costly. This is evident from all the examinations carried out by one and another in the different banking bodies or the Belgian Association of Banks.

The bill, which has been submitted to the committee, is articulated into three chapters, corresponding to the same number of objectives.

- The first organizes the gradual removal of the titles to the holder as such. There are two dates: 2008 and 2014.

The second chapter contains the amendments to the Company Code. It also aims to strengthen and modernise the legal regimes applicable to dematerialized and nominative securities respectively. Indeed, the only two possible solutions in the future will be to have nominative or dematerialized titles, all favouring the scriptural circulation - nominative titles, in any case.

- The third chapter includes various amendments of annexed legislation, namely legislation of financial law, in order to adapt it to the removal of titles to the holder and to modify it in order to favor the scriptural circulation of titles.

With regard to this removal, or rather this dematerialization, and nominative securities, the government has envisaged a relatively long conversion period resulting mainly from discussions with the FEB, banks and various financial institutions, which have been closely associated with the drafting of the project. This leads us to the horizon of 2014, for securities issued prior to the publication of the bill in draft, in order not to excessively penalize current holders of holding securities, while allowing issuers to proceed without rush to the necessary adjustments.

Different speakers have manifested. Each time, they wanted to emphasize the need to upgrade the position of the holders’ securities, depending on one or another assessment ranging from the fight against tax fraud to a social aspect to the willingness to associate with the tradition of Anglo-Saxon law with an emphasis on transparency and fraud prevention. by

No group has expressed opposition to these various elements, except for some observations regarding either the Act of 1921 on the involuntary disposal of securities, or a hidden agenda that could exist, subject on which assurances could be provided, or an eventual fortune cadastre. Some considerations have been expressed and met. All groups, as noted in the report, supported the proposals, therefore the bill.

As already mentioned, various proposals have been raised as part of the articles and amendments submitted. The discussions concerned Articles 2279 and 2280 of the Civil Code and the answers, deemed satisfactory, were delivered by the Minister. Discussions also focused on the problem of the 1921 law on the involuntary disposal of securities, the problem of the separation between the nude-ownership and the usufruct, which constitutes the exercise of rights, as well as whether manual donation is still possible for a dematerialized title. by

Each time, the responses provided, both by the various speakers and by the Minister, satisfied all members of the committee.

In the end, since every submitted amendment was rejected, the bill was voted by a very large majority since, I would like to recall, it was adopted by eleven favorable votes for a single abstinence.

The last element that was ⁇ to us by the President recently in the committee is the opinion of the European Central Bank, transmitted by Mr. by Jean-Claude Trichet He added that he has no observation on the preliminary draft laws and arrests that have been submitted to him. He adds that he can only welcome the willingness, in the head of Belgium, to respond favorably to the recommendations of the Financial Action Group on Money Laundering — the GAFI — by modernising holding securities to ⁇ dematerialized securities and nominative securities allowing greater security.

For the rest, I think I have been relatively comprehensive and can refer you to the written report that was delivered to you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the floor to speak on behalf of the PS Group.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, on behalf of my group, I can only look forward to seeing this legislation on the dematerialization of the titles to the carrier and the nominative character of the titles to the carrier finally result.

For many years, both within the OECD and within the FATF, recommendations have been issued for OECD member states to finally take measures to combat all forms of money laundering, including the use of holding securities.

In addition, within the European Community, Belgium and Luxembourg are exceptional states since they still allowed the issuance of this type of securities.

The holding securities could effectively present utilities in the context of forms of money laundering, sources of financing of criminal activities and supporting mafia or terrorist organizations, even though – as the Vice Prime Minister pointed out in her introductory presentation – we have no indicative sign in Belgium. Nevertheless, it is a risk that we should not or could not run.

Another ⁇ important element is that holding securities — in addition to allowing the use of tax evasion systems without going to organized tax evasion — harm everyone and, in particular, small people. This is a violation of the successor reserve. What is simpler, when one is owner of titles to the bearer, than to prefer one heir over another, who, sometimes, can even be a stranger to the family. It is then a simple tradition of the titles to the carrier, without the notary being able to find there any subject of concern, given the fact that he was not necessarily aware of the existence of this knowledge.

Within the framework of another profession that is mine, I have already faced this kind of situation. I must say that it is ⁇ difficult and delicate to obtain information on this subject and to investigate in order to allow the heirs to return to the capital which is justly granted to them by law and which is legally granted to them. These especially important elements deserve our full attention.

In addition, for many years we have been talking about the fight against tax fraud and we are trying to take action. When we try to take this situation hand-to-hand and put in place measures to combat tax fraud that affect all actors in the company, it is necessary to look at holding securities that can be an element of the practice of tax fraud. The dematerialization of titles will provide solutions.

Certain guarantees must still exist, and this is not necessarily to say that people who are tax fraudsters should not be fooled, but simply to reassure small carriers. We have not returned to the time of tax rage. Therefore, certain mechanisms exist, which, in the current state of things, are not compromised or even considered to do so, namely hidden agendas, a fortune cadastre and a fortune tax.

It is not because we talk about the removal of securities to the holder that we automatically move to a fortune cadastre or to a fortune tax. As I was able to say in the commission, the conditions of creating a cadastral on fortune — maybe it would be useful to read "Trends" at the moment! They already exist. There is a patrimonial division within the Ministry of Finance, which would allow to create a form of fortune cadastre. So the conditions already exist and I don’t think it’s a project of removing titles to the carrier that will automatically and necessarily lead to this.

Within the SPF Finance, as part of the Coperfin reform, things were put in place. As the Secretary of State could say, when asked about this, yes, it exists. But the will is not necessarily to know the patrimonial situation of Belgian taxpayers. The intention is probably to ensure a better tax collection, so that the Belgians contribute and that one can get a tax normally collected and normally paid.

To say that the removal of titles to the bearer is the hidden agenda and the will to want to set up a fortune cadastre, I do not believe it! When Ms. Vice Prime Minister explains to us that it is about modernizing tools, I believe that it is a will, it is a reality. The fight against tax fraud is also part of this. We are fully involved in this project.

What can I say more about these elements? The report mentions this desire for modernization. It is indispensable. It will provide both lawmakers and executive members with the tools to work in the fight against tax fraud, in the fight against money laundering as well as in the fight against the financing of mafia and even terrorist organizations. Indeed, we are not necessarily safe from such actions in Belgium and it is with confidence, of course, that we will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, our group can find itself in the gradual abolition of the effects of tinder. In practice, we find that the use of securities accounts is increasing, which offers significant advantages compared to holding securities on toonder.

Those who want to keep up with the physical delivery of securities pay a price for it. The banks are increasingly beginning to charge the actual costs associated with the physical delivery of the documents. For the non-new securities, the tax on the delivery of securities to toonder shall continue to exist. In addition, the yield of bonds targeting investors who want the physical delivery is lower.

The physical supply therefore crumbles to the annual yield. Holding a securities account, on the other hand, provides undeniable benefits. The coupons are automatically collected so that the investor does not lose currency days. Effects are automatically converted or delivered when a call is performed. The investor will receive a periodic overview. Securities on an account can no longer be lost or stolen.

The abolition of the effects of tinder is thus rather the result of a social evolution which has already taken place in other countries. We therefore believe that the abolition is not the framework of a large ideological social vision, but is a consequence of the social evolution, in which in practice the effects of tooth will gradually disappear.

So we can agree to the legal change, which makes the dematerialization of securities in our country a fact. We refer, by the way, to the Act of 1995 for the Promotion of the Circulation of Securities, which we approved at the time.

Only the way the transitional arrangement is drawn up in the draft raises a lot of questions in our group.

First, in the draft, the date of 1 January 2008 is pushed forward as the date on which no more securities may be issued on tower. We hope that this timeframe will be sufficient for the Minister of Justice, the financial sector and the issuers to take the necessary steps so that the dematerialization from 1 January 2008 is a fact for all securities.

The procedures for the appointment of a clearing institution and for the recognition of account holders must still take place after the royal decree and this takes approximately 6 months. The listed issuers must amend their statutes. All issuers must then conclude the necessary contracts with an accredited clearing body. Above all, both issuers and financial institutions will have to adapt their software to the new process resulting from dematerialization. All this must be done by January 1, 2008.

Furthermore, in the draft law on the abolition of securities, it is stated that those who do not turn their securities on time must pay a 10% fine per year delay. After 10 years, it actually comes down to the fact that the State confiscates the money in such a way. For the Council of State and for CD&V, it is not clear what error is committed by the owner of the securities. In most cases, this will be due to ignorance or negligence. Often, heirs will find out about still hidden effects of tounder. Sometimes it also happens to a happy builder of a home that he finds such hidden effects. Also with regard to less fortunate owners who lose their assets or who are robbed and who register with the National Office for Moving Values, the draft does not provide for an exception to the fine.

In order to ensure that securities holders are stuck to the thunder, the draft provides for 2 periods within which the securities must be removed from the safe and placed on a securities account. The securities issued for the publication of the draft law in the Belgian Staatsblad shall be converted by 31 December 2013 at the latest and the securities issued after the publication of the draft law shall be converted by 31 December 2012.

The question is whether every saver reads the Belgian Staatsblad. So the saver will have to be very careful to jump on the right cart in the promotional campaigns of the banks for a securities account. The government should also provide the necessary disclosure of the conversion obligation and may not speculate on the proceeds of the fine. That would be too easy and not fair.

In addition, we also consider that, in comparison with the law on the unintentional outsourcing of titles to bearer, the draft infringes the right of ownership of the holders of such securities and this not only because of the fine, which in fact constitutes a confiscation, but also by the forced sale from 1 January 2015 of the unconverted securities. This also raises questions.

For securities listed on a regulated market, it is appropriate to proceed to the mandatory sale of securities whose conversion was not requested in a timely manner and whose rightholders are unprecedented. This obligation should ensure a smooth trading of the securities.

However, with respect to securities not listed on a regulated market, the obligatory sale of ownership disproportionately impairs the right of ownership. The King may be able to regulate sales but not create a market. When there is no market for unlisted securities, it is very questionable whether the rightholder will ever receive a correct price for his securities.

Finally, we regret that, contrary to what the Minister of Finance had promised in the committee following a verbal question from colleague Devlies, nothing is undertaken for the small saver to be able to open an securities account at the lowest price possible. We want from our group to avoid the small savers being required to hold multiple securities accounts in order to avoid costs. At this point, despite previous commitments, the draft law does not contain any measures to address this. For these reasons, our group will therefore abstain from voting on the present draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, it allows us to move towards greater transparency, desired by not a few international bodies. by Mr. Massin cited, within the framework of the report, the FATF, for example, which tries to insert itself in this desire for transparency in the context of its operations, whether banking or investment, or also in the context of its relations with different securities that are increasingly dematerialized. This transparency also helps to better combat tax fraud, money laundering because this dematerialization simply makes it more difficult to avoid the very existence of a title. The traceability of these securities, made easier by this dematerialization, also implies that one can better know and therefore better fight against money that finances activities that are not praiseable, terrorism for example, that one must be able to fight on all its aspects, therefore also its financing.

This removal is also part of the logic desired by the CDH during the tax amnesty which was not, we recall, the best signal given to people who had been allowed to fraud the tax for years and which could not be accomplished without compensatory measures, given that a number of ethical principles that seemed important to us have been put aside. But, at least, compensatory measures should come, in particular to be able to put aside this source of fraud that is the title to the carrier.

In addition, this removal of holding securities will simplify the life of the saver and the banking world. Indeed, the more mountains of papers, the more risk of misleading these titles, nor the possibility that was given, in the context of successions, of privileging one legatar to the detriment of another in a completely illegal way.

Finally, the financial burden related simply to the issuance and production of securities is also removed, which is positive for all those who benefit from these dematerialized securities today.

However, two questions must be asked. The first concerns bank mobility, the second concerns the problem of manual donations. Indeed, the problem of bank mobility must, in our opinion, be emphasized as this dematerialization of securities is expected to generate an economy for the banking sector of approximately 34 million euros, a figure mentioned in the report. However, no measures are planned to ensure that securities holders can benefit from this 34 million euro savings that can be achieved by the banking sector. In one way or another, no counterparty is present in this project. On the contrary, a number of banks will claim an amount for the management of the securities account, which is normal, while having from now on captive clients. In any case, there is a risk that these customers are. Their assets will be known to the bank. The latter – and it makes sense – will try to offer them the best possible service in order to allow them to make the best investments, engage in long-term investments and thus keep them for as long as possible. We would have preferred that some proposals could guarantee to all savers, to all those holders of securities, who will now be dematerialized, a mobility assured at the level of their banking investments.

This is the case with Don Manuel. The latter is nothing but a gift, but it must meet a number of conditions, including the delivery of something. Previously, there was a transfer of securities; materialized securities could be given and passed from one hand to the other. The term “Manuel” has all its importance here. This had to be done hand in hand. When there is dematerialization, as having is only present on a bank account, hand-to-hand donation becomes difficult. by

However, there is an advance to the extent that Article 21 provides that possession is worth title. In other words, the person who has money on a bank account actually owns it, even if this is not the case materially. It is true that in 1804, one could not imagine that one day one could possess money or securities on a bank account without possessing them physically.

However, there is still controversy on this issue. Do I need a notification in case of transfer of account to account? Should it be accompanied by a document allowing this manual donation? Does it need to be specified when transferring? In other words, is a mention necessary to specify whether or not it is a manual donation? I repeat that there is still controversy on this subject.

Article 21 seeks to answer this question. In fact, it provides that possession is worth a title. Nevertheless, Mrs. Minister, I would like to ask you for the last time the question: can a transfer from account to account — when there is a transfer of old securities to the holder that are currently on an account — be considered a manual donation, with the consequences that this entails at the level of the notarial act?

Mr. Wathelet, the 1995 law already provided for the dematerialization of securities but the implementing orders were never published. The doctrine ruled that manual donation was always possible.

I would also like to remind you that Mr. Jean-Jacques Viseur has submitted a bill aiming to abolish the manual donation.

We need to ensure legal certainty. We all strive to ⁇ this goal. You know, like me, that a doctrine has pronounced itself in one direction, but that one can also read a doctrine that has pronounced itself in another direction. The jurisprudence remains vague and uncertain. It must be possible to guarantee legal certainty for all taxpayers when they make a manual donation, when they make a payment or when they record their transfers, not to mention the consequences that this entails at the level of the notarial act and at the level of taxation. I would have wanted a clarification on this.

In any case, we will support this project that, in our opinion, goes in the right direction: that of transparency in order to be able to best counter fraud, laundering and the financing of acts, however reproachable, such as acts of terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, since no one has done it yet, I will thank the reporter, Mr. Eric Massin, for his comprehensive, complete, traditionally faithful report. Their

We are also happy to have heard the position he interpreted on behalf of his group. You have said yourself that we are quasi unisono agreeing, ⁇ with the principle of this bill, which in fact aims to abolish the issuance and use of securities that are considered to be movable values, in other words dematerialisation.

I will not go into details of what exists. The previous speakers did.

We do not see any ideological undertones. It is a social evolution. This is how we view it. It is a modernization that is on the agenda. Since Belgium is an exception in the Europe of transparency, we believe that we should also go in that direction, especially since there is a long transition period in the draft law.

The disadvantages of the effects of the tone and the potential abuses were sufficiently emphasized by the previous speakers to avoid falling into repetition. For us, of course, there is still the risk of loss and theft, which can also play a determining role. The result of the present draft law is that all shares of toonder will have to be placed on a securities account. The equivalent of these securities will then be accounted for and of course that is the transparency.

The fact that these securities must be placed on a securities account is of course an advantage. That is obvious. Mrs Van der Auwera has sufficiently emphasized this. I do not need to go back to this, but only refer to the report.

We have made two comments in the committee, which I will briefly repeat. Mr Wathelet has also already cited them, in particular, that the abolition of securities will entail a certain cost savings. This savings is estimated at 34 million euros. We hope that there will be enough contacts with the financial world to encourage even the small saver to anticipate the legislation, all at a reasonable cost.

I will then come to the second observation, to which Mr. Daems joined.

The [...]

As I said, sir. There is the say and the not say.

There are many taxpayers who fear that the abolition of the securities on toonder could give rise to the establishment of an asset cadastre. I am pleased to hear from your mouth that c'est fini la rage taxatoire et qu'il n'y a pas d'agenda caché.

Look, if you say it, the minister says it and it is recorded in the report, then we are happy with that because we would of course continue to oppose the introduction of both a cadastral and a property tax. I think we should not engage in polemics here because it is a polemic for the future, if it would happen. However, we wanted to emphasize this and see it recorded.

Mr Wathelet also addressed the element of the hand-gift, which I actually also cited in the debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this issue. However, she has already given an answer, and for me she does not need to do so anymore.

by Mr. Wathelet is not there, but I confirm that we have talked about it in the committee. I answered that there was, indeed, an assimilation to a manual donation. We also discussed the case-law. That being said, I have also declared myself open to possible legislative initiatives if they prove necessary. by

So I repeat it: for me, there is no problem. But if legislative initiatives should be taken, I am ready.

If you demonstrate so much goodwill, my group can’t help but join and stand behind this bill. We will approve it.

The floor is now for mr. Nollet and I know his sense of concision.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, dear colleagues, this bill is a good bill, not so much because it makes our system a little more modern — you were right to emphasize it — but because it is a step, a tool, a means for an even more effective fight against tax fraud and for the establishment of a more transparent system of financial flows. This is a step. My reflection here will be built around the other steps still needed.

This step has been made to wait; we are only catching up with a delay, which no longer exists elsewhere, and — as indicated by Mr. Massin in his personal intervention — we do it relatively slowly. Indeed, it is only at the end of 2013, at the beginning of 2014 that we can estimate that the entire system of securities to bearers will end its existence. Only in eight years will the securities issued prior to the publication of the law have to be realized. This is a rather long period compared to what you mentioned, Mr. Massin, in an interview with "La Libre Belgique" in 2004, since it was discussed at the time of the 2008-2009 period. This fairly long deadline is probably technically necessary but is mostly a reflection of the discussions you have had within the government to find an agreement and a majority.

This is a step that, politically speaking, was very expensive, given that the Socialist Party had initially declared that it had obtained the removal of holding titles at the time when the liberals obtained the DLU. Obviously, this could not be done at that time and you had to pay it a second time! Indeed, it is only when notional interests have been adopted to the government that, in the end, you have obtained the translation into a bill of the abolition of holding titles, the outcome of which is now on the agenda. The political price is...

Mr. Nollet, I’m too rough to pay twice!

However, this is the case here! We feel that the political price has been very expensive but the text is there and, as you can already feel it, we will also vote for it.

I would like to devote most of my speech to pointing out the subsequent steps that this text requires.

First, I cannot ignore the work currently ongoing in the Chamber and Senate Joint Committee on Globalization as well as the reflections on tax havens. I dare hope that, within the framework of this legislature, we will arrive, in plenary session, with concrete translations of these works.

I would also like to talk about the need to move forward in the field of fiscal harmonisation at the European level, even to proceed, as the Minister of Finance once said in a committee, by a range that would be the establishment of the current reality of certain tax rates and which, year after year, would reduce the gap between those with the highest rates and those with the lowest rates. But let’s already set the range that is today’s reality to prevent already some countries from descending lower than they do today in terms of tax harmonisation. At the European level, progress must be made and this step must be pointed out.

A third element of reflection is the elimination of titles to the carrier. I said, this is what will make transparent various financial revenues currently at least partially opaque. Other financial revenues, however, will remain anonymous and will continue to make illegal transactions possible. Certainly, these are much more complex products, which are not everybody’s reach and which are mentioned in particular in the context of the Globalization Commission of which I spoke just recently, but unfortunately they are also realities. It is on these dimensions that we will also need to work in the subsequent stages.

In this context, the question — technical in my opinion, as it is about ways to move forward in the concretization, and not ideological — of bank secrecy will have to be reopened on the occasion of the debate on these other forms of anonymous money to be abolished one day or another. Together with Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria, Belgium is one of the four OECD countries still retrograde in this area.

I would like to emphasize here the fact that international pressure, for those who, in Belgium, are not fierce defenders of this banking secret, can be an interesting tool. You may remember that in Davos, in January 2005, French President Jacques Chirac proposed to tax, on entry and exit, the capital of countries that still practice bank secrecy. He argues that this weakens their own tax sovereignty in this matter.

His proposal was in fact the logical consequence of the report that he had received from the inspector of Finance Landau, of which I would like to quote an extract; indeed, it reflects wonderfully the new philosophy that could be developed, including here, on this aspect.

The report says that in some countries, bank secrecy is presented as a component of the individual’s freedom against the state, or even the right to respect for privacy. But bank secrecy has strong and direct consequences for countries that do not have it. In particular, bank secrecy can be used as a privileged support for evasion activities or illegal behavior. In this regard, it responds to the definition that economic analysis gives of negative externality. The exercise by one country of a right which it considers legitimate causes in other countries side effects not necessarily deliberate, but indisputable. In other words, alongside its positive effects, it produces public evil – in contrast to a public good – in the form of tax evasion and support for criminal activities.

This characteristic of public evil is recognised for this very last point, since bank secrecy can be lifted in countries that apply it as part of the fight against crime.

Mr Nollet, Mr Can Massin interrupt you?

But of course, Mr President.

Mr. Nollet, I totally agree with the article you are quoting at the moment. But, in Belgium, bank secrecy does not exist; there is only a bank discretion. If you take the comparison with Luxembourg or Switzerland, where there is a true bank secret, you can only obtain information about it through the intervention of an investigation judge – which is not the case in Belgium. In Luxembourg, among other things, even with such intervention, one cannot obtain information about the movements of a bank account and its holder when it comes to tax fraud - this is not the case here. When indications of tax fraud are discovered, for example in relation to personal tax or corporate tax, the bank must respond to the request of the Administration of Contributions. And, in the case of VAT, we go even further, since discretion does not intervene.

So I don’t think we can tax Belgium to develop a protection or a bank secret that doesn’t exist. If you talk about banking discretion, I agree with you; but no banking secret, please.

I admit that there is a nuance – and I have not said the opposite – between the Belgian and Luxembourg or Swiss situations. But this nuance is not enough to exclude Belgium from what the Landau report itself criticizes, since it cites the four countries. I would like to reiterate what was stated by the Minister of Finance.

If he doesn’t know our legal system, I can’t do anything about it.

I do not think we are there. You are right to mention these differences. But from saying that they are sufficient to deny the problem raised here, in particular concerning countries that do not practice any secret or any banking discretion, I think you are on the wrong path. I can only quote the report that talks about it. by

"In theory, a negative externality must be compensated by a tax that would represent it and internalize its cost for the global community." This is where Chirac’s proposal to target the four countries comes into play in the event that this should be ⁇ ined.

Countries that are engaged in this process of bank secrecy, they say again, should keep in mind a last resort option for other countries. This option would not be an instrument of deterrence or retaliation but would correspond to the finding that if the major financial centers are not ready to play their role and to assume their responsibilities in a globalized economy, another attitude is justified and this action could include different regulatory frameworks in the field of capital circulation and an adaptation of the tax legislation to alter transactions with these financial centers, including the one in Brussels. The report speaks of it as such. I found this interesting for those who want to rely on it and I think there are elements to look for for our own developments here in Belgium.

I would also like to quote other steps that are necessary and that are all connected with the need for a greater regulation of “financial capitalism”, to take back the term used by the newspapers in recent weeks, ⁇ in the interview granted by Jean Peyrelevade, former boss of Suez and Crédit Lyonnais to the newspaper “Le Soir”.

First, I would like to say a word about the introduction of greater regulation as one of the necessary steps. One of the major diseases suffered by investments, ⁇ and financial markets is the volatility of these investments due in particular to speculation and the willingness of some investors to make very short-term profits in various forms of financial bubbles. Some, on the financial markets, demand returns on investments exceeding 10 to 15% per year, where industrials think of a horizon of fifteen to twenty years. Funds, including pension funds or investment funds, sometimes reason on a much lower term since the average duration of holding a stock of shares by a fund is seven months (for pension funds). If nothing is done in terms of financial regulation — that is why I mention it here as a necessary subsequent step — the cycle of finance will finally impose itself on the cycle of the economy. Financial markets are gradually becoming the exclusive or quasi-exclusive engine of the economy, the rise of stock markets has seen the rise in power of the ideology of equity value, according to which companies must act to maximize the stock profitability of their securities and thus ⁇ financial returns, that is, investments whose demand is transmitted by financial investors through this stock market.

As I said, these investors often demand higher levels of profitability than balance returns on capital markets. However, it is absolutely impossible that all companies at once do more than the average, necessarily and by definition! This leads to over- and under-risk assessments or repeated scandals. I give you the names of those scandals that you all know: Enron, Maxwell, Andersen, Worldcom, etc.

In order to properly reboot the economy, politics must — that is why I cite them as subsequent steps — introduce elements of regulation of finance. This finding is all the more justified in our country as one of the highest savings rates is observed in Belgium.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I cannot prevent Mr. Nollet from saying what he wants to say in the Chamber.

He has the right to say what he wants, but I allow myself to remind him that he is leading a struggle of a different age and that he is holding a speech that has no place here today.

Why do I say that? Mr. Massin has already talked about bank secrecy that in fact no longer exists in our country and you, Mr. Nollet, you boast about it further. However, a legislator must also be a cultural philosopher and must be preventive and proactive. We are here preparing the citizen to change his mind to transparency and we give him the time, while you are already hammering on other matters. No country is governed in this way. I am sorry to have to tell you that.

If I allow myself to develop these other stages, it is because behind the positive vote that the whole ecologist group will issue just now, there is a real will to go further. These steps, it seemed to me necessary to indicate them in this debate, especially since we are not the only ones who think in this way and develop them. Indeed, the French-speaking media of the country in recent times, or even the people we did not expect, a priori, develop this kind of discourse on the need for financial regulation, which is occupied with taking the whole step on the functioning of the real economy.

This is the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker. If we vote positively, we will also point with the finger the next steps useful to continue the work for greater tax justice and regulation of financial capitalism.

The President,

the modernization, the first rule in the introductory presentation of the Vice-Prime Minister. The other arguments that were cited are, in my opinion, drug reasons for reaching a difficult political compromise between, on the one hand, the socialist family and, on the other hand, the liberal family in this Parliament.

It is ⁇ not a parade horse of purple, it is rather the result of a cow trade. I examine the reasons for this. The financial transactions of terrorist and criminal organizations are cited as one of the arguments to eliminate the effects of tounder, while one himself had to admit in the introductory explanation that one has never found a trace of it anywhere. Neither the suspects who are now on trial, nor the suspects who have been on trial in, for example, the GIA processes were holders of effects on tower. Their pockets didn’t go out of the shares. To be honest, I think that’s a bit of a cheap reason.

It refers to international bodies, but without mentioning them by name. One body is called by name: a financial working group in the OECD. However, it is not because they say so that it is actually so. I think that argument is quite blatant.

It is said that the international credibility of Belgium would be beneficial in the acceptance of this arrangement. Well, if the international credibility of Belgium would be saved with this bill, then you could all go home very safely today. However, I am not worried: the international credibility of Belgium will ⁇ not be restored by this, there is still much work to be done. To be honest, I even think that it is unstarted work. Fortunately only.

The effects of tinder could give rise to tax fraud, but I have seen no figures or research results from the Minister of Justice anywhere. If one thinks that this is the egg of Columbus to combat tax fraud, then I would recommend that you first examine the tax legislation. After all, that is a whole battery of Columbus eggs to wash money white, avoid taxes, and, more importantly, avoid taxes.

In this regard, I also find the arguments misguided.

Finally, when one states that the hereditary reserve can be jeopardized by shares in toonder - examples from practice, the lawyer's office are cited - then that is indeed true. Here too, however, I would like to give no food to all those who have developed other methods to bypass hereditary reserves. By doing this alone, we will not really solve the matter. We can then better immediately review and deal with the Civil Code a little more firmly. Then we may have enough arguments to address this and then we immediately have a whole round-up of measures that can counter both tax fraud and the circumvention of inheritance provisions.

So we are not at all impressed by the three or four couplets that are being raised here to get through this bill. The refrain is the same, it is that of the conditional way. It is said that there could be financial laundering operations, that the inheritance reserve could be bypassed and that tax fraud could be committed, but nowhere we find proof of this in the provisions.

It only becomes really scratched when we look at the procedure followed to eliminate the effects of tounder. First and foremost, there are the woeker fines that the State Council has very difficult. This provides a nice sweets for the Belgian State. In ten years, people will lose all their wealth. It will often also be about older people because I think this is especially compulsive in older people, retaining effects on tounder and the like. This is indeed touching out of time. However, the woeker fines that are then provided swing out a bit of the pan. I feel supported in this by a body with real authority, not one or another OECD working group, but our own State Council that says it.

We also believe that the deadline for abolition by 2014 indicates a serious and difficult to find political compromise between liberals and socialists. On December 31, 2013, the entire game ends. Meanwhile, there is still enough time until 2008 — and you bring people to ideas through the introductory statement — to carry out money laundering operations and the like, or to commit tax fraud and the like. There is still time and opportunity. One here almost gives the butter in the mouth through the arguments to eliminate these effects of tounder.

Finally, we think it is a bad time to take this arrangement. It has just been seen in the government statement how the savers are dealt with. Now we are dealing with investors. They are not just the big investors. They know about wanting. The super-rich make sure that their wealth is secured in a different way.

We do not find it at all the time to target the investor immediately after one has first fished the saver. When you later, and I am addressing myself especially to the colleagues of the VLD, will see the red lights of the Flemish Interest burning, that will be above all a signal. It will be a signal to the fact that we do not believe so much in the arguments that the property tax and the property cadastre will not come there.

We have seen a lot of purple and we have heard a lot of lies from purple. I found another quote from Karel De Gucht, which I unfortunately do not have, but it was something in the nature of the effects of tounder that would continue to exist forever days. I think he said that in 2003. Today they will be abolished. We therefore attach little faith to the fact that both asset cadastre and asset tax, on which the PS is indeed liable, will not come.

The signal will be given later. Do not complain afterwards.

Mrs Roppe, chairman of the committee that dealt with this issue, is the last speaker in the general meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I have to promise you that this would be one of my shortest presentations in this appreciated hemisphere. I was given two seconds, which seemed too short.

The current bill is good. This was confirmed on all banks, both in the committee and in the plenary session, although perfection is not of this world. The European Central Bank has also given a very favourable opinion on this bill. It may be useful to note this.

As several colleagues have pointed out, the present draft legislation is in the framework of the modernization with coincidentally beneficial effects on anti-fraud, cost savings and even on transparency.

We are therefore clearly here for a win-win situation and, to reassure the VLD colleagues, without a double agenda.

The report was also good. The reporter is also absent. The cooperation in the committee was interesting.

The critical sounds we have heard in the committee have also been raised today. We have always received responsibilities from the Minister. The sound presentations in the plenary debate testify to the seriousness with which this draft was addressed.

I really keep my speech short. I just want to say that it is of course that the spiritists will approve this design. I think I can say the same on behalf of the colleagues of the SP.