Proposition 53K2763

Projet de loi portant des dispositions urgentes en matière de lutte contre la fraude.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

April 22, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax tax evasion precious metal copper criminal law money laundering

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 ¶

May 29, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to my written report.

I refer to my written report.

by MM. Clarinval and Jadot and Ms Jadin also refer to their written report.

Mr. Secretary of State, first of all, I would like to again criticize the method of the government. In fact, it would be much more convenient if the interconnected provisions on anti-fraud also were combined instead of spreading them across several successive draft laws, which are then again pursued by the Parliament. This can absolutely not promote the unity of interpretation.

This unity of interpretation can be much more difficult to preserve if one spreads a draft law like the one that precedes, with its 14 articles, than over four or five different commissions. However, the reports of the various committees show that there was a great coherence between the discussions in all these committees. We have contributed to this too. Although the division of powers between the various committees does not prevent this, we request that coherent provisions be submitted in a single draft law from now on.

Last week we discussed here in the plenary session the draft law containing various fiscal and financial provisions, which in particular introduces the concept of “serious tax fraud” in tax criminal law. In the present bill, the same concept is introduced again, now in the preventive money laundering legislation, criminal law and corporate law. The unpleasant thing is that the embodiment of the concept of “serious tax fraud” in the explanatory memory in both bills is not entirely identical.

Furthermore, from the texts circulating, it is apparent that another third bill on tax regularization is coming. This concept will also be extremely important in order to be able to come to an unambiguous interpretation.

The discussion on the concept of “serious tax fraud” myself I would like to leave to colleague De Wit. In particular, I would like to call on the Secretary of State to take much more into account this Parliament and of course also the citizens, because they can only be the ass. They will be subject to these new laws.

Mr. Secretary of State, despite all this, the numerical professions and myself would like to thank you for the clarity you have brought in the various committee meetings on the interpretation of the thirteen indicators of money laundering. Both in the Committee on Finance and in the Committee on Justice, you have clarified that the thirteen money laundering indicators are only an indication of a suspicion of money laundering. You are therefore rightly in favour of an additional reading of these whitewash indicators. With this, you no longer intervene with Minister Onkelinx, as she regarded this as an autonomous interpretation of these indicators. Mr. Secretary of State, in this way you express the viewpoint of the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Reynders.

Clearness in this matter is very important and you also take care of that, Mr. Secretary of State. With the expansion of the scope of the reporting obligation, it is important that this becomes clear. We fear that there will be a sensitive increase in often not necessarily useful notifications to the CFI. I, by the way, do not know whether the lack of qualitative reports will increase efficiency. As you know, I’d like to look at what the numbering professions have all been hit by the ears lately. Also here again shows that they need to report more and more things, but that costs those people time and money. Hopefully the results obtained from these reports will also be qualitative.

The numerists who need to report will be frightened, and even though they are not quite sure, they will still report so that they themselves will not be called to the mat.

I would like to thank the majority for the fact that, following my appeal of 2 May 2012, as well as my bill no. 2201 and from my amendment to the current draft in the committee, the legal guarantee takes over that the name of the trader or service provider who reports a suspicion of money laundering to the CFI can never appear in the file of the prosecutor’s office. The CFI will not be permitted to disclose that name under any circumstances. That is good too. Money laundering is common in the mafia, drug trafficking, illegal arms trafficking, human trafficking. This is not about small criminals. I am glad that the majority followed me. Article 7 absolutely prevents this. I thank you for that.

Since we always want to oppose constructively, I ask the majority to consider the issue of criminal liability of traders and service providers reporting to the CFI. One of your previous anti-fraud measures, Mr. Secretary of State, was the introduction of an obligation to report to the CFI on behalf of traders and service providers when the limit on cash payments up to 5 000 euros is not complied with. In that case, they must report a fact for which they may be unanimously convicted to pay a criminal fine. I know that you assume that this is an administrative fine, but this is not clearly apparent from the Act of 11 January 1993, which refers to the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to that fine.

Colleagues, tomorrow you will again have the opportunity to vote and to speak out on my amendment, which I also submitted to the committee.

Finally, this draft law also includes a measure that I have already approached critically on the occasion of your policy note, in particular the consultation of the company number in the KBO-database if a company has not filed annual accounts for three years.

There are already several sanctions against companies that do not file annual accounts. If the financial statements were not submitted, the damage suffered by third parties shall be deemed to arise from this failure, unless proof of contrary is provided. This is a civil sanction. A tariff surcharge must be paid for a late filing with the National Bank of Belgium. There are also administrative fines and criminal penalties.

Finally, anyone who can demonstrate an interest can also claim judicial dissolution.

Therefore, following the discussion of your policy note, I have asked for the maintenance and application of these sanctions, which still exist. I assume that your policy is based on facts and I therefore find it very unfortunate that the results of your research are not ⁇ anywhere.

Therefore, four months ago, I suggested that the tax authorities be ordered to systematically dissolve companies that have not filed financial statements for three years. The tax authority would then serve not only the interests of the government but of anyone who comes into contact with such lax companies.

The question is, then, why you don’t just pick up these lax companies. This procedure appears to be too time-consuming, but instead of improving this procedure, please now request the company number at the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises. The Council of State also correctly notes that in this way the KBO database cannot yet fully reflect the legal reality.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, none of us here has ever shaken the hand of a company, but that does not prevent contracts being concluded with companies on a daily basis. A company is a fiction of law.

Per ⁇ you should talk to Professor Geens. I know he knows the matter very well.

Mr. Secretary of State, by simply passing through the company number, you now pretend that that legal fiction would suddenly cease to exist, which is a fiction too much. The company still exists legally. Therefore, it can still conclude contracts and issue invoices.

I understand that searching the company number in practice may be annoying. However, it will also cause problems to the government, which frequently uses the company number in all databases. We will therefore, in my opinion, return to the measure.

If you still want loose companies to lose their legal personality, so that sleeping companies can finally fall asleep and can no longer suddenly wake up as fraudulent legal fiction, you would much better insist on facilitating the judicial dissolution process. After all, honest taxpayers, dealing with such loose companies, also have something to do with your fraud policy, if appropriate.

After all, I intended to know that you would use the proceeds from the fraud to reduce the tax burden. Unfortunately, the taxpayer has not noticed such a reduction so far.

Mr. Secretary of State, I turn around, asking that if you come out with new fraud measures, you would like to put them together in a single bill so that we can interpret them as a whole. This makes it clear to all taxpayers what you want to state with your measures.

I still have to thank you for your correct interpretation of the thirteen indicators. I hope you remain with your position that you have been welcomed in the various committees.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out once again that searching for a company number would make your fraud policy more effective than the measures you are already taking.

Our government has made the fight against tax fraud an absolute priority. This is a great thing when you hear the exorbitant amounts of lack to earn for the Public Treasury.

At a time when every citizen must consent to efforts, it is intolerable that some fraud, that some do not declare their income or plans in tax havens. The tax evaded by the fraudsters is borne by all other taxpayers. The absence of fraud could reduce the tax level of the entire population.

Since the Tax Investigation Committee, my group has been proactive on this subject. I mean as proof of beautiful advances, for example the lifting of bank secrecy on one-way as well.

Since your entry into office, the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations has accelerated considerably. Overall, your work is really valuable. The project we support today emphasizes the easing of the notion of serious tax fraud in the Criminal Code and the CTIF Act. Serious or non-organized tax fraud will now be discussed as a substitute for serious and organized tax fraud that implements complex mechanisms or uses processes with international dimensions. It will no longer be necessary to face international money laundering to punish tax fraud.

I hear some grinding teeth against the principle of equality and the adage that crimes and crimes must be defined with precision by law and that the penalties that are associated with them is a primary principle. Certainly ! But my group would like that as much jurisprudence, as much forecasting, as much predictability and as much precaution be taken in matters of fighting terrorism or in other matters in which the risks of infringing on privacy are high.

If, for some, the collection of information on the data of a bank account constitutes a breach of privacy and if they evoke this breach when it comes to the fight against major tax fraud, this is not the case for my group, nor is it the case for the Constitutional Court. Many of you have talked a lot about these terms. And in this, I am surprised! Indeed, when it comes to people, to terrorism, no one stumbles, while tax fraud triggers passions. To believe that not everyone thinks that this struggle should be a priority.

The message is simple and clear, Mr. Secretary of State. I wanted to deliver it to you once again: There is no place for fraud in our country!

My group therefore supports this project, your project, congratulates you, and the government, for all their work in this area.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, on the need to tackle tax fraud, there is now a consensus that becomes even stronger in times of financial crisis and budgetary difficulties, when every citizen is required to make extra efforts. We therefore consider it positive that Belgium complies with the recommendations of the Financial Action Group to combat money laundering.

After the approval of this legislative amendment, the Financial Information Processing Unit (CFI) will also be able to tackle money laundering resulting from serious tax fraud that is not organized at all. This is a fraud that can be considered serious due to the large amounts. Given that serious fraud is now sufficient for a notification, without it being organized, the chance of packing will also increase.

However, CD&V wants to emphasize the following. The introduction of simplified concepts should be welcomed, in so far as they are indeed aimed at greater clarity. During the discussions in the Justice Committee, this legislative amendment was somewhat minimized, as if it were just about omitting the word “and” in the note “serious and organized tax fraud”. However, let us not forget that this significantly expands the scope of the concept, so that the jurisprudence already developed in this field will not always provide the necessary support. Louter’s claim that the previous criteria remain unshorted is therefore not correct. The call for clear and clear criteria, preferably included in the law itself, is therefore understandable.

The organized character is indeed no longer a conditio sine qua non. This also raises the question of the importance to be attributed to it in the assessment of its serious nature.

Our group has therefore already expressed itself in the Committee on Justice against the preservation of the phrase “organized or not organized” which contains only a reference to the earlier concept but de facto adds nothing substantial. Furthermore, this sentence may, in our view, lead the judge to consider having to take a decision on whether or not it is organized, while this is only a possible indication of its seriousness. The Secretary of State has confirmed that this sentence could in fact be omitted but still called for its preservation. We still regret this.

We also regret – but this is rather aside – the followed method in various committees which restricted the debate in each committee. We therefore regret the confusion caused by referring during the discussions to work in other committees of which, of course, the substance was not known at that time.

For good understanding, we are in favour of the expansion of the range of action in the fight against tax fraud. This draft follows the recommendations of the Financial Action Group on Anti-Money Laundering as well as the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Major Tax Fraud. For this reason, we will also agree with this draft. However, we are equally in favour of clear legislation that enables the actors in the field to turn this enlargement into concrete actions. The complexity of tax fraud effectively requires a certain degree of legislative flexibility, but flexibility should never be at the expense of legality. We are therefore committed to further monitoring this issue and, where necessary, to provide legislative updates.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it is no surprise that I take the floor to defend the government’s project and strengthen it in its policy of combating tax fraud, a policy that is neither reactive nor emotional since the Belgian government has not waited for the outbreak of various affairs to tackle it firmly.

The bill contains many measures that I would call pragmatic. We do not create new structures overlapping others, which would short-circuit and, in the end, prove useless. On the contrary, the government is showing itself ground to ground. It uses instruments already in place, refines them, precises them and extends them when necessary.

A key point to be highlighted is that, through this text, the government demonstrates its control of the elements related to tax fraud. He understood that tax evasion does not only concern people who want to illegally evade taxes. It also unfortunately affects mafia and terrorist networks that set up mechanisms designed to launder their money.

Therefore, I congratulate the government to take this problem hand in hand and to demonstrate greater severity. The amendment of the Act of 11 January 1993 will allow for a significant expansion of its scope by extending the definition of tax fraud. More cases will be targeted and more violations will be punished. In addition, this also allows us to comply with the decisions of the Financial Action Group (FATF), which is desirable and necessary in the perspective of effective international cooperation.

In the new definition of tax fraud, the degree of organization becomes one of the criteria for its severity without necessarily being required to qualify it. Thus, once this amendment is adopted, the Financial Information Processing Unit will also be able to address money laundering resulting from serious tax fraud that has no degree of organization but which, for example due to the importance of fraudulent amounts, can be classified as serious.

This constitutes a manifest tightening of the legislation, to which I can only subscribe with the whole Reform Movement. Similarly, the provision providing for the prohibition for traders of precious metals to carry out cash transactions for an amount exceeding 5 000 euros, reduced in a few months to 3 000 euros, can only be accepted with satisfaction. This type of operations will no longer be able to be carried out without trace and the fight against laundering will be strengthened. This is a simple legislative amendment that costs nothing or so little, and which, without a doubt, will be very effective.

The bill also strengthens the exchange of information between the Financial Information Processing Cell, on the one hand, and the Labour Auditory, the Information and Social Research Service and the Minister of Finance, on the other. As you know, in the fight against fraud, the collection of information but above all its crossover is of crucial importance. The government has understood this, as this bill proves. Again, this is a low-cost but significantly improving the performance of the administration and the fight against fraud.

Furthermore, the text of the law fits with today’s realities, since it targets and fights against, in particular, the sale of metals such as copper, a plague that many shippers know well and which causes the SNCB to lose millions of euros. By making the resale more complicated, we reduce what could be called the attractiveness of the flight.

As part of the preparation of the 2013 budget, the Government has decided that in the case of companies that have not fulfilled for three years the obligation to submit their annual accounts to the National Bank of Belgium, the management department of the ECB will proceed with the deletion of the company in question within it, in order to avoid fraudulent retracements by groups that can be defined as mafia.

Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the project presents a battery of measures to be implemented as soon as possible. This is, in any case, the will of the Reform Movement, in whose name I reaffirm my full and full support for the fight against tax fraud. This struggle should continue to intensify in the coming months. This is a budgetary imperative but also an imperative of justice and equity.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, my group is also in favour of tackling tax fraud. I was a member of the investigative committee that investigated files of major tax fraud. Together with some colleagues, as the report also demonstrates, I have been able to conclude that the major fraud systems, including those of foreign paid flat-rate taxes and cash companies, which were then investigated in the committee, are rather related to organized crime, but are far from the fraud of entrepreneurs, for whom economic activity and employment are still the main drivers.

I am aware that the major fraud systems need to be tackled effectively, because they create a business climate where competition has nothing to do with the products delivered or the services provided, but everything with the one who dares to invest the least on tax ethics. Such fraud systems are of a completely different alloy. They also justify a different approach and regulation.

However, the legislation must be proportionate, exemplary, and also enforceable, and should give rise to legal certainty and equal application. In the past I have repeatedly said what I am now recalling. Whether it is the preventive money laundering legislation, the application of the una-via legislation, the extended application of the amicable settlement or the repressive approach through the criminal law, the citizen has the right to accuracy, clarity and predictability.

Mr. Secretary of State, together with my group, I endorse the distinction you make. However, I have already expressed my concern in the committee about the violation of the principle of legality in criminal matters, the violation of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, all based on the same principles.

The draft text raises the question of the legality of the punishment and the punishment. I have said this in the committee and repeat it again today: in both cases, both as regards the punishment and the punishment to be imposed – the maximum punishment for serious tax fraud – the only different constituent component is the seriousness.

Here is exactly the shoe. Despite a previous judgment of the Constitutional Court of 22 July 2004, in which the Court held that the term "seriously" does not contain sufficient normative content to define a crime and despite the State Council in its opinion stating that the criteria by which the committed acts can or cannot be considered as serious would best be included in the Criminal Code itself, this is not the case in the draft text.

Mr. Secretary of State, you referred to a judgment of the Constitutional Court of July 2005. I have read that judgment in print, but also that judgment does not appear to be able to provide a solution, since gravity is not the only determining constitutive component there, but it is indeed a supplementary constitutive component, which, besides, still occurs in a completely different context. I think colleague Lacroix said this right here, in particular the regulation on terrorist offences.

Mr. Secretary of State, according to the draft text, the legal subordinates will indeed have to do with the explanation to determine whether a tax offence is a simple tax offence or can be judged as a serious tax offence.

You refer to the explanation, which concerns the creation and use of counterfeit documents, the large amount of the transaction, the abnormal nature of the amount, taking into account the client’s activities or equity, as well as the avoidance of one of the indicators in the Royal Decree of 2007.

Thus, not only does the legal basis seem to be lacking, allowing everyone to pre-decide what the criminal consequence will be, at the moment when he assumes a certain behavior, but it also seems that the judge is left with an excessive discretion, which could give rise to an arbitrary and unequal application, and that is our concern.

I was initially reassured after your explanation in the committee. You referred to the necessary and auxiliary avoidance of the indicators of the 2007 Royal Decree. After reading the note attached to the report, I am no longer sure. The legal basis and constituent elements of what should be understood as serious tax fraud are still missing in the draft text.

The explanatory note states that the judge can judge on the basis of the indicators provided in the explanatory note. This means that the court can also decide on the basis of the indicators not provided in the explanatory note, serious tax fraud, with all the consequences thereof. Then it seems to be entirely left to the individual judge to judge whether certain crimes are tax fraud or serious tax fraud.

The indicators provided in the explanatory note will give rise to very diverse jurisprudence, which will give rise to unequal application. You seem convinced of the opposite. You have assured us of this.

I say yes to the fight against tax fraud, but no to arbitrariness and witch hunting. I agree with colleague Devlies. We must follow this aspect and, if necessary, legislative upgrades.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, what should the opposition still do, after CD&V and the Open Vld have heard here today? In fact, they say the same as us. They made a whole series of comments that we have already made and they identified a number of problems that could not be heard in the committee. I feel strengthened here in the speech. I don’t feel alone anymore, on the contrary.

The fight against fraud is a goal that we of course endorse; please do not make any misunderstandings about it. That you want to tackle tax fraud and money laundering practices is entirely right and for that you have our support. However, if you want to do that, Mr. Secretary of State, then you must do it well and then you must do it with the right means. I’m afraid — I’m clearly not alone with that fear — that the shoe will just knock there. The N-VA is absolutely not convinced that your approach is the right one.

I explain myself more closely. Let me admit that sometimes it becomes concrete. After the reporting, you have added a note to the report, because you already felt that you had to clarify something, but that made the problem even more complicated. There was no debate on this. Please allow me to point out a few things in this regard.

What is the situation, colleagues? At the moment, tax fraud has the following definition, which I will give a little bit, so that everyone knows well what is happening: “The serious and organized tax fraud involving ⁇ complex mechanisms or procedures of international scale.” You would like to simplify that definition and adapt it to “serious tax fraud, whether or not organized”. You do that in various laws and lawsbooks. For Justice it is about the articles of the confiscation declaration and the healing or laundering. I am referring to Article 505. This definition should also be added.

Serious tax fraud is a very broad concept, actually a container concept. We can say what we want here, but the people on the ground must continue with it. That is what it is about. They must fulfill your intentions and your purpose. If one wants to effectively tackle tax fraud on the ground and establish a proper functioning, it is essential that one knows well what should be understood under serious tax fraud. What does it hold in? What is the definition? What should we understand under it?

This is especially the case in criminal law, Mr. Secretary of State, because there is something very specific, in particular the principle of legality. Colleague Van Cauter has rightly stated that, there is something more. Criminal law requires more.

Therefore, I dare point out the judgment of the Council of State on this subject. The State Council does not say that it is contrary to the principle of legality, but is cautious. Moreover, the State Council says that you would best include the definition explicitly in the Criminal Code. That would be a solution.

Mrs Van Cauter cited the judgment. If you only take it “seriously,” that is not enough. This concept is broad and global. That is not enough. Hence the advice to include the definition in the law. However, you do not do that. What are you doing? You refer to your explanatory note, not only for the provisions that were dealt with in the Justice Committee, but also in the other committees. You refer to your explanatory memory, in which you list a number of criteria.

You have subsequently been asked to add a note to the report, which was no longer discussed, but which contains some interesting things. However, they all make it a little more complicated. I will explain more, Mr. Secretary of State. If one does not find a definition in the law itself, one will seek the purpose in the memory of explanation. However, if there are different memories of explanation that stipulate something different, there is a problem. For what is then the interpretation to be given?

For example, I think of page 8-9. You can include the text. To define the “serious” character, list three criteria. First, “discrimination and use of fake pieces”; that is clear. Secondly, "the extent of the amount of the transaction, and its abnormal nature, given the activity or equity of the person concerned"; that is already something more special to which I immediately return. Third, “prevention of one of the thirteen whitewash indicators.” These are the three criteria you specify to assess the “serious” character.

When we look at the memorandum of explanation of the draft law with the fiscal and financial provisions on sustainable development, to which you refer in your attached note, we see those thirteen indicators not mentioned there. Are they not counting there? Moreover, there the “serious” is an aggravating circumstance. Those who follow criminal law a little know that there are constitutive elements, important components to decide whether or not there is a crime, which is important according to the principle of legality. It is worse if there is an aggravating circumstance, which can increase the penalty. Well, in your bill on fiscal and financial provisions, the “serious” is an aggravating circumstance, while in the other bill, the “serious” is precisely the constitutive component.

Go on your way as a practitioner, as a researcher, as a judge. Very specifically, this even ensures that a crime of falsehood is punished under one law, if it is serious with eight days and if it is less serious with a minimum sentence of one month. This is the absurd situation that can occur in practice. In your explanatory memory, one time A and the other time B. One can solve this by incorporating a definition in the law, but you do not.

There is something else. I just stated that there is such a thing as a criterion of proportionality. How will the serious character be judged? This is very simple: one will look at the amount of the fraud in relation to the own capital, or the activity of the person concerned.

I want to give you a very simple example, Mr. Secretary of State. Anyone with an equity of 10 000 euros who commits a fraud of 1 000 euros. In addition, there is another person who commits a fraud of 1 000 euros, but has an equity of 1 million euros. If one takes the criterion of proportionality, this means that the person with an equity of only 10 000 euros commits a much more serious act than the man with 1 million euros of equity.

I do not understand that this is being defended by the left side. The fraud behavior is equal, but proportionality makes it subjective which can lead to aberrant results in practice. I do not understand that.

I have also asked this question in the committee, Mr. Secretary of State. In the Justice Committee we waited with the treatment until we knew what was said in the Finance Committee because it was so important for us to know what was the outcome of the debate so that the violins could be voted. If I look at the report of the discussion in the Finance Committee, it is stated that this is not a criterion. A report is something else than a memory of explanation.

I confronted you with this in the Justice Committee and you told me that I had read a wrong report. So I thought that the pressure sample would still be changed, but the final report still states that this is not a criterion. Then I have a problem. What is it now? Is it a criterion or not? In a note, it becomes a criterion and that makes it exactly so difficult.

Mr. Secretary of State, with this case, I want to show you that your intentions are good, but your means fail. You are not clear. Conflicting interpretations are possible. The land cannot go with this. If you want to deal with this fraud, then you need to have a good remedy. You need to have a strong stick. It is like cycling: if you want to cycle quickly, the tyres must be well pumped. You, on the contrary, drive leak and you will not get the measure.

This is exactly what we want to avoid. Just that should not happen. If you want to tackle the fraud and do it right, make sure you can do it right and make sure you have the tools to do it right. There you fail. And we regret that, Mr. Secretary of State. We also mentioned this in the committee. I am very pleased that the colleagues from the majority continue today, that they are concerned, that they are concerned that with the unclear definition, which is now there, you are paving the way to a casuistic and practical problems that will lead to your fight against tax fraud becoming an empty box.

You might think that we, as an opposition, would find that great if your policy fails, but not in this case. Because, once and for all, and very clearly, we also want to tackle tax fraud. But we ask for the right remedy, the right remedy, a good definition and something with which to start the practice. And that’s not here today and that’s why our group will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, as I like the meetings that progress quickly and well, I will not repeat what I have already expressed in the committee. I will simply tell you that the CDH group will support this bill because it aims to improve legislation in order to fight money laundering and tax fraud more effectively even though, as some colleagues have already said, this should not become a witch hunt either.

The aim here is to bring Belgian legislation in line with international standards as defined by the Financial Action Group (FATF). The scope of the Financial Information Processing Unit will therefore be extended to serious tax fraud, including when it cannot be qualified as organized. Following the recommendations of this group to combat laundering, the project introduces the identification obligation for anyone who buys and pays for precious materials in cash to ensure optimal monitoring and thus avoid any risk of laundering, especially in this important sector of precious metals that have a high value on international markets.

This bill, through the Minister of the Interior, also pays special attention to a phenomenon that has gained scale in recent years. Theft of cables has been steadily increasing for four years. From 290 flights in 2009, we rose to 1,362 in 2012, mainly due to the rise in the price of copper. This crime causes deterioration especially on railways, with adverse consequences for shippers in terms of punctuality. It should be noted that this represents an average of more than 3 hours of delay per day. In the face of this phenomenon, the measures proposed by Ms. Milquet in Title IV of the bill are aimed at enabling a more effective fight against these thefts, in particular through control actions.

Mr. Secretary of State, allow me to congratulate you and the Government for the important progress made by this bill. As I said before, our group will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, also in the Committee on Internal Affairs was discussed a small measure of the draft law urgent anti-fraud. This small measure simply crashes into the committee for domestic affairs, but can still have huge consequences. It is a new measure that, at first glance, builds on the provisions against the theft of old and precious metals.

Indeed, our country is struggling with a plague of copper theft and also has a significant number of home theft in order to steal jewelry or money. You know the continuation of the story. These jewels are offered to jewelers, who melt them or rework them into new jewels that are offered for sale again. In addition to the theft and the associated sense of insecurity, the loss of a jewel does not only mean financial damage. Especially the emotional loss cannot be compensated for.

In order to combat these thefts, an identification obligation was introduced for cash purchases of old and precious metals by scrap traders and precious metals traders, say jewelers. In this way, the identity of the thief or the healer can be easily detected afterwards.

Since the plague of copper theft is really uncontrollable, the present new bill also introduced a ban on the payment in cash of the purchase of recycled copper cables from the garbage dealers. This is a good measure. For traders of precious metals, a limit is introduced on cash payments up to EUR 5 000 when they purchase goods.

In addition to the obligations on purchase, scrap traders and jewelers will also have to identify their customers when selling old and precious metals for an amount of more than 500 euros, paid in cash. This measure does not contribute to combating the theft of old and precious metals. After all, no thief or healer is interested in buying new jewelry. If he is already interested, then that is to steal them. It is therefore unnecessary to require jewelers to record the identity of their customers when they pay in cash.

Since the identification obligation is added to the rules to combat theft in the precious metals, the memory of explanation actually refers to the fight against money laundering. The reason for further addressing this in the anti-theft provisions is thus actually disproved. Anyone who knows a little about the jewelry industry knows that money laundering does not happen through the purchase of new jewelry.

After all, the value of a jewel is not only determined by the processing of the precious metal or the gemstones, but also by the wage, the profit margin on sale and VAT. So new jewels are not at all interesting to wash money white.

Furthermore, if jewelers are also required to register the identity of their customers when they pay for more than 500 euros in cash, they are only imposing an unnecessary obligation, just at a time when the industry is already facing a lot of problems. You know them: the crisis, the high price of gold that discourages many consumers from buying another jewel, and the security risk with the high investment in security and the high insurance premiums resulting. Also, the closed-door sale, which is very often demanded by insurers, constitutes a threshold in the sale of jewels.

Furthermore, the measure creates a competitive disadvantage for merchants in other luxury products. I give an example. Those who buy a expensive handbag for $1,000 and pay in cash do not need to register at all. However, anyone who buys a ring for 550 euros for his wife or girlfriend must register. In addition, a cash payment when purchasing more expensive jewels is very impractical and if it is prohibited above 500 euros, it must therefore be via bank cards. The limits of the bank card often do not provide for the amount of payment, as one is not allowed to spend more than, for example, 2 500 euros per day. For all these reasons, we have submitted an amendment to the committee to eliminate the obligation entirely.

The majority did not fully agree, but thankfully realized that the proposed measure indeed went far too far. Collega Bart Somers proposed making an exception for finished jewelry and watches. Mr Wouters wondered whether the sale of honoraries, medals and insignes in precious metals or the sale of antiques containing silver would also fall within the scope of that identification requirement. She pointed out that in the definition of precious metals, the concept of “jewelry” is much wider than finished jewelry. Mr Somers agreed with this and therefore improved the text of Amendment No. 6 in that regard.

The report on behalf of the Committee on Internal Affairs clearly shows that the concept of jewelry needs to be interpreted broadly. It covers both finished jewelry, honorary marks, medals, insignes and antique silver objects as well as all other objects in which silver or other metal has been processed. Secretary of State Crombez also clarified that these are new and second-hand goods. In fact, in a positive sense, the new registration obligation applies only to the gold plates which, according to the Secretary of State, are effectively suitable for money laundering. We can agree with that vision. We only regret that this is not fully reflected in the adopted text.

If the identification obligation is actually within the framework of the fight against money laundering, the measure would be better incorporated in the preventive money laundering law of 11 January 1993 for three reasons. First, the identification obligation is the basis of the preventive money laundering law, making it better on track. The Secretary of State did not consider it necessary to register the place of birth. However, it happens that people with the same, common first and surname, for example Maria Peeters or Jos Janssens, are also born on the same day. Therefore, it is advisable to also register the place of birth. For all clarity, I have not said here that every Maria Peeters or Jos Janssens is a washer, I only point out here that name and date of birth are not sufficient to identify them uniquely.

A second reason why the measure is better suited to the preventive money laundering law is because when an eventual entry of the identification law in this legislation, nothing happens to the data. If there is already a suspicion that the sale of gold plates has to do with money laundering, then it should also be the intention to notify the CFI of this, right?

Third, by spreading the prohibition or limitation of cash payment and the identification obligation across different laws, you are actually making a mess law out of it.

That we do not approve the present law – I repeat it, just like Mrs. Wouters and Mrs. De Wit – is not because we are against the fight against fraud. We vote against this law because of the way you elaborate the measures contained therein.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, we have made a long way since the Commission of Inquiry on Major Tax Fraud, initiated by our colleagues Nollet, Van Hecke and Van der Maelen, took the time to study the large cases of tax fraud that Belgium has experienced and to try to identify precise recommendations to implement.

Tax fraud has become a political issue; I welcome it. This is much more discussed than before. Now we need to act. This is why, very regularly, we re-release you on these recommendations that are not yet applied.

In any case, you can count on our group to support all proposals that go in the direction of what had been recommended by this commission of inquiry. It is such achievements that drive us to be proud of working in a parliament, that is, when we give ourselves the ability to get things done. But, between parentheses, this was not the case in all the committees we set up.

On the other hand, you will also encounter a great critical sense with regard to half-measures, with regard to recommendations that are not implemented, with regard to the lack of reactions to new forms of tax fraud.

With regard to the text that is submitted to us today, as I told you in the committee, I confirm that you can count on the votes of the thirteen parliamentary ecologists of this parliament to move forward. Indeed, in our opinion, the future definition of fraud mechanisms that can trigger investigations, the easing of this decision is a good thing. The precise arrangements implemented against new forms of fraud or trafficking in precious metals appear to us to be consistent with the objective to be achieved: to adapt to new forms of crime.

However, you will allow me, Mr. Secretary of State, to raise five points of dissatisfaction or rather five challenges, in the hope of seeing reactions to them and answers to the questions that we continue to ask ourselves.

The first point concerns not only you, but the government as a whole; so I would like you to take a look at it.

This point relates to the role that Belgian banks may play in the complicity or organization of fraud, in particular banks with public participation. Yesterday again, with my colleague Meyrem Almaci, we questioned the Minister of Finance on a very precise dossier concerning a French bank, BNP Paribas, whose first shareholder is the Belgian State, which organizes a traffic of cheques from African countries via its subsidiary in Monaco. This deprives countries of part of their resources.

I am struck – and this is a constant – by the lack of combativity of our finance ministers on this issue. What is Belgium waiting for, as the first shareholder of BNP Paribas, the second shareholder of BNP Paribas Fortis, the sole shareholder of Belfius and supporting other banks such as KBC, to tap on the table, to say that this is enough, that we expect from these banks an exemplary attitude, that they must get out of tax havens and end their offshore companies?

Fortunately, journalists maintain the pressure and discover new records every day. If one wants to be credible in the goal of fighting fraud, one must start with these banking institutions. Our country must play a leading role. I confess that I am quite tired of those arguments that we would no longer be competitive and that we cannot evolve on our own. When there are banks with public participation, they need to evolve.

I come to the second point. We have ⁇ motivated workers at the level of our tax administration and anti-fraud agencies. These are tax investigators who have been at the origin of the commission of inquiry that I addressed in introduction to this intervention. Like you, I hope, I’m listening to them and they regularly complain about lack of coordination and lack of listening to their reality.

This is a question I asked you in the committee, following the interview of the Chairman of the CTIF (Cell of Processing of Financial Information) in the newspaper L'Echo a few weeks ago. You answered me to be very attentive to this question, which I do not doubt, but I must be the relay of this concern. We perceive a lack of listening to those who demean as part of their role in combating fraud and who do not always feel supported as they should be, both by their hierarchy and by the government. I urge you to take care of this more than ever.

I would like to highlight a third element, which seems to me paradoxical at a time when it is said that the fight against tax fraud is a priority and where the European Commission cites a figure of €1,000 billion of no revenue for all Member States. For Belgium, this gap to gain is estimated at 13 billion – or even a higher amount, according to other studies. This is the reduction of the funds of the SPF Finance. When we ask this question, we are answered that elite services have been strengthened. The fight against tax fraud must be equipped with high-performance IT tools and must be equipped with the ability to analyze records in depth as well as opportunities to go on the ground – including outside of office hours. By opting for linear economies, as the federal government has decided for public service, including with regard to the SPF Finance, it deprives itself of this mobility, this creativity, this combativity and instead leads to the dismotivation of those who should be and who are – but ⁇ less than yesterday – the first walls against fraud.

I also regularly emphasize the ability to mutualize their research techniques. When a tax official detects a new fraud mechanism, he does not find the ways within the SPF Finance that would allow him to explain it to other regional offices by recommending them to be attentive to the development of this new method favoured by some tax lawyers that are fearful. Information does not come back quickly enough.

The final element of the SPF Finance diagnosis is how the Belgian state defends itself in large fraud cases. The KB Lux case is often cited as one of the failures in the fight against fraud, but I still wonder if we have put all the necessary means in our defense against fraudsters.

Fortunately, there are counter-examples that are ongoing. With regard to liquidity companies, I sincerely hope that a judgment will be reached in favor of the Belgian state and the common good. We must choose and give ourselves the means to choose the best lawyers and the best modes of defence. This has not always been the case.

The fourth point I would like to highlight in the progress to be made is the coordination at the European level.

We have expressed our satisfaction that the European Ministers’ Summit last week included the fight against tax fraud on its agenda. This is a sign of awareness that goes beyond our parliament. In the current context of the European budget, we need to make sure that the funds come in. Anything that can get into the state treasures thanks to the fight against fraud will not have to be the subject of new taxes or new dark cuts in budgets.

But, Mr. Secretary of State, the progress is far too shy in this regard in terms of automatic exchange of information, a common will to fight tax havens, to harmonize tax systems to avoid competing states and give multinationals opportunities to avoid taxation.

You have participated in the briefing with the Prime Minister on this summit. You may be involved in these meetings. I ask you to put all your energy into it.

Finally, the fifth element of dissatisfaction, the tax regulation mechanism.

You are constantly announcing a new text and the end of the permanent tax regularization but I would like to point out that many cases are handled according to the current rules, voted as a result of the DLU.

These rules do not require tax repentants to prove the origin of the regularized capital. They can only regularise the interest received and eventually reintegrate, in the Belgian economy and in the context of productive investments and the employment service, amounts of unknown origin. Is it black work? Criminal money or anything? There is here a problem of effectiveness and morality which, I hope, will be put to an end through the text you present to us.

You can count on the Ecolo-Groen Group to support the measures presented today. We will vote on the text, but we will also be a critical needle. There is much discussion about tax reform for today or for tomorrow. A working group will be constantly set up within this Parliament to reflect on this. The first pillar of the tax reform that has been adopted at the Belgian and European level consists of even more powerful and more effective devices than those against fraud that you propose. Nevertheless, I say it and I repeat it, we will support your text.

I will try to be brief.

I came back from a meeting in Paris before this plenary session. The coincidence wanted me to be there with the people of the OECD tax department when the news came that there would be a plenary meeting this afternoon. I told those specialists that it spotted me, but that I could not attend the meeting I would have with them this afternoon.

Colleague Van Cauter, I was glad to hear you say that you want to fight against the big fraud. I am preparing a report on tax havens and multinational corporations that do not pay taxes.

Soon we will have the chance to see if your group will add the act to the word. By July, the OECD will come up with an action plan, in which it will propose to the Member States to take a number of measures. I hope that we will be able to agree with them all.

The OECD specialist asked me what was so special on the agenda and I told him and gave a brief report of our committee meeting. Do you know what his reaction was? He said, and I quote him almost literally: “In Belgium, apparently, something has changed. Belgium is working to overcome its backwardness in the commitment and the fight against tax fraud.”

I told him that he was right, that something has changed in Belgium. We follow the time climate that exists throughout Europe and we really want to do something against fraud.

The meaning of the measures on serious and organized fraud we have discussed over the past five years and it was not possible to change that. We have also discussed the limitation of cash over the past five years, as well as the fact that companies do not present annual accounts.

Colleagues, I was in the opposition at the time and I supported each of these three measures. Nothing has come from that. I would say continue to persist, go for your ideas and your thoughts. Maybe there will come a time when the N-VA will dare to take responsibility and step into a government and then there is a chance that some of the ideas you have just formulated will be realized.

I told the OECD specialist that something has changed in Belgium, that everyone was involved. After listening to my colleagues, I suddenly feel less comfortable. He said, “We are against tax fraud! You can rely on us.” Then all sorts of reasons and technical flaws began to be raised. I do not see them.

I told the OECD specialist that instead of being serious and organized, we only put it seriously. He said, “You follow the standards of other European and OECD countries.”

Follow the trend in Europe. France, Germany and the Netherlands are not tax uncivilized countries. There is no witch hunt.

This legislation sets us behind compared to other countries. Instead of looking for nails on low water, we’d better think with the government and the secretary of state and hopefully the upcoming parliamentary committee about the big tax challenge: the organization of a fair and just fiscal system. This includes the fight against fraud.

My colleague of N-VA had previously in the committee and now again for three years in a row not to submit an annual account.

I would like to reiterate that there is no need to submit any annual accounts for three consecutive years.

What you are proposing is a very difficult procedure. After all, you want to require the Ministry of Finance to place dozens of employees on the files.

Secondly, you need to pass through the dish that is already overloaded.

The above is what you propose. On the contrary, what is proposed in the present draft is very practical. It is a very simple applicable rule.

I agree that you should always be careful. After all, it can be that, by catching the bad guys, sometimes someone is caught who is somewhat nasty. However, I read in the explanatory note that the KBO number can be reactivated, provided, firstly, that the unreported financial statements are filed – which would still be lacking – and, secondly, that the administrative fine is paid.

If you are aware of the fraud committed by not filing the accounts, you will also be aware that this is a super-easy measure that is easily applicable from an administrative point of view and that is much better than the heavy bureaucratic way you propose to address the problem.

Mr. President, Mr. Van der Maelen, I have heard the management of the KBO database. He said that a deletion does nothing at all. Removing is just a symbolic act.

You want to deal with the fraudsters. We are also against tax fraud. We assume that the deletion of the KBO database alone will result in absolutely nothing. The VAT number of the person concerned continues to exist. Everything simply exists. He or she can go on.

You argue that the measure I propose is tougher. Indeed, the measure is heavier. You want to tackle such fraud harder. Take them heavier. The symbolic act that is put here will ultimately simply do nothing. Only the Commercial Court can take further action. Ordinary removal does nothing. You can temporarily delete it and then look at it. In that case, however, proceed to action and dissolve the company, if correct. However, such a measure is nowhere in the present draft.

I agree with Mrs. Wouters and I respond to Mr. Van der Maelen’s presentation.

Mrs. Wouters, I understand that if the company remains in trade and continues to operate and I, as an entrepreneur in good faith, contract with it or receive invoices without a KBO number, that according to the indicators of the Secretary of State that could be enough to fine and punish me as if I were committing serious tax fraud.

This is not against the fight against tax fraud, but against legal uncertainty, Mr. Van der Maelen. That is my concern.

My group wants to tackle the fight against major tax fraud, but we are talking about arbitrariness and the improper application of legislation that is being made today.

If the secretary of state can give that assurance, there is no problem for us. However, if that remains a question sign and if the legislation and control shows that there is a problem, then it will need to be updated. That is all I said.

If Ms. Wouters says that one should go a step further than just the KBO number, then I understand that.

I will be brief, because I suggest that we listen to the Secretary of State. In the Finance Committee, he gave a convincing explanation, at least to the members of the committee.

Colleague, what I say, what the colleague of the N-VA proposes, what you say to support now, that is clearly called overshooting: such heavy measures are proposed that there must be dozens of officials in Finance. That means an overloaded justice, of which we know how slow it works. Addressing the problem along that path is equivalent to doing nothing.

Here practically something is proposed, which I am convinced that it will have the necessary effects and will allow the evil to be separated from the good. It may be that there are good ones, but not submitting an annual report three years in a row? It seems to me to be very soft to deal with people who do not comply with their legal obligations.

Mr. President, Mr. Van der Maelen, this is what we are talking about. Anyone who fails to submit their financial statements for three years must be addressed. We need to deal with them harder. Secretary of State Crombez must constantly say that the N-VA is for tax fraud. We are clearly against tax fraud. Now that we are proposing something that goes even further than you want, it is not good yet. It is never good, whatever we want to propose here!

We want to go further, you say, “No, because we should put too many people on it.”We don’t have a problem with the fact that we need more officials to take on the fight against tax fraud, if it does anything. We have absolutely no problem with that, but it must be done according to legal rules and not simply, as in the current regulation here present. We do not want arbitrariness.

Colleague Wouters, you repeat that you are in favour of tackling tax fraud. Well, I ask you: give me one of the measures proposed in the last year and a half to address the tax fraud that the N-VA has proposed. I know none. In words, you are in favour of tackling tax fraud, but every time you have to vote, you end up with all sorts of excuses for not voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the colleagues for the thorough work that they have stopped in this law and in the discussions in the committee and ⁇ also for the drive with which they want to start the discussions. I say that without any form of cynicism, because what has caused the most discussion in the committee, and also here in the plenary session, is the notion of “serious tax fraud” and its consequences. They deserve a thorough discussion.

Some colleagues called for respect for the functioning of Parliament. I would like to repeat here what I said about this in the committee, because this point is being raised again. This is also interesting for you, Mr. President. I have no problem with it, contrary to what some say, that the adaptation and coherence of the legislation, which is brought into it through different articles, do not come together. I had asked myself to be able to deal with them in a joint committee so that the coherence of the discussion could be ⁇ ined. I have mentioned this in the committees.

I repeat that I fully understand the response of the members of Parliament who asked for it, but that was my own point of view. If I have ever made the impression of not taking too much into account the members of parliament or the population, as was said before, then I have made a strange wrong impression.

Mrs. Wouters, you know that I am sensitive to all abuse, so also to the abuse of words. I have never claimed that the N-VA is for tax fraud. I never said that. Well, I repeat what I said in the committee: in the long run, you start every sentence with “We are for the fight against tax fraud, but...” And then come the big deadlines.

What is it about? We should call a cat a cat. Almost everyone supports the fight against tax fraud. Everybody thinks it is important that we deal at least as closely with major fraud, and everyone is concerned about the impact of anti-fraud measures on the real economy. Everyone agrees on that. Then the question arises: what is the impact of these measures?

I am talking about both financial and social fraud. Let me take the example of cash payments.

Mrs Coudyser cited this argument in the discussion on the measure on jewelry and jewelry. At one point, I wondered what the benefit of this measure was. She saw no use, except for gold plates and gold bars. We all agreed about marrying. But when action is taken, it is taken based on the analysis of what is happening on the ground. I think of financing terrorism or crime, or anything. Most of our actions are driven by what is established by the State Security, the judicial police, or by the industry itself. I repeat that this measure on precious metals has been discussed with the sector itself.

A significant part of the measures are demanded by the sectors, because they see the problems.

The same applies to cash payments. Cash payments are one of the major problems that complicate the fight against fraud and money laundering. Cash is best used for this. The reduction to 5 000 or up to 3 000 euros will indeed be a difficulty in certain segments of the economy, and we should not be discouraged. This is just the case, and there must be solutions for that. But I disagree that everywhere in the economy where such sensitivities exist and where such reactions unfold, the measures that help to fight fraud themselves are challenged.

Last week there was another attack by the VBO, which argued that the fight against unfair competition and social dumping complicated the matter for a number of sectors and companies. Well, I do not even deny that.

Why is the current problem for well-functioning companies, which are even in danger of bankruptcy, all the time lagging behind the fact that additional measures are really needed to combat that problem?

So far about the method and why the notion of “serious tax fraud” occurs. In the meantime, it has been almost four years since Parliament has widely considered that this measure is necessary. The gentlemen Devlies and Van der Maelen have referred to it. International forums are also calling for this. It is then about the translation of and the entire discussion of certainty or uncertainty, the principle of legality.

I would like to repeat once again that I never intended to go so far in the description that the criminal judge is almost imposed what should be done with it. It is not my intention, especially in a situation with multiple criteria, to be able to estimate in advance what implications data will have on the penalty size.

The strange thing about some people’s argument is that they themselves make it clear that the judge’s appreciation is about the overall situation and the complexity of the situation. There was the example of the 1 000 euros. This cannot be defined in a table. We have already talked extensively about this.

The question arises of what measures should be taken in the fight against the financing of terrorism, mentioned by some, and money laundering. In my opinion, the discussion should not only focus on the number of civil servants to be mobilized to combat this phenomenon, but also on a much more efficient system with, for example, data crossings allowing better selection. The question also arises whether the impact is the same in the fight against large and small fraud. In this context, the selection of cases and the number of officials mobilized are very important elements. In a committee yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced an increase of 245 officials in his department to fight fraud. Within the ISI there are, if I remember correctly, 117 officials. There are linear increases and decreases. But I insist on the fact that it is not only about the number of officials to handle this or that type of file, but also about the search for a much more efficient selection system in order to obtain better results with the same number of officials. For 2012, the amount resulting from denunciations to the CTIF increased from 700 million to 2.2 billion euros. This means that the panel of the examined files is much wider.

Before again discussing the fight against serious tax fraud, I will address the other points. First, the identification of the company number. I found this an interesting discussion at the end. I can imagine a world in which I would have come down from my background with the proposal now being formulated to dissolve all those companies after three years, in a discussion with Open Vld and the N-VA. It would have been a different discussion. We are in a somewhat strange situation here. Is there anything in the law that is not comprehensive? Absolutely absolutely . This is part of a number of measures in the Action Plan. Open Vld and the N-VA consider that this measure is too light and that it should be taken to complete dissolution.

Mrs. Van Cauter, with all respect, but the analysis you made on the basis of the example where the KBO number is missing on an invoice, and that entrepreneur thus qualifies for serious tax fraud, I do not share at all. Take the removal of the KBO numbers. Those numbers are available to both other contractual entrepreneurs and to the administration. The head of the KBO did not say literally what Ms. Wouters quoted. The head of an administration must ⁇ be quoted literally. That you abuse my words, so far, but the head of an administration must be literally quoted. Here you create a situation of information allowing companies to know that there may be a problem with a sleeping company because the KBO number is no longer there.

If the question here is whether the three years in a row failure to submit the annual accounts to each company is immediately a reason to dissolve that company, then I say no. If Open Vld and the NV-A and NV-A disagree, then I ask them to discuss that within their groups.

You should not shake your head. This is what was just proposed by your own group when you were not there for a moment. They say we are acting too lightly. Again, there is the action plan, there are more measures than the company number.

Discuss this proposal within your groups. I am talking about the proposal to move to dissolution in any situation after three consecutive years of not submitting the annual accounts. If your groups are of the opinion that this really needs to happen, I am open for it. It is closely linked to a number of measures in the Action Plan.

The [...]

Mr. Van Biesen, let Mrs. Van Cauter answer.

Mr. Speaker, at the request of Mr. Van der Maelen, I have the floor.

I hear the Secretary of State like to say that the lack of a KBO number on an incoming invoice is insufficient to talk about serious tax fraud. I am pleased with the answer, because that is at least a clarification in one particular case.

If we look at this case, we find that it appears on the list of the 2007 Royal Decree. That is exactly my concern.

Mr. Secretary of State, we can discuss cases here until tomorrow morning, where we both may always feel the same thing, namely that they are not eligible for serious tax fraud. In other cases, we will be convinced that this is the case.

In the explanation it is stated that the court "can" decide on serious tax fraud. That word makes it even worse to me legally. After all, not only in those specific cases, but also for other reasons, the court can decide on serious tax fraud.

You say that we should not worry, because the interpretation will give rise to equal application. I would like to accept your word as true, but I am concerned and have expressed that concern. The fact that you now in this example, in this case, say that there is no serious tax fraud in that case, which is good for the report and I have taken note of it. I thank you for your reply.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleague Van Cauter has already taken up this. One of the thirteen money laundering indicators is an invalid invoice. If an invoice is incorrect or does not list all the data, that may be one of the indicators. You state very clearly that we should give an additional reading to those whitewash indicators. At the same time, you are talking about the deletion of the KBO number. The removal from the KBO list does nothing. If one is removed from that list, it will not help us much further. It is rather a symbolic act. I understand that you want to give a signal. However, the VAT number still exists and so you can still write invoices perfectly. The good taxpayer does not know who or what he is dealing with. Based on the fact that the company number stands or not there, he can not find out whether he is dealing with someone who detects fraudulent practices on it. Therefore, I must partly agree with colleague Van Cauter.

I am pleased that it took a while before I got the word. First, one should be concerned.

Mrs. Van Cauter, after all the discussions we have held, I am somewhat concerned to hear you ask the question as you ask it. Mrs. Wouters is right. We discussed the additional aspect. The distinction between it can and it will give rise is essential in this.

You have again completely confused them in your questioning and used them both, but in the same sense, the judge can and the judge will. For the sake of clarity, on the question whether the absence of that number will give rise to the judgment that it is a serious tax fraud, I answer no. Can it? and yes. It will be adjuvant. I repeat that.

Second, I contest that the measure is merely symbolic. I understand that they say that one can go much further. You can start the dismantling automatically. I give Mr. Van der Maelen the right when he says that something and something has serious implications for the workload in, among other things, the parquet.

The indication that the public will be aware that undertakings have not submitted annual accounts for three consecutive years will be information for both the services and for the other undertakings.

What I dispute is the opposite of the logic you have just developed, namely – and it will now again sound strange from my mouth – that in any case where three years in a row no annual accounts were submitted, there is fraud.

It is the opposite of what you just said. It is not because three years in a row no financial statements were submitted that there is a problematic, fraudulent situation.

Mrs. White, I want to add something. You said that there was uncertainty in the report on that one criterion. I was a little surprised when you said that.

I said in the committee that I was pleased with your comment because the provisional report was not correct. As promised, we communicated that it did not work. Meanwhile, fourteen days ago, we received a response from the Parliament that the report was indeed not correct and that it would be adjusted.

As far as I know, it has been adjusted. It may be that I have the wrong text, but that is the relay of the facts. I remain with my oral explanation. The Parliament has informed us that it has been adjusted.

Mr. Gilkinet, regarding the points you raise, if one day we ask ourselves whether we have solved all the problems in the fight against fraud, my answer will also be negative. There are still things to do.

But the text that is on the table is part of the implementation of the government agreement. Most of the recommendations of the 2009 Parliamentary Committee were included here. Many elements of the government agreement have already been passed by parliament or are being passed, like this one.

Several points that you mentioned are changes not only in legislation but also in coordination. This is the case with tax havens. We created the Tax Paradise Combat Cell at the beginning of the year. This is the case in the fight against social dumping. The publication of the arrests is imminent.

Coordination on the ground becomes very important here as well as European coordination. We only make a part. I agree with your view that the existence of a detailed agenda is a good thing to lead to decisions.

Thank you in any case for your five remarks, which are much broader than the project on the table. I quite agree with these elements; they will be the most important in the coming year and should be taken into account in the evaluation that will be made.

I would also like to emphasize – we discussed this in the committee – that my task is to coordinate. We have seen the reactions of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office regarding this coordination. I said that I accepted and understood the comment. Very cautious should be the distinction between coordination and the processing of information relating to individual files.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to add a few things. After all, if something has been shown clearly from the current debate, it is that one thing, namely uncertainty, is pushing up.

There is uncertainty about what the definition is and how it should be applied. Even within its own coalition, the draft is unfulfilled. The right path to follow now is to send the draft back to the committee and clarify it once and for all.

After all, you declare yourself that you do not want a too tight definition. The judges must be able to fill in and interpret them, which I can still follow you in some sense. However, you use the same argument for your proportionality criterion. You know: it means that the day of the fraud is considered in proportion to the total assets of the person concerned.

I return to my example. You argue that the judge must only complete the definition and examine how serious the fraud is. However, the judge never has two identical cases to compare. He has one thing for him. There is the fool with his fraud of 1 000 euros on an equity of 5 000 euros, being a fifth, which is very large. In another case, in another chamber, in another court or in another district, another person stands with a fraud of also 1 000 euros, but with an equity of 500 000 euros, so that the fraud is only peanuts. After all, it is only a small percentage. One case will be serious, because the subjective criterion of proportionality is deterred. The other case will not be serious for that reason.

The previous one is the problem. You cannot leave such a decision to the court. The criterion is too subjective and creates inequality. The big entrepreneur will get rid of his fraud and the small entrepreneur will not. Such a measure gives rise to class justice. In my opinion, just you will want to avoid this.

That is one aspect. Just leaving the decision freely to the interpretation of the courts is not the right way to follow.

I have another comment.

Practice must continue with the design. I hear Mr. Van der Maelen beautifully explain how we are recovering our backwardness with the paper here. However, I would like to see how the train rolls in practice. The ball goes backwards.

After all, how will those involved apply the law in hell? What will they do in practice? They will look at the debates, because some things are not clear. You refer to the memory of explanation for the definition. They will look at the memory. What will they read in the memory? In one memory they will read that the indicators count, while in the other memory they will read that the indicators are not criteria. The law does not give a definition. They must find out what is a problem. In one memory it states that it is almost aggravating, while in the other memory it states that it is an essential component, to speak of a crime.

How should they continue with such an explanation? I am really afraid that catching up the backwardness in practice will not be the case at all, which is the concern that is raised here today in the Chamber. We are proposing a law that does not give a definition of what is a choice. However, the underlying documents – the memoirs but also the debates – do not exclude the matter to this day.

Ladies and gentlemen, I make a final call. Make the text better! Create the clarity! If necessary, we will send them back to the committee. We can continue to discuss this.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I hope you can tell the OECD specialist at the next opportunity that you have made a step forward in the field.

I am not concerned with international law, but I would like to know if in other European countries the definition has been written in their laws. All the problems you are now causing by not doing so, they may have avoided. Maybe we can look over the wall and learn. Next time we can cheerfully shake the hand of the OECD man and drink no pint but a glass of water.