Proposition 53K2772

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 12 mai 2004 organisant une procédure de recours dans le cadre de la protection contre le faux monnayage.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

April 25, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

fraud industrial counterfeiting paper money criminal law money

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR VB

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 ¶

June 12, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

The obligation is imposed on credit institutions, investment firms, exchange offices, payment institutions and money carriers to submit allegedly counterfeit euro banknotes and euro coins to the National Bank of Belgium or the Royal Monet of Belgium. The amendment added "the allegedly neutralized banknotes", which must also be submitted by these institutions.

by Regulation No. 44/2009 also imposes this obligation on traders and casinos that issue banknotes via ATMs. All these institutions are responsible for the quality of the money circulation. Used and damaged banknotes and coins shall be taken out of circulation by them.

Since this matter is mainly regulated by European Regulations and decisions of the European Central Bank, it is only up to the Member States to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties on institutions that fail to comply with the obligation to submit. That is the purpose of the present bill. It regulates the obligation to submit suspected counterfeit banknotes and coins to the National Bank of Belgium and the Royal Monet of Belgium, respectively.

I would like to reiterate that we are pleased that this government has taken into account the opinion of the State Council. The State Council in its opinion refers to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, in particular the non bis in idem principle developed in criminal matters. The same acts against the same person may be prosecuted only once and punished with a criminal sanction, as referred to in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. These can be both criminal sanctions and administrative sanctions of a criminal nature, all in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

We are very pleased that the State Council has pointed out this and is of the opinion that the case-law on the non bis in idem principle should be transferred to domestic law. We are pleased that the Government has taken this into account and has amended Article 6 in the meantime.

What is regrettable in the draft law is that no more inspiration has been sought in the elaborated una via, in particular that of the Social Criminal Code, which has proven its validity for years. In this regard, we ⁇ do not refer to the una via within the framework of the fiscal una via, which, as Professor Maus says, is labeled as a legal path full of wells and bulbs and which cannot be considered as a rule that respects the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in these. We find this very regrettable.

We were also surprised that in the end, after our comments on the mixed use of “criminal action” and “criminal prosecution”, the finally adopted text was still corrected, although the minister thought it would be okay, since the French text was correct. We are therefore pleased that the text in Dutch has now been corrected and that there can be no more misunderstandings.

Why the Social Criminal Code? Mr. Minister, you said that they are credit institutions that are subject to European law. Priority was given to an administrative route. We find that very unfortunate and would have preferred a more detailed elaboration, as it exists in the Social Criminal Code.

We believe this is a missed opportunity and therefore we will not approve the bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the committee, I have responded in detail to the questions of Mrs. Wouters. This is also included in the report. So I assume that she can agree to that.