Proposition 54K2567

Projet de loi relatif à la prévention du blanchiment de capitaux et du financement du terrorisme et à la limitation de l'utilisation des espèces en ce qui concerne certaines procédures de recours accélérées auprès du Conseil d'État.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

July 6, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive central bank paper money appeal terrorism money laundering

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB PP 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 ¶

July 19, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I suggest you for a few discussions on these two draft laws. (Instemming to vote)

I would like to give you a discussion on these two bills. (Acceptance of consent)

I am referring to the written report.

The other rapporteur, Mr Vanvelthoven, also refers to the written report.

It is obvious that the transposition of these Directives is an imperative necessity for combating money laundering in general and the financing of terrorism in particular. But there is something we did not understand during our commission exchanges, that in the definition of precious materials, the definition of which will depend on the scope of the total prohibition of cash payment when it is a merchant who buys the said precious materials, we find gold, palladium, platinum and silver, but not the diamond.

There have been explanations of physical, chemical, etc., but it is not less that we found, however, in the exposition of the reasons, as an example, the case of a gsm served with diamonds or gold which it was said to fall under the scope of the exclusion of the prohibition of cash payment. In this example, we asked why diamonds were not included in the definition of precious materials. We were then explained a whole series of elements from a series of diverse and varied reports indicating that there was a particular sensitivity to money laundering in diamond transactions. This does not hold the road. We also read an extract from the 2015 FATF report recommending increased checks by the Economic Inspection in the diamond sector.

Again, it seems to be reserved for transactions affecting diamond and this sector a special regime. After taxation, now the law on the prevention of laundering. There is something here that we do not understand and that we do not admit. All this creates a kind of nebula that ultimately serves neither the interests of the sector, which appears to be protected, nor the clarity of government policy. I repeat that in terms of taxation and the fight against money laundering and organized crime, if one wants to have the widest possible membership, the treatment must be equal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize three points briefly.

We had an interesting discussion on this bill in the committee. I think I can safely say that I am not the only one who regrets the way of working. Only a few days before the committee meeting, we received the complete conversion of more than 700 pages, which made the work difficult. The fact that we have had to wait a long time for the transposition of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive has led us not to rely too much on formalism and yet to join in the positive flow, which has also been shown from the discussion. However, these are things that both members of Parliament and members of government should absolutely try to avoid, because that is not a good way of working.

We have had a substantial discussion about what should fall under the cash ban. The threshold is currently 3 000 euros, which makes us a precursor in Europe with our stricter rule. This threshold remains and that is definitely a good thing.

I would like to address the discussion in the committee on a stricter ban on cash payments for precious materials, because we would have liked to have added diamonds. The government has chosen to exclude diamonds from the ban on cash payment for precious materials, and to make an exception, but that is contrary to what is stated in the explanation.

We then got the explanation as if the explanation was an older version, while after a thorough discussion, one still chose to make an exception for diamond. In other words, the explanation was actually no longer coherent with the text that we were submitted to vote.

Apart from that text problem, we really regret that diamond has not been added. For this reason, we submitted an amendment in the committee that was rejected by the majority. We regret that because just now in our Committee on Finance through the various leaks it has been shown that the diamond sector is continuously considered by international organizations, as well as by our own BBI, as a highly fraud sensitive sector.

The exception to allow for this sector is, in my opinion, the wrong message that we as Parliament are sending. Therefore, I regret that this amendment was rejected by our group.

I would like to emphasize one last point. We had questions with the UBO register, the register of the final stakeholders. In fact, we had understood from the texts that this register would not be accessible for investigations by our own tax administration in the context of tax fraud. During that discussion, the Minister told us that there should be a distinction between access to the register and access to the information contained in the register. There would also be KBs coming up to define and clarify this. If that really means that the information from the register is easily available to our tax fraud hunters, then that is a good and necessary thing.

I would like to address this because we have agreed that, when the texts are ready, we can exchange thoughts on them in the committee.

First and foremost, I apologize for the fact that this discussion has indeed gone far from optimum. This was due to circumstances, such as the late making available of texts. It wasn’t about a few texts, if I remember correctly it was about six- to seven hundred pages. But well, we try to make sure that such situations do not occur anymore.

As for the diamond, I will not repeat the whole argument I gave in the committee. What the gentlemen Laaouej and Vanvelthoven say is true: in the cash ban and the precious substances we involve, we have excluded diamonds. At the same time, we did not go on ice overnight, which happened after a thoughtful reflection on what is happening in the diamond industry. This has to do with the fact that of course due to compliance issues – which is evident – the diamond sector today has a huge problem in terms of being able to acquire bank accounts to make transactions. By further lowering the cash limit, we would – I will express it very neutrally – have complicated things even more.

A second element is that Belgian banks are also very reluctant when it comes to cash payments. These are ⁇ within certain limits, which of course also applies to diamonds.

Furthermore, it is important that a specific characteristic of the Belgian diamond trade implies that it is mainly the trade in raw diamonds, held by traders with which there are no notable problems with regard to theft, healing, roaming theft groups and the like to date.

Finally, as I promised in the committee, there will be a discussion of the KBs concerning the UBO register, which are coming.

Thank you, Mr Minister.