View/save PDF version of this document - La Strada International

Part One. Article 6 53“[(b) It may be provided that the offences set forth in that paragraph do notapply to the persons who committed the predicate offence;] 21“(c) Knowledge, intent or purpose required as an element of an offence set forthin that paragraph may be inferred from objective factual circumstances. 22“3. Each State Party may adopt such measures as it considers necessary toestablish also as offences under its domestic law all or some of the acts referred toin paragraph 1 of this article, in any or all of the following cases:“(a) Where the offender ought to have assumed that the property was the proceedsof crime;“(b) Where the offender acted for the purpose of making a profit; or“(c) Where the offender acted for the purpose of promoting the perpetration offurther criminal activity. 23“[Subparagraphs of old paragraph 4 moved or deleted] 24[Old paragraph 5 moved to article 4 bis]“4. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the descriptionof the offences to which it refers and of legal defences thereto is reserved to thedomestic law of a State Party and that such offences shall be prosecuted and punishedin conformity with that law.”Fifth session: 4-15 October 1999Notes by the Secretariat2. Delegations based their comments on the text of article 4 of the revised draft conventioncontained in document A/AC.254/4/Rev.4, which was the same as that containedin document A/AC.254/4/Rev.3.21Some delegations suggested that this subparagraph should be deleted (see, for example, the statement submitted bySpain contained in document A/AC.254/5/Add.5). Other delegations supported its retention, in particular in view of the parallelwording in the 1990 Council of Europe Convention.22Option 2 of this subparagraph was deleted. This option had contained wording regarding the reversal of the burdenof proof. Many delegations at the third session of the Ad Hoc Committee suggested that the reversal of the burden of proof,while unacceptable in respect of the presumption of innocence and thus as a basis for conviction, could be used after theoffender had been convicted, in considering the question of confiscation of proceeds. This issue was dealt with in paragraph7 of article 6 (Confiscation).23Some delegations suggested that this paragraph required considerable clarification. Other delegations suggested thatthe phrase “ought to have assumed that the property was the proceeds of crime” could be replaced, for example, with thewords “should have assumed that the property was the proceeds of crime” or “acted in violation of his or her duty to act”,or that the paragraph could state only as follows: “Each State Party may adopt such measures as it considers necessary toestablish also as offences under its domestic law all or some of the acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, when committedthrough negligence.” It was also suggested that the concept of negligence should be defined in this connection. Somedelegations noted that the words “acted for the purpose of making a profit” and “acted for the purpose of promoting theperpetration of further criminal activity” referred to aggravating factors that were not at all connected with the concept ofnegligence otherwise covered by this paragraph, and suggested that they should be placed in a separate paragraph.24Old subparagraph 4 (a) was covered by paragraph 7 of article 6. Some delegations objected to old subparagraph 4(b) on the grounds that it was in conflict with fundamental principles of justice, including the rights of bona fide third parties.Old subparagraph 4 (c) also raised problems vis-à-vis the rights of bona fide third parties. Old subparagraph 4 (d), onthe level of punishment, was deleted on the grounds that it only referred to one sentencing option, fines, and that other factorsalso should be considered in sentencing.