12.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Part One. Article 6 55“and, subject to the basic concepts <strong>of</strong> its legal system:“(c) The acquisition, possession or use [disposal, administration, safe keeping,exchange, guaranteeing, investment, transfer or transport] <strong>of</strong> property, knowing, atthe time <strong>of</strong> receipt [or subsequently], that such property is the proceeds <strong>of</strong> crime;“(d) Participation in, association with or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commitand aiding, abetting, facilitating and counselling the commission <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the<strong>of</strong>fences established in accordance with <strong>this</strong> article. 27“[1 bis. States Parties shall ensure that their domestic laws on implementing <strong>this</strong>article apply to the proceeds <strong>of</strong> those crimes associated with organized criminal groupsand also to the proceeds <strong>of</strong> other serious crimes. 28 States Parties shall, at the time <strong>of</strong>signature or when depositing their instruments <strong>of</strong> ratification, acceptance, approval oraccession, by declaration addressed to the Secretary-General <strong>of</strong> the United Nations,specify the scope <strong>of</strong> the crimes covered. States Parties shall periodically review theirdomestic laws on implementing <strong>this</strong> article to ensure that they apply to an appropriatelybroad range <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fences and shall, if appropriate, subsequently revise their declaration.]29“2. For the purposes <strong>of</strong> implementing or applying paragraph 1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> article:“(a) It shall not matter whether the predicate <strong>of</strong>fence was subject to the criminaljurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the State Party, provided that it is punishable under the domesticlaw <strong>of</strong> the State where the <strong>of</strong>fence was committed;“(b) Knowledge, intent or purpose required as an element <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence set forthin that paragraph may be inferred from objective factual circumstances. 30“3. Each State Party may adopt such measures as it considers necessary to establishalso as <strong>of</strong>fences under its domestic law all or some <strong>of</strong> the acts referred to in paragraph1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> article, in any or all <strong>of</strong> the following cases where the <strong>of</strong>fender:“(b)“(c)activity.“(a) Ought to have assumed that the property was the proceeds <strong>of</strong> crime; 31Acted for the purpose <strong>of</strong> making a pr<strong>of</strong>it; orActed for the purpose <strong>of</strong> promoting the perpetration <strong>of</strong> further criminal“[3 bis. Where a law enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficial or a person acting at his or her direction,in accordance with article 15 <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> Convention, has represented property to bethe proceeds <strong>of</strong> crime, the fact that the property did not actually constitute the pro-27As indicated above, the United States had submitted a proposal for a new subparagraph, 1 (e) (see A/AC.254/L.24).Following the discussion at the fifth session <strong>of</strong> the Ad Hoc Committee, that delegation undertook to consider the possibility<strong>of</strong> reformulating the provision and resubmitting it in connection with article 15.28An alternative formulation could be “crimes covered by <strong>this</strong> convention”.29Paragraph 1 bis was revised by the United States, pursuant to informal consultations with a number <strong>of</strong> interesteddelegations, and was not discussed in detail at the fifth session <strong>of</strong> the Ad Hoc Committee (see A/AC.254/L.74). The term“serious crime” might be used elsewhere in the draft convention with a meaning that might not be appropriate in the context<strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> revision (e.g. a definition for the purposes <strong>of</strong> article 2 bis that encompasses all crimes punishable by a deprivation<strong>of</strong> liberty <strong>of</strong> at least [...] years). If <strong>this</strong> was the case, the refinements in <strong>this</strong> paragraph or elsewhere in the draft conventionwould need to clarify that “crimes” within the scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> provision would not necessarily encompass all crimes underarticle 2.30At the fifth session <strong>of</strong> the Ad Hoc Committee, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden supported the retention <strong>of</strong>former paragraph 2 (b) <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> article (contained in <strong>document</strong> A/AC.254/4/Rev.4).31Japan proposed the deletion <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> subparagraph.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!