1. A COHERENT EU STRATEGY TO MEASURE CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE The EU Action Plan and Money Laundering statistics
Sebastiano Tiné
DG Justice Freedom and Security
European Commission
Task Force meeting on crime data availability Luxembourg 6-7 November 2008

2. Overview Background - The EU Crime Statistics Action Plan 2006-2010
The JLS Expert Group and its Financial Crime Subgroup
Drivers for collecting money laundering statistics and possible way forward

3. Background - Problems with existing crime statistics
International compilations of national data not comparable (even with time-consuming analysis and quality assessment)
Lack of quantitative data on organised crime
EU Council (Hague Programme Action Plan, 2005) urged the Commission to take action

4. The EU action plan
Commission Communication "Developing a comprehensive and coherent EU strategy to measure crime and criminal justice” COM (2006) 437
Coordination with Member States and other entities
Stepwise approach towards developing high quality quantitative information
Statistics to be used to prioritise action to fight crime, benchmark performance and evaluate implemented measures

5. Objective and approach
To develop comparable EU statistics on crime, victimisation and criminal justice
2 groups of experts support the implementation of the Action Plan:
A group of experts ”on the policy needs for data on crime and criminal justice”, representing ”users”
Eurostat Working party – representing ”producers”

6. Expert group on the policy needs for crime statistics
Represents the users of statistics. Includes:
Representatives of Member States, Candidate and Accession Countries’ administrations in the field of justice
Representatives of relevant EU and international bodies, networks (including Europol, Eurojust, European Sourcebook Group, relevant UN bodies, Council of Europe)
Researchers and private sector representatives

7. Expert group – Tasks: Assist the Commission in:
Identifying the policy needs for data
Identifying the needs to develop common indicators and tools
Developing common indicators
Identifying research and development needs
Collaborating with representatives from the private and academic sectors
Possibility of establishing Subgroups
The section «  Development of specific indicators » in the Action Plan indicates Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing as a priority area

8. The Financial Crime Subgroup
Established in July 2007
Membership: FIUs (EE, LU, LV, SV) Law Enforcement Agencies (FR, UK) Asset Recovery Offices (BE), international bodies (Europol, Moneyval) the academic sector and the Commission (DG JLS, Eurostat and DG MARKT)
3 meetings (September and November 2007, February 2008)
Reported to Crime Statistics Expert Group on 3 December 2007

9. The Financial Crime Subgroup
Background
Difficult to estimate the scale of money laundering due to different factors (different definitions of money laundering, money flows between countries, etc.)
Statistics used in the Mutual Evaluation Reports carried out with the relevant international bodies (FATF, Moneyval Committee)
EU 3rd AML Directive (to be transposed by ) foresees obligation for MS to publish national money laundering statistics in order to review the effectiveness of their AML systems.
Art. 33 foresees list of minimum data to be collected (Number of STRs made to FIU; Follow up given to STRs; Number of cases investigated per year; Number of persons prosecuted per year; Number of persons convicted per year; Amount of property frozen, seized or confiscated per year)

10. The Financial Crime Subgroup
Objectives
How to establish:
The relevant harmonised definitions
A list of data and indicators needed
A common methodology for data collection and implementation
(Ideally) a list of available data
to support the comparability of data on money laundering collected in EU Member States

11. The Financial Crime Subgroup
Approach
If statistics should assess effectiveness, then
Need to approximate what constitutes 'effectiveness' in terms of the sub-group's mandate (responding to AML policy needs). Non-statistical information also relevant
Data currently available or foreseen could not ‘size the market’. Estimates not sufficient to assess effectiveness of AML regimes. Work not pursued.
Methodology should be based on "effectiveness indicators" rather than definitions (some definitions needed to have common understanding of data to be collected).

12. The Financial Crime Subgroup
Approach
Proposes an 'effectiveness' framework devised from a policy maker perspective and identifies short-term and longer-term objectives
Indicators not limited to those for currently available data. Development of innovative indicators if consistent with policy needs.
Assessing effectiveness per Member State. Statistical reporting weighted according to demographic and economic criteria
Short term: develop common data collection standards to support the comparability of data collected in EU MS on AML actions (definitions, “efficiency”indicators)
Longer term: address effectiveness of AML systems by harmonised effectiveness indicators. Looks at proportionality of AML response by comparing its costs to the threat (indicators)

13. The Financial Crime Subgroup
Conclusions from the Subgroup (draft report)
endorse the methodology proposed
provide Report to AML groups (eg EU AML/TF Committee, Informal EU FIU Platform) for informal views (short and longer term objectives)
provide methodology to the Eurostat Working group of Producers for consideration (short-term objective);
endorse preparation of a matrix identifying "who does/has what" in terms of (potential) data provision
consider whether Subgroup should continue work on AML and encourage further research to fine-tune proposed methodology
Undertake further research/work on
assessing appropriateness of effectiveness categories by consulting policy makers;
examine adequacy of information systems to respond to the policy needs of data on M-L.
These activities may require a revision of the proposed methodology.
Consider whether typology applied in ' Effectiveness criteria' may be applicable to a more general policy needs methodology.

14. The Financial Crime Subgroup
Expert Group:
Endorsed Subgroup conclusions
Proposed creation of a Task Force (AML experts and statisticians) to further work
Follow-up steps
Comments on the indicators provided by EU AML/TF Committee and Informal EU FIU Platform
Eurostat Crime Statistics Working Party meeting in February 2008 (some concern on indicators)
Indicators streamlined in 3rd Subgroup meeting (February 2008)
Some information collected on “who does/has what”
Pilot collection over summer 2008

15. Drivers to move forward quickly
Member States are asking for tangible results
JLS Expert Group of Policy Users
EU Police Chiefs’ Task Force Recommendations
Endorsement of JHA Coordinating Senior Officials Committee (CATS)
Possible contribution to the evaluation of the 3rd AML Directive (Commission report foreseen by November 2009)

16. Drivers to move forward quickly
Possible interest of Moneyval/FATF in the feasibility of this methodology
We are the trailblazers …
First instance of moving from the identification of indicators to the production of data
Credibility of the Commission-MS cooperation under the Action Plan at stake

17. What to do next ? Indicators already streamlined by JLS Subgroup
Legal obligation under Art. 33 AMLD needs to be implemented by MS
Most of data required are actually produced for FATF or Moneyval Mutual Evaluation Reports
Start collection in 2009 (at least as pilot toward a more comprehensive collection in 2010)