Connect with us

World

What do newly approved anti-money laundering rules cover?

Published

on

What do newly approved anti-money laundering rules cover?

EU lawmakers voted in a landslide in favour of new curbs on crypto, football clubs and cash transactions.

ADVERTISEMENT

EU lawmakers today voted 482 to 47 to set up a long-promised EU anti-money laundering agency, as part of a package that would also see large cash payments banned across Europe.

The move – taken by MEPs at their last voting session before June elections – means new rules apply for football deals and crypto transactions, as the bloc seeks to repair its reputation after a series of financial-sector scandals.

“Dirty money finances terrible crimes,” EU financial services commissioner Mairead McGuinness said, adding that there was an “absolute imperative to improve significantly on the current situation”.

Those views seemed largely shared across the political divide – including by Damien Carême (France/Greens), one of the MEPs who led negotiations.

Terrorists and fraudsters “exploit the loopholes in European legislation”, Carême told lawmakers. “We have to act decisively to ensure a robust system.”

Advertisement

What do new EU money-laundering rules do?

New rules include a limit on professional traders accepting or paying cash for any transaction over €10,000 – given that big wads of untraceable banknotes can send alarm bells over financial crime.

Some lawmakers claim that’s an attack on financial freedom.

“Keep your hands off our cash and our digital currencies,” Patrick Breyer of the German Pirate Party told lawmakers. “We Pirates say no to this creeping financial disenfranchisement.”

Yet one of the most touchy subjects of the complex package has been geographical: the question of where to house a new EU anti-money laundering agency.

After a first-of-a-kind 12-hour public hearing, German financial centre Frankfurt won out, from a slate of candidates that also comprised Paris, Rome, Madrid, Vienna, Riga, Vilnius, Brussels and Dublin.

Advertisement

Its 400-odd staff will directly supervise dirty-money controls at 40 of the bloc’s biggest financial institutions.

Expanded scope of new anti-money laundering laws

EU money laundering laws already apply to big institutions like banks, who are required to verify who their customers are, and report suspicious transactions to the authorities.

Those rules will also apply to high-risk sectors like traders in artwork, jewellery and luxury yachts. They’ll be extended to cover innovative services like cryptocurrency providers—as lawmakers are concerned bitcoin and other, even more anonymous assets can be used for illicit payments.

At MEPs’ insistence, the measures apply to major football clubs and agents – given the large amounts of sometimes dubious money that circulates between them.

More consistent rules

For the first time ever, the EU’s rules are set out in a regulation that will apply more or less consistently across the bloc.

Advertisement

That means less discretion for each country to tweak rules for the national context – creating discrepancies that make it harder for legitimate businesses to operate across borders, and easier for criminals and terrorists to exploit the system.

A separate money laundering directive, also agreed today, resolves issues over how journalists and activists can trace the financial structures used to hide wealth.

Arrangements were thrown into disarray by a shock 2022 EU court judgment that restricted access to company ownership registers on privacy grounds.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why does the EU need new anti-money laundering rules?

Officials hope the new rulebook will help improve the EU’s reputation for dirty money, closing the chapter on a series of scandals.

Two EU members – Croatia and Bulgaria – currently sit on a “grey list” of suspect money laundering jurisdictions compiled by international standard-setter the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and Malta was only recently taken off it.

The region also faced a series of financial-sector scandals involving institutions such as Danske Bank, Latvia’s ABLV, and Malta’s Pilatus bank.

Advertisement

Danske was fined billions of euros by US and Danish regulators in 2022, after admitting that around €200bn was laundered through its Estonian arm between 2007 and 2015.

EU talks were given extra salience by the need to enforce sanctions imposed on Russia for its war in Ukraine – given fears that ultra-wealthy oligarchs can use shady financial structures to evade curbs.

ADVERTISEMENT

When will new EU money laundering rules take effect?

New anti-money laundering controls have been a long time coming, and it’s still not over.

Valdis Dombrovskis berated uneven enforcement and promised to examine a new EU agency in his hearing to become EU financial services commissioner as far back as October 2019.

After several last-minute wrangles, lawmakers and governments announced a tentative deal on the bulk of the law in January 2024.

Once nodded through by national ministers, much of the new regulation kicks in after three years, but there is some flexibility.

Advertisement

Rules for the football sector will take five years to apply, and the new EU agency could start work later this year – though the law setting it up takes effect formally in July 2025.

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

World

Acid Attack in Indonesia Evokes Brutality of Suharto Era

Published

on

Acid Attack in Indonesia Evokes Brutality of Suharto Era

Andrie Yunus, an outspoken critic of the military’s expanding power in Indonesia, was riding his motorbike last month in Jakarta when two men rode past and threw acid in his face. He suffered burns to 24 percent of his body and damage to his right eye.

The ambush, which recalled Indonesia’s decades under a military dictatorship, was captured on street surveillance cameras. Within days, the authorities arrested four members of a military intelligence unit — a captain, two lieutenants and a sergeant. Their trial in a military court began Wednesday.

But human rights activists say that many more people were involved in the attack, and that the rush to try the four men is part of an attempt to shield the mastermind who authorized it.

“This was an intelligence operation,” said Fadhil Alfathan, a member of the Advocacy Team for Democracy, a coalition of rights groups backing Mr. Andrie. “It was a well-planned and well-trained operation, starting with surveillance, stalking, then tailing, execution and escape.”

The assault on Mr. Andrie, 27, the deputy coordinator for the prominent rights group, Kontras, is reminiscent of the brutality of the 32-year dictatorship under Suharto, who stepped down in 1998 in the face of massive pro-democracy protests. Now rights activists fear that the military’s influence is growing again under the current president, Prabowo Subianto, Suharto’s former son-in-law and once a widely feared general.

Advertisement

Mr. Andrie’s supporters say the acid attack on the evening of March 12 was a premeditated attempt to kill him because of his criticism of the military’s increasing role in government, including a law adopted after Mr. Prabowo took office that allows active armed forces officers to hold more government posts.

More than 420 rights groups and hundreds of activists around the world have signed a statement condemning the attack and calling for it to be investigated “thoroughly and transparently.”

The police conducted an initial investigation of the attack and quickly identified two suspects who belonged to the military.

The Advocacy Team for Democracy obtained and analyzed street surveillance videos from the weeks before the assault and concluded that at least 16 operatives were involved in following and surveilling Mr. Andrie.

Mr. Prabowo promised a thorough investigation.

Advertisement

“This is a barbaric act, we must pursue it,” the president said in remarks released a week after the attack. “We must investigate. Who ordered them, who paid.”

Days later, the general who headed the military’s main intelligence arm, the Strategic Intelligence Agency, quietly resigned. He is not known to be facing any charges.

But on March 31, the police announced that the case had been transferred to the military, which meant that military prosecutors would have the ability to limit the scope of the investigation and determine what information is made public.

Mr. Andrie came to public attention in March of last year when he led a small group of protesters who barged into a closed parliamentary meeting at a luxury hotel in Jakarta. The lawmakers were discussing the measure to let active military officers hold government posts.

In a scene captured on video, Mr. Andrie railed against the legislation before security officers pushed the protesters from the room.

Advertisement

The measure was later approved by Parliament and signed into law by Mr. Prabowo.

In a letter this month to Constitutional Court judges who are reviewing the law,Mr. Andrie objected to the transfer of the assault case to a military court, saying such courts have been “a hotbed of impunity for soldiers who commit human rights violations.”

“In this case, if it is not tried in the public court,” he added, “it is a serious violation of the principle of equality before the law.”

The military prosecutor handling the case announced in mid-April that the attack by the four operatives was motivated by a “personal vendetta” against Mr. Andrie.

The suspects are charged with assault causing serious injury and premeditated assault. They face a maximum of 12 years in prison.

Advertisement

Mr. Andrie has been hospitalized since the attack. He has not been interviewed by anyone from the police or the military, said Lakso Anindito, a lawyer from the Advocacy Team for Democracy who is representing him.

Mr. Lakso said he does not expect that his client will be called to testify.

He said he believes the attackers moved to silence him a year after the hotel protest because he was relentless in his criticism of the military and the 2025 law.

“It’s because Andrie never stops,” he said. “He is persistent in fighting this law. And an attack like this doesn’t just happen. It takes at least two months for them before it leads to that day.”

The attackers were so bold that they rode up to him and threw acid in his face despite the visible presence of numerous surveillance cameras in the area.

Advertisement

One video that captures Mr. Andrie seconds after the ambush shows him jumping off his motorbike, ripping off his shirt and screaming in agony as a crowd quickly gathers. Doctors say he suffered severe chemical burns on his face, hands, neck and chest. His helmet and visor saved him from even more serious harm.

Doctors have operated on Mr. Andrie five times in an effort to save the sight in his right eye.

In a letter to the president, Mr. Andrie called on him to ensure that the trial of his accused attackers adheres to the principle of due process, free from “corrupt interests.”

“This case is not solely about me,” he concluded, “but about the state’s commitment to protecting its citizens and upholding the law fairly.”

Indonesia has a history of impunity in the handling of attacks on human rights activists and corruption fighters.

Advertisement

The assault on Mr. Andrie is similar to a 2017 acid attack against a leading anti-corruption investigator, Novel Baswedan. Two police officers were found guilty of splashing sulfuric acid in Mr. Novel’s face as they rode by on a motorbike. The attack left him blind in one eye and half-blind in the other.

Mr. Novel, a senior investigator for Indonesia’s respected Corruption Eradication Commission, has said he was never able to determine who was behind the attack but believes it was someone he investigated. The police officers were sentenced to 18 and 24 months.

Mr. Andrie’s case also recalled the 2004 murder of Munir Said Thalib, the Kontras founder. Mr. Munir, a prominent critic of the military, was poisoned with arsenic while flying from Jakarta to Amsterdam and died before the plane landed. An off-duty Garuda airline pilot was found guilty of planning the murder but allegations that the state intelligence agency was behind the killing were never fully investigated.

Continue Reading

World

Tourist dies at luxury resort after cobra from snake show climbs up pants, bites him: police

Published

on

Tourist dies at luxury resort after cobra from snake show climbs up pants, bites him: police

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A German tourist has died after a venomous cobra featured in a snake show reportedly slithered up his pants and bit him on the leg, authorities said.

The freak accident occurred early April at a luxury resort destination in Egypt, according to the Bavarian State Police in Germany, which released details Monday.

“During the snake charmer’s performance, one of the snakes crawled into the trousers of a 57-year-old man, resulting in a bite to the German tourist’s leg,” officials said. 

Police said the victim, whose identity was not released, was on vacation with two family members from the Unterallgäu region of Germany.

Advertisement

BILLIONAIRE’S DEATH AFTER SWALLOWING BEE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT RARE CARDIAC REACTION

A King Cobra stis up freely while inside a building in April 2010.  (Patrick Aventurier)

Authorities said the snake charmer event was part of a hotel entertainment program in the resort city of Hurghada, a popular Red Sea destination known for its upscale all-inclusive packages, as well as nearby desert and water excursions.

Two snakes, believed to be cobras, were used in the show, officials said. 

Investigators indicated that it is not uncommon for performers to allow snakes to interact closely with audience members, as some of the snakes were reportedly placed around guests’ necks during the act.

Advertisement

However, during one segment of the performance, a snake reportedly bit the German tourist after crawling into his clothing.

“He subsequently exhibited clear symptoms of poisoning and required resuscitation,” officials said. 

He reportedly died shortly after arriving at a local hospital.

LAW STUDENT KILLED BY ELEPHANT DURING VACATION TO THAILAND: OFFICIALS

Tourists swim in the Sunny Days Elpalacio beach in the Egyptian Red Sea resort city of Hurghada. (MOHAMED EL-SHAHED / AFP)

Advertisement

The results of a toxicological examination are still pending, Bavarian police said.

The investigation is being handled by Germany’s Memmingen Criminal Police Inspectorate under the direction of the Memmingen Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPPO).

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Tourists swimming at the Red Sea Egyptian resort of Hurghada on June 18, 2020 (KHALED DESOUKI/AFP)

Cobras are known for being highly venomous snakes. Their bite can lead to rapid respiratory failure and paralysis without prompt medical treatment.

Advertisement

Fox News Digital has reached out to MPPO for more information.   

Continue Reading

World

US appeals court rejects Trump’s immigration detention policy

Published

on

US appeals court rejects Trump’s immigration detention policy

In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.

In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.

Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

Advertisement

But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.

That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.

Advertisement

In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.

“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.

Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.

Advertisement

The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.

“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just ⁠reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending