MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Deutschland –
Source: CDU CSU
Dear Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen! Dear colleagues! That is an impressive debate today, even if the climax with the speech by Dr. Ullrich will come soon, as usual at the end.
(Laughter from the CDU / CSU)
But if you’re used to discussing criminal law here, it’s kind of irritating, I have to say.
(Canan Bayram [ALLIANCE 90 / THE GREENS]: Please rejoice, Mr. Jung!)
I’ve never seen the AfD suddenly declare: You can’t act so harshly, you can’t go too far in criminal law, you have to understand the perpetrators.
I am even more surprised that Die Linke and, Ms. Bayram, the Greens are suddenly calling for harsh punishments and tough action.
(Canan Bayram [ALLIANCE 90 / THE GREENS]: Yes, be happy!)
Yes, “money laundering” sounds a bit like capital, everything is a bit blurred here.
(Laughter and applause from the CDU / CSU and the FDP)
Well, this debate has been impressive.
Perhaps let me just lay down the key points.
First. Some have already said something about the all-crimes approach. I think it is an extremely important point that we now consider all predicate offenses and not just certain criminal offenses to be suitable predecessors of money laundering, based on the origin of the assets that are then returned to the economic cycle; because ultimately they have their own injustice. If I have illegally acquired assets and then put them back into the legal economic cycle, it doesn’t really matter how criminal and how bad the predicate offense was. This can influence the punishment of the predicate offense; but incriminated assets are incriminated assets. There are no good ones and no bad ones. That’s why I think it’s good that we can improve now and take stronger action against it in the future.
Secondly, I am extremely grateful, Minister, that you have now reintroduced the criminality of recklessness. I think we’ve all talked a lot with practitioners in the past few weeks. Every public prosecutor says: If I don’t have it in there, then I can’t even start many proceedings. – That is why I think it is important that we do not end up weakening the money laundering paragraph here.
I think we have to talk again about moving in independently, dear colleague Wiese. I agree with everything you said about real estate, etc. But we now have a change in the requirements that is remarkable. In the result, I think it’s okay that we can suddenly only confiscate the crime on our own in the event of a commercial or gang-based commission; because these are of course the ones we actually mean.
But what is being regulated there? We have the option of being able to access assets at a very early stage, namely from the point in time at which the initial suspicion arises. But if there is an initial suspicion of a money laundering crime, one often does not even know whether there was a qualified previous offense or whether the qualification was only given afterwards. And if we change that now so that we restrict self-confiscation when we have this softening in it, we may no longer have the opportunity to access clan crime and the like. I think we’ll have to talk about that very carefully over the next few weeks.
(Applause from members of the CDU / CSU)
I want to say one more thing. In the discussion it was occasionally said that one could do without the predicate offenses entirely. Mr De Masi, you said: it must be a criminal offense in and of itself. – I don’t know whether you meant to say that the previous offense could be dispensed with entirely. But there was a discussion about it and there were scientists who talked about it. I have to honestly say that that would also go a long way too far for us. Because what is punished as an offense in the case of incriminated assets are in part behavior that is commonplace and common and must also be possible. Then we need a predecessor offense to turn it into a criminal offense. But I believe that nobody is seriously asking for this at the moment. As I said, at one point I wasn’t exactly sure.
I’m going to quit now before I’m cut off
Thank you very much.
(Applause from the CDU / CSU)
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and / or sentence structure not be perfect.