agrasc - agency for the recovery and management of seized and ... - ministry of justice ·...

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE MINISTRY OF THE BUDGET

AGRASC - Agency for the Recovery and Management of Seized and Confiscated Assets Annual Report for 2011

Annual Report for 2011 - AGRASC

2

Presentation of the annual report of the Agency for the Recovery and

Management of Seized and Confiscated Assets (AGRASC)

The Act of July 9th 2010 which set up the AGRASC required this public administrative body to present an annual report of its activity (Article 706-161 Code of Criminal Procedure) This annual report for 2011 - the first report from this fledgling Agency - provides an illustration of the relevance of the creation of this exceptional tool designed to assist courts of law to more effectively combat the underground organised economy. In just a few months, members of the Judiciary and civil servants have become fully familiar with the AGRASC – even though there is still room for improvement – and exploited to the full the potential which Parliament bestowed on this new public administrative body at its inception in July 2010 in order to facilitate criminal seizure and confiscation of assets.

The figures given in the report deal with the number of cases dealt with, the overall aggregate of centralised cash, the amount and value of seized chattels and real estate and also restitutions or contributions to the Inter-ministerial mission on fighting drugs and drug addiction (MILDT) and demonstrate the remarkable responsiveness of the multi-disciplinary team of the Agency under the leadership of Elisabeth PELSEZ, Director general, whose dynamism, sense of commitment and competence have won unanimous recognition, assisted by Hervé Brabant, Secretary General. Since February 4th 2011 we have witnessed several essential achievements and the attaining of many goals notwithstanding the numerous legal, procedural and other problems encountered and which have kept all Agency staff more than busy and demonstrated the need for an increase in the number of the latter. The international dimension of the Agency has also asserted itself as an important element in facilitating international mutual legal assistance in the sensitive field of seizure and confiscation of property. The AGRASC, which has speedily become an indispensable partner for courts of law, may be justly proud of its first year’s track record which augurs well for further ambitious and pragmatic steps forward to target ever more effectively the property of those involved in criminal activities.

Jean-Marie HUET Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence

President of the Board of Administration of AGRASC.


3

Introduction

The Agency for the Recovery and Management of Seized and Confiscated Assets (AGRASC), a public administrative body designed to facilitate seizure and confiscation of assets in criminal matters and placed under the joint authority of the Ministry of Justice and Freedoms and the Ministry of the Budget, Public Accounts and State Reform, was set up by Act n° 2012-768 of July 9th 2010. It began work on February 4th 2011, following the publication in the Journal officiel of the Decree of February 1st 2011. The judicial remit of the Agency was clearly demonstrated by the appointment of two members of the Judiciary, myself to head the Agency and Jean-Marie Huet, Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence to preside the Board of Administration. The budgetary side of things was evidenced by the appointment of a Secretary General from the Ministry of the Budget. 2011 saw the putting into place of the main mechanisms enabling the

Agency to carry out all the tasks entrusted to it by the Act of July 9th 2010. There was no time lag between the publication of the Decree and the Agency getting down to work – the first case referred to it arrived the evening before its official coming into being ! Once the main operating parameters of the Agency had been established, one of the first necessities was to put together a team capable of giving practical effect to the will of Parliament when setting up the Agency. The various methods for referral to the Agency by courts were defined and for this purpose specific tools were designed and implemented. Dealings with all Agency partners have been put on a formal basis by working protocols. The fundamentals required for the Agency to carry out its tasks were laid down with the support of the Agency’s supervisory authorities who were closely associated with development of the Agency’s activity during its first year of operation. Today the AGRASC has become part of the judicial landscape. It is known to all courts and readily identified by many of those working in the field of seizures and confiscations in criminal matters. It has also won recognition from its foreign contacts as being an indispensable working partner in the fight against ill-gotten assets. Creativeness and inventiveness have been the two guiding principles of the Agency during its coming on stream. Despite being constantly confronted with novel issues and an unpredictable workload, the Agency has risen to the challenge of laying down solid foundations for performing its tasks thanks to a cohesive and highly motivated team which has demonstrated its great versatility. The steadily increasing and extremely varied work of the Agency has made it possible to reach a certain number of findings which this first report will highlight while also putting forward recommendations to be implemented in 2012. When Parliament gave the Agency certain monopolies, it enabled it to centralise efficiently and effectively seizure and confiscation of crime-related assets in several fields. When so doing, it replaced the carrying out of certain tasks by the 160 Court offices of the Tribunaux de grande instance by entrusting this work to a single structure, without however at the time anticipating that the volume of work dealt with by the Agency would reach such considerable proportions. The strategy of the Agency for 2012 must be twofold : maintaining the enhanced potential which Parliament wished to introduce in dealing with crime-related assets and not letting itself be swamped by an often not easily manageable volume of work Elisabeth PELSEZ Director General


4

An operational Agency since its official setting-up on February 4th

2011.

Agency staff and location Agency staff is drawn from the Judiciary, civil servants and members of the Gendarmerie, all these different professional backgrounds making it possible to deal with the highly technical nature of the tasks carried out. The work of the Agency requires legal and operational expertise to ensure that Members of the Judiciary are given the highest level of advice and assistance and become familiar with administration of property, public finance, public procurement, handling of data systems.

Director general Accounts Dept.

Secretary General

Data processing system

Secretariat Human Resources

Operations Dept.

Registration Dept.

Legal Dept.

Headed by a member of the Judiciary, assisted by a Secretary General who is a deputy administrator of public finance, the Agency comprises two “Speciality” Departments whose responsibilities are indicated below and a Registration Department. The latter is responsible for maintaining the database of the Agency by systematically integrating data supplied by the courts: new case files, registration of assets seized and confiscated and updating of data. At the same time and in view of the limited size of the Agency, some transversal tasks are dealt with by the two other Departments in liaison with the Director: staff management (Legal Department) and data base management (Operations Department) In its capacity as a public administrative body the Agency has a Public Accountant Starting with 11 agents on February 4th 2011, the Agency counted 13 agents at the end of 2011.

Origin Position held

Members of the Judiciary Director General Head of the Legal Department

Directorate General Public Finance

Secretary General, Deputy Administrator of Public Finance

Deputy Head of the Legal Department, responsible for staff management, administration of chattels and public procurement, Divisional Inspector of Public Finance

Assistant in charge of the Secretariat and first registration

Principal Administrative Agent of Public Finance

Ministry of Justice and Freedoms

Chief Clerk

Assistant in charge of the Secretariat and first level registration

Administrative assistant

National Gendarmerie Head of the Operations Department, Captain in the Gendarmerie

Chief Warrant Officer in the Gendarmerie

Police Deputy Head of the Operations Department, Police Captain

Customs & Excise Customs & Excise Inspector

Territorial Communities A lawyer, Territorial Officer

Initially located at 20 avenue de Segur in the 7th District of Paris in premises inaugurated by the Minister of Justice, the Agency moved to rue de Richelieu in the 2nd District of Paris in March 2012.


5

The tools used for dealing with cases and property The database, a key element for dealing with cases and assets entrusted to the Agency, was operational as of February 2011, thus enabling the Agency to handle the substantial amount of data needing processing. This system developed by the Agency makes it possible to ensure total traceability of all processed data in connection with the flows of money impacting the sole account of the Agency opened with the Caisse des Dépôts et consignations (CDC). It has made it possible, as of December 31st 2011, to register over 7 000 cases, corresponding to 13 000 assets and to carry out more than 11 000 adjustment operations with the CDC account. This database was formally declared to the National Committee for Data Files and Individual Freedoms, which validated the same by a deliberation dated November 10th 2011. Subsequent to this validation, a ministerial order was issued on January 20th 2012 and published by the Ministry of Justice. In addition, given the risks inherent in the various activities carried out by the Agency, a risk mapping exercise was commenced in 2011. This sets out the main missions of the Agency and its goals as defined by the Board of Administration and shall be the object of a formalised guideline document at the beginning of 2012.

Relations with the Courts : definition of mechanisms for referral of cases to the

Agency On February 3rd 2011, a joint circular from the Director of Criminal Matters and Pardons and the Head of the Legal Services Department was sent to all courts setting out the main mechanisms introduced to enable the AGRASC to perform its various missions and ensure the traceability of cases referred to it. The Agency is in permanent contact with courts (Court offices and members of the Judiciary) to assist them in applying the above circular. The Agency constantly strives to avoid all unnecessary formalism in order to facilitate daily exchanges as much as possible. Two dedicated electronic addresses have been specifically created to allow courts to avail themselves of the dematerialised sending of their requests concerning cases dealt with at both national and international levels

Ongoing relations with the Board of

Administration and Supervisory

Authorities Throughout 2011, the Agency has taken great care to work closely with its Board of Administration and Supervisory Authorities. Pursuant to the Decree of February 1st 2011, the Board of Administration met on two occasions, on April 29th and October 18th 2011. Various resolutions were adopted concerning the budgets for 2011, 2012, internal regulations, risk mapping, legal action thresholds and the definition of the general terms for entering into contracts, agreements and public procurement contracts. These meetings were preceded by numerous working meetings in particular with the Budget department and the senior civil servant in charge of defence and security at the Ministry of Justice.

The Directorate General of Public Finance (DGFIP) was

called upon on many occasions in 2011 :

The setting up of accounting and financial circuits

of the Agency;

Taxation applicable to operations;

Relations with Land and Mortgage Registrars in the

framework of the monopoly granted by statute to

the Agency in matters of seizure of real estate in

criminal matters;

Methods for handling for currency by CDC tellers.

The DGFIP is one of the Agency’s main partners in its

dealings with France Domaine for the sale of chattels

and real estate entrusted to it and intervenes in the

framework of the agreement entered into with creditors

as regards restitution of monies seized.

The Operations Department of the Agency collaborates

closely with the new National Brigade for the

Punishment of Tax Offences (BNRDF) in those cases

where the Investigating Magistrate has asked the

AGRASC for practical and legal assistance.


6

Regular meetings were held with the Agency’s Supervisory Authorities, either with members of Ministerial cabinets or Directorates: Directorate of Criminal Matters and Pardons; Directorate of Legal Services; Directorate of the Budget and General Directorate of Public Finance. The questions regularly put to them enabled them to follow the progress of the Agency’s activity and acquaint themselves with the difficulties encountered by the Agency during its first year of operations. Issues raised in particular concerned handling of cash, foreign currencies and seizure of bank accounts. In addition the Agency since its setting-up has had recourse to various Departments of the Secretariat General of the Minister of Justice for different types of assistance, in particular computer equipment and maintenance. For the purpose of putting this assistance on a formal basis and allowing the Agency to reimburse expenditure incurred by it, signature of an agreement is underway.

Relations between the Agency and its Partners : formalisation of numerous

protocols In its daily work the Agency is directly in contact with numerous external partners. These dealings have given rise to the formalisation of several protocols and agreements.

The National Judicial Customs Service (SNDJ) A protocol was signed with the SNDJ on April 11th 2011 providing in particular for exchange of information and operational collaboration with the AGRASC. Several cases have served to implement this collaboration, in particular a case leading to the seizure of receivables in the form of restaurant vouchers.

The Compensation Fund for victims of terrorism and other offences (FGTI) A protocol was signed on April 12th 2011 between the AGRASC and the FGTI for the exchange of information to check whether victims have not already received compensation from other sources, namely from the National Committee for Compensation of Victims of Offences (CIVI) or the Department for recovery assistance for victims of offences (SARVI) before having the benefit of the compensation granted by the AGRASC.

National Property Disposal Bureau (DNID) The DNID is the historical partner of the AGRASC for the sale of chattels prior to judgment (Articles 41-5 and 99-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). A collaboration protocol concerning the sale of chattels was entered into on April 14th 2011 in order to organise sales making it possible to guarantee a price in conformity with the spirit of the relevant statutes by the systematic fixing of a reserve price by the Agency.

Ministry of the Interior, Overseas

Departments and Territories, Territorial

Communities and Immigration On June 21st 2011 a protocol was signed with the Ministry of the Interior for the exchange of information and contained a specific paragraph dealing with relations between the AGRASC and the Platform for the identification of crime-related assets (PIAC) of the Serious Financial Crime Central Office (OCRGDF). These two structures both seek to ensure the effectiveness of the criminal chain from the identification of property up to the confiscation thereof. The Liaison Committee between the AGRASC and the PIAC met on three occasions during 2011.

Public Creditors On July 21st 2011 an agreement was entered into with twelve tax and social creditors under the aegis of the Serious Fraud Office. It is designed to organise dealings between the Agency and these creditors. A first follow-up meeting was held on September 7th 2011 with a further meeting on January 17th 2012. Various amounts of money have been dealt with in the framework of this agreement at the time of their restitution.

The PIAC and the AGRASC regularly exchange

information. For instance the numerous seizures of real

estate in criminal matters which are reported to the

PIAC via its network of correspondents are brought to

the notice of the AGRASC to ensure that the matter has

been referred to the Agency for compliance with

formalities as to publication. In the event of this not

being the case, the Agency rapidly contacts the judge

involved to regularise the situation.

In the field of mutual legal assistance in criminal

matters, the PIAC and the AGRASC jointly handle

“incoming” and “outgoing” applications for assistance.

The PIAC facilitates tracing and identification while the

Agency provides assistance to members of the Judiciary

for the carrying out of seizures and confiscations.


7

The Caisse des dépôts et consignations (CDC) The agreement signed on December 1st 2011 with the CDC was designed to lay down the operating terms of the account of the Agency and the dealing between the two parties. It included in particular a provision pertaining to the security and confidentiality of information exchanged, in the spirit of risk management introduced by the Agency.

The Budget of the Agency

Difficulties in drawing up budget estimates The Agency has various sources of revenue under Article 706-163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When drawing up the initial budget, only two categories of revenue were taken into account :

- Interest on the account with the CDC estimated at 0.250 M€ (Article 706-163 4° of the Code of Criminal Procedure)

- Part of the proceeds of the sale of confiscated chattels and real estate capped at 1.300 M€ (Article 706-163 3° of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 75 of Act n° 2010-1657 of December 29th 2010 being the Finance Act for 2011)

Expenditure was estimated at 0.615M€ for routine operations and 0.671 M€ for pay of agents (exclusive of the reimbursing of the secondment of members of the Gendarmerie and Police officers, i.e an aggregate overall budget of 0.887 M€). This initial budget was drawn up on the basis of forecasts which were themselves of a random nature. It very quickly became obvious that the level of revenue coming from the confiscation of property administered by the Agency would be very low and would not make it possible to attain the ceiling fixed by the Finance Act. This shortfall is due mainly to the time lag between the Agency taking possession of seized property and the final confiscation of the same. The Agency estimates that it will only receive the first substantial revenue from final confiscations as from the final quarter of 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Agency has applied to its two Supervisory Authorities for two subsidies

amounting overall to 1.200 M€ (Article 706-163 1° of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and reduced the

level of forecasted revenue from the sale of confiscated property from the 1.300 M€ initially forecast to

0.100 M€.

Revenue in M€

Bu

dg

et

Mo

dif

ica

tio

n

Fo

re

ca

st

Ac

tua

l

Dif

fer

en

ce

Ac

tua

l r

ate

706-163 1° : Subsidies

Justice - 0,700 0,700 0,700 - 100%

Budget - 0,500 0,500 0,500 - 100%

706-163 3°: Confiscations 1,300 - 1,200 0,100 0,050 - 0,050 50%

706-163 4°: Interest CDC 0,250

0,250 0,476 0,226 190%

Database 0,020

0,020 0,020 - 100%

Total revenue (1)

1,570 - 1,570 1,746 0,176 111%

Expenditure in M€

Operating costs 0,615 0,532 - 0,083 86%

Staff 0,671 0,614 - 0,057 92%

Total expenditure (2)

1,286 1,146 - 0,140 89%

Result (1) – (2)

0,284 0,600 0,316 211%


8

An operating method demonstrating good control of operating expenditure Staff and operating costs have been 11% lower than forecast. This control of expenditure is due to :

- Staggering of staff recruitment where staff expenditure is concerned

- No assuming of responsibility for administering complex assets implying high administration costs due to implementation of alternative solutions such as for instance seizure of property without dispossession

Where revenue is concerned, although the sale of confiscated property only generated 50K€ for the Agency in 2011, i.e only one half of the 100M€ initially forecast, interest on the CDC account has been almost double of that initially forecast. The result of the 2011 financial year is thus markedly higher than estimated, which makes it possible to generate sufficient working capital to enable the Agency to await the first substantial revenue from confiscation of chattels and real estate and hope to achieve self-financing in 2012.

Seizure of property without dispossession is provided for

by Article 706-158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It

makes it possible to make chattels unavailable for

disposal while leaving them in the custody of the owner

or the keeper of such chattels (who thus have to bear the

cost of keeping such chattels and maintaining the same).

This measure makes it possible to avoid having to pay

expenses which may be substantial. Thus for an airplane,

it is preferable to seize the same in the hanger of the

company which normally ensures the maintenance

thereof (a company which shall be appointed keeper of

the thing and paid by the owner) rather than actually

proceeding to materially seize the airplane, which could

entail a daily outlay of between 8 000 and 10 000 euros.


9

An Agency designed to assist courts and investigators: performing the

priority task of providing help, assistance and guidance.

Dissemination of models and good practices From the outset the Agency has striven to accompany courts in fully understanding the provisions of the Act of July 9th 2010 and the manner in which referral may be made to the Agency. In February 2011 it put in place an intranet site, accessible from the Ministry of Justice site, and open for consultation by investigators and Customs & Excise officials. This site is designed to serve as a tool box, in particular thanks to the putting online of useful frameworks to assist judges wishing to seize monies in bank accounts, to proceed to sell property prior to judgment or carry out seizures or confiscations of real estate. This site had registered 70 000 online consultations at the end of 2011. Everyday members of the Judiciary and investigators contact the Agency by phone or e-mail to request its advice. It thus rapidly became apparent that the main task of the Agency is to advise, assist and guide judges in taking their decisions and choosing the proceedings best suited to such seizures. This task quite clearly meets a vital need, namely that of having at one’s disposal a centralised body specialising in asset seizure and confiscation. It is also remarkable to note the extent to which at all stages of proceedings, from investigation to judgment enforcement, members of the Judiciary have solicited the help of the Agency. One of the main concerns of the Agency is to keep up with statutory change and adapt its frameworks to best meet the needs of members of the Judiciary as and when they arise. When the Internal Security Guideline and Programming Act of March 14th 2011 amended Article 706-154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Agency swiftly put on line new frameworks corresponding to this statutory amendment.

Reaching out to courts Numerous visits have been made to Courts of Appeal to explain the role of the Agency and the new practices requiring implementation since February 2011 : Paris, Amiens, Rouen, Caen, Lyon, Grenoble, Chambéry, Reims, Nancy, Metz, Besançon, Colmar, Riom, Montpellier, Nîmes, Aix-en-Provence, Douai, Bordeaux, Limoges, Bourges, Poitiers, Orléans and Papeete (the latter by video-conference). Certain courts have asked the Agency to organise meetings : On three occasions in Paris, Compiegne, Rouen, Nanterre, while other meetings have been held with Chief Clerks of the Greater Paris Region and Paris, Nanterre, Creteil, Marseille and the Court of Appeal of Poitiers.

Training members of the Judiciary and Investigators. Almost 40 training courses have been organised : the National School for the Judiciary (ENM), the National Court Clerks School (ENG), the National Gendarmerie Officer Training Centre in Melun, for gendarmes reading for the Degree of Master in the fight against economic and financial organised crime taught by Strasbourg University, the National Intervention Group of the Gendarmerie (GIGN), for the Heads of Wanted Persons Sections, Heads of Economic and Financial Sections of Regional Criminal Investigation Departments and all officers of the national Customs & Excise service. Other training courses have been given in the context of international symposia, in particular in Germany and in the context of a partnership between the National School for the Judiciary and Romania. The Agency was presented at a conference organised by the Serious Fraud Office (DNLF) on the topic of enforced recovery of assets. On several occasions, representatives from the Office of the Director of the Department of Criminal Matters and Pardons accompanied representatives of the Agency at these training sessions. The AGRASC was invited to the Steering Committee of Regional Intervention Groups (GIR) and participated in the meeting of the Steering Committee of Nord-Pas de Calais. It was also represented at the liaison group of the fight against drugs and the high level Franco-Dutch group on the fight against drugs.


10

International Activity The Act provides that the Agency may ensure the management of seized assets, proceed to sell the same and distribute the proceeds of such sale when executing any request for international legal assistance in criminal matters or cooperation made by a foreign Judicial Authority ( Article 706-160 4° of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The Agency was appointed by France, along with the PIAC, on February 25th 2011 as an Asset Recovery Office within the meaning of decision 2007/845/JAI of Council of the European Union of December 6th 2007. It also joined the CARIN network (Camden Asset Recovery Inter-agency Network) which is also composed of practitioners, representatives of investigative bodies and the Judiciary which meets regularly to exchange information of an operational nature to facilitate the execution of International Letters Rogatory. They lay down good practices in the field of asset seizure and confiscation and address specific issues such as “unexplained wealth” which corresponds in France to the offence of “inability to prove the origin of wealth” in order to assist legislative progress in different countries. The Agency has made a point of forging a good working relationship with Eurojust, the judicial cooperation body located in the Hague, and has been invited by the latter to attend several coordination meetings in the framework of criminal investigations with a property component requiring investigations in several States. Liaison Magistrates in post in Paris or abroad often solicit the Agency in the framework of cases where seizure and confiscation of assets is contemplated. Lastly, the AGRASC has established contacts with its foreign counterparts. In the Netherlands, the BOOM has become one of its main partners. In Rome in September 2011 the Director General of the Agency met her Italian counterpart, the Head of the Italian Agency set up in 2009. Pietro Grasso, the national anti-Mafia judge, visited the Agency in June 2011. Lastly, links are being set up with the SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) in Great Britain. Several foreign delegations from Canada, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Belgium and Jordan have visited the Agency, wishing to acquaint themselves with the provisions of the Act of July 9th 2010 and in particular the way the Agency goes about its work. Lastly, thanks to the support of the Inter-ministerial mission on fighting drugs and drug addiction (MILDT) an international seminar was organised and attended by all judges from inter-regional specialised courts (JIRS) to study both foreign examples and, through practical case studies, issues concerning mutual legal assistance in criminal matters in the field of asset seizure and confiscation.


11

Record of operations for 2011

The Legal Department The Legal Department is in charge of dealing with cash and bank accounts (restitutions, compensation of victims and confiscations), sales prior to judgment and, since the Act of March 14th 2011, the sale of vehicles confiscated after impounding pursuant to Article L 325-1-1 of the Highway Code. The Legal Department also accompanies the Operations Department in giving assistance to members of the Judiciary and investigators and in dealing with requests for international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.

Cash More than 68 million euros were received in 2011, corresponding for the most part to seizures proceeded with during the year. Courts have been reluctant to “offload”, i.e have been relatively few in number to transfer to the Agency those amounts seized and entered in the accounts of Court offices before February 2011. It should be noted than the vast majority of monies received are small amounts, even in some cases extremely small amounts (67% of the amounts involved are less than 1 000 euros and represent only 3% of the overall potential final amount), which raises the problem of their processing by the Agency insofar as administrative processing of amounts under 1 000 euros takes as much time and effort and use of resources as does the processing of an amount of several hundred thousand euros. N° per

Segment % of Total Cumulative

amount per segment

(m€)

% of Total

Segment 1 : from 0 to 10 € 201 1,87% 1 0,0%

Segment 2 : from 10 to 100€ 1 851 17,21% 87 0,1%

Segment 3 : from 100 to 1 000€ 5 125 47,66% 1 960 2,9%

66,74% 3.0%

Segment 4: from 1 000 to 10 000€ 2 759 25,66% 8 521 12,5%

Segment 5: from 10 000 to 100 000€ 698 6,49% 19 227 28,1%

Segment 6: from 100 000 to 1 000 000€ 114 1,06% 27 678 40,5%

Segment 7: more than 1 000 000€ 5 0,05% 10 835 15,9%

Total 10 753 100,00% 68 309 100,0%

Cash paid over to the Agency broken down into segments

Bank accounts Bank accounts transferred to the Agency’s account in 2011 amount to more than 34 million euros. It should be noted that since the Act of March 14th 2011 such seizures may be directly carried out by Officers from the Criminal Investigation Department but must, within ten days thereof, be the object of an order of continued retention or release issued by the Investigating Magistrate or the Freedom and Detention Judge (JLD) under Article 706-154 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The AGRASC has in fact received very few orders for continued retention or release issued by Freedom and Detention Judges, which means that either such orders have not been issued or that, being issued, they have not been forwarded to the Agency, which leads to adjustment difficulties.

Restitutions Restitutions of cash and bank accounts amounted to more than 2.2 million euros, most often in the form of small amounts. The AGRASC often encounters problems when carrying out restitutions when courts have transferred sums of money but failed to accompany these transfers by the relevant information. The Agency may only make restitution of monies adjusted with the entries recorded on the CDC account, which penalises the intended recipients in terms of extended timeframes.

Confiscations The same problems are encountered as regards confiscation of cash and bank accounts. In order to proceed in such matters, whether for purposes of confiscation, compensation of civil claimants, payment of amounts confiscated into the general State budget or the specific “Drugs” fund or simply financing the Agency, it is indispensable that courts provide the latter with final decisions and all relevant information, which is not always the case. Courts must therefore set up the necessary


12

channels to ensure that the Agency receives all necessary information when monies are transferred to it and provide the latter with copies of final decision handed down in the cases involved.

Sale of chattels prior to judgment (Articles 41-5 and 99-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The Agency strives to ensure that the sale price of chattels is as high as possible in order to avoid detrimental consequences for the owners thereof in the event of restitution or for the State in the event of confiscation. All the sales carried out during the year have been entrusted to the DNID auctioneers. However, in a desire for greater diversification, the AGRASC is working on a protocol with the National Association of Auctioneers in order to entrust the latter with the sale at auction of certain chattels.

Vehicles confiscated and handed over to the AGRASC under Article L 325-1-1 of the Highway

Code. Since the amending of Article L 325-1-1 of the Highway Code by the Act of March 14th 2011, the Agency has received a large number of confiscated vehicles. This measure has required courts to make a distinction between vehicles confiscated subsequent to impounding under Article L 325-1-1 of the Highway Code (vehicles the sale of which is the task of the AGRASC) and other vehicles confiscated after seizure, the latter coming under the jurisdiction of the DNID. The Agency has encountered problems due both to the number of vehicles sent to it and the fact that the vast majority of these vehicles which were impounded and then confiscated are, contrary to the expectations of Parliament, devoid of sufficient market value to warrant their being put up for sale and the payment by the purchaser, as provided for by statute, of the immobilisation expenses incurred by such vehicle. The AGRASC has to call upon the services of an external supplier of services for the destruction of unsellable vehicles. It is clear that the reform contained in Article L 325-1-1, which replaces France Domaine by the AGRASC, does not seem warranted insofar as the AGRASC contributes no added value when receiving vehicles which are not likely to produce any revenue and the time required for processing the same is necessarily extended. The AGRASC raised the issue of the difficulties created by this reform before the National Assembly Law Commission on November 30th 2011 and that of the Senate on December 2nd 2011. A Parliamentary amendment has provided, in the statute pertaining to the enforcement of criminal penalties, for the transfer back to France Domaine of jurisdiction over such matters, which would appear to be the simplest and most effective solution, both for the courts and public finance. This statute was published on March 28th 2012 in the Journal officiel.

The Operations Department. The Operations Department was called upon to participate in four different fields: real time assistance for courts, publication of seizures of real estate in criminal matters, carrying out complex confiscations and lastly, lending assistance in complying with requests for international mutual assistance in criminal matters.

Real time assistance for courts which have requested help from the Agency. This mission consists in providing technical and practical assistance to members of the Judiciary who have requested advice for the carrying out of seizures known as “special”, i.e coming under the scope of new title XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each issue or problem raised was the object of a specific assistance file followed up by a member of this Department. In order of importance, the issues most often raised concerned the seizure of real estate, bank accounts, receivables, businesses, chattels (e.g ships, wine cellars, works of art), life insurance or shares in companies. Requests came both from members of the Public Prosecution Service, Investigating Magistrates, Trial judges and investigators who had the task of collecting evidence and data indispensable for carrying out seizures. In connection with these issues concerning special seizures, many requests dealt with the administration of conservatory measures proceeded with under the previous statute (e.g release or extending of mortgages, pledging of businesses).


13

Publication of seizures of real estate in criminal matters. This part of the Agency’s work, which derives from the monopoly introduced by statute (Article 796-151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) consists in registering, on behalf of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Investigating Magistrates and courts, all seizures of real estate carried out in criminal matters in 2011. Each case file contains specific record sheets (publication, filing of documents) subsequently sent to Land and Mortgage Registries. In view of the highly demanding rules governing the publication of conveyances and mortgages, when failure to comply results in refusal to publish, model forms for seizure of real estate in criminal matters were rapidly put on line on the Agency website in order to facilitate publication thereof. At the same time the Agency has drafted additional and amending attestations to make it possible to publish files which did not initially comply with requirements. Once publication was complete, the Agency immediately informed each judge concerned that all formalities had been complied with and dealt with the invoicing pertaining to the payment of the remuneration of Registrars. Lastly, a procedure has been laid down for publishing, as and when necessary, releases of real estate seized in criminal matters.

Carrying out complex real estate confiscations. This involves first and foremost publishing the rights of the State in executing judgments which have ordered confiscation of real estate. The formalities involved, which are more complex than those pertaining to seizures, have necessitated the putting together of complete files (extract from the Land and Mortgage Registry, record of mortgage formalities) without which it would not have been possible to transfer ownership of such property in an effective manner. Even though certain files are still encountering problems impeding the successful outcome thereof most hurdles have been overcome. The second stage is the putting together of sale files with France Domaine and the Higher Council of Notaries. The first confiscations of businesses and life insurance policies have moreover been forwarded to the Agency for the execution thereof.

The Agency’s contribution to international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters In addition to acting as back-up to members of the Judiciary in cases requiring seizures or confiscations, the Agency has also participated in cases involving foreign requests for international mutual legal assistance concerning property situated in France (“incoming” requests) and French requests involving property situated abroad (“outgoing” requests). Working with the DACG Bureau of International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its foreign counterparts, the Agency has been able to contribute its own added-value, for instance by aiding the drafting of freezing or seizure certificates, publishing seizures or confiscations of real estate to the benefit of a foreign State or by exchanging operational data on the situation of assets seized abroad with a view to obtain the repatriation of all or part of the latter to France. The growing use of seizures of real estate in criminal matters All courts in France now have recourse to this special type of seizure, which demonstrates the extent to which judges now feel at home with such a measure. Compared to former measures (judicial mortgages) which existed prior to the coming into force of the Act of 09/07/2010, which were far more complicated and less effective, the number of these new seizures is more than three times greater than the 70 or so judicial mortgages registered each year. These new seizures affecting real estate represent not only a major financial step forward ( 2% of such property accounts for 47% of amounts seized) but also have a destabilizing effect on regards organised criminal networks. By attacking high value real estate these seizures make it possible to hand down highly dissuasive penalties by prohibiting the accumulation of criminal wealth often acquired over a long period by habitual offenders.


14

Geographical location of real estate seizures.

The Registration Department 2011 has seen 7 630 entries registered in the database comprising 13 354 assets managed by the Agency (cash, bank accounts, real estate, vehicles etc).

The Registration Department has registered on average some 700 cases per month Amount of data recorded per month– 2011

February March April May June July August September October November December

The amount of data entered in the database has throughout the year greatly exceeded the processing capacities of the Agency.

Adjustment of the CDC account The adjustment consisting in reconciling the movements on the Agency’s account with the CDC with operations recorded on the database (cases/assets) has been carried out since May 2011 by means of an automatic integration of data transmitted each month by the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800


15

This required the recording of more than 11 000 lines in the data base in 2011. It makes it possible at the same time to rectify processing of data (nature of the property, incorrect amount, no recording of property) and thus integrates the internal control system set up by the Agency. The adjustment rate at the end of 2011 was 85.10% The adjusting of accounts revealed several problems connected with the registration of bank accounts and the follow-up of cash seized.

Registrations of bank accounts. Out of ten bank transfers received by the Agency in the framework of the seizure of a bank account, fewer than seven can be adjusted. This difficulty arises from a combination of various shortcomings over which the Agency has very little control:

- No indication of the case involved, of the judge or court is transmitted by the bank in the framework of the Interbank exchange system;

- The order for the seizure of the bank account does not show the balance of the accounts seized, or shows a wrong balance

- The bank proceeds to make a group transfer using a technical operating account which does

not make it possible to identify the accounts seized in connection with the court order

- The court order is not transmitted to the Agency To alleviate such difficulties it would seem that when a transfer cannot be adjusted the issuing bank alone is able to provide information to the Agency. In view of the foregoing, in October 2011, the Agency wrote to all banks with unadjusted transactions in order to obtain a copy of the documents which triggered the relevant seizure. This operation was not as successful as expected since several banks refrained from providing the requested information. This operation will be repeated in early 2012. At the same time working meetings will be held with compliance officers of certain banks and the French Banking Federation has been made aware of this issue thanks to a technical sheet drafted by the Legal Department of the Agency and made available to members of this Federation.

Follow up of cash Numerous transfers made by courts are not accompanied by the transfer to the Agency of the relevant supporting documents making it possible to enter the case involved in the database in connection with this cash flow Some courts have not transferred or transmitted any case in 2011.

Supporting documents of remainder awaiting adjustment The amount of 15.7 M€ remained to be adjusted on December 31st, corresponding to fewer than 20% of bank seizures not accompanied by supporting documents, and more than 80% to delay in entering cases on the database or failure by courts to transmit the relevant documents.

Situation as of

31/12/2011

CDC account balance

Adjusted amounts

Remainder awaiting

adjustment

Adjustment rate

Bank transfers

24,3 M € 21,8 M € 2,5 M € 89,81%

Cash and other

transactions 80,8 M € 67,5 M € 13,2 M € 83,68%

Total 105,1 M € 89,4 M € 15,7 M € 85,10%

Overall non adjusted total 15,7 M€ % / total

Non adjusted bank accounts 2,5 M€ 16%

Agency delays 6,6 M€ 42%

Failure by courts to supply supporting documents

6,6 M€ 42%


16

The Accounts Department The 2011 financial year was mainly devoted to setting up the Accounts Department and an efficient working relationship with the authorising authority (e.g restitution process), the DGFiP (General Directorate of Public Finance), (CE2B-Opérateurs de l’Etat, CLiC –Trésorerie, methods of payment and banking operations) the Regional Public Finance Directorate for the Greater Paris Region (Paye), the CDC (setting up of secure procedures suitable for on line administration of the CDC account, drafting and signing of the agreement setting up the account) and tax and social creditors concerned by the agreement on the exchange of information. The Accounts Department has transmitted a request for a written fiscal ruling to the Director of the French Tax Administration (Ministry of the Budget) who has approved the same.

Implementation of the Budget As the final link in the chain of the payment of the outgoings of the AGRASC, the Accounts Department plays a decisive part in compliance with timeframes for payment allotted to the AGRASC. In addition to its official mission of monitoring expenditure, book keeping and treasury management, it attaches major importance to swift and effective processing of cases.

Management of the CDC account The Accounts Department is also in charge of managing the AGRASC account opened with the CDC and which receives transfers subsequent upon the seizure of cash, bank accounts and the proceeds of the sale of property. It supervises restitution files, the payments made to the Drug Fund managed by the MILDT, deals with rejections of transfers made or requested by Department Directors of Public Finance (DDFiP), courts or banks before proceeding to make the relevant transfers. It strives to carry out such transactions as speedily as possible.

Type of transaction Incoming Outgoing

109 226 319,74 €

Counterfeit banknotes

530,00 €

Rejection of transfers

935 920,38 €

Restitutions

2 264 342,94 €

Transfers to public creditors

408,29 €

Transfers to MILDT

689 328,79 €

Transfers to the State

0,00 €

Transfers to Agency budget 0,00 €

Interest paid to Agency budget

248 343,49 €

Total 109 226 319,74 € 4 138 873,89 €

Account balance as of 31/12/11 105 087 445,85 €

The average processing time (control and making of transfer) was 2 days for restitutions, 3.5 days for payment to the Drug Fund and 5 days for rejections.


17

Main figures for 2011

7.630 cases entered on the database amounting to 13.354 assets managed, i.e 1.75 per case 109 million euros paid into the CDC account, i.e more than 200 000€ paid each day by all courts 160 restitutions amounting overall to 2.3 million euros. 689 328.79€ paid into the Drugs Fund 120 sales prior to judgment amounting to 0.550M€ entered in the account 202 seizures of real estate in criminal matters and 23 publications of confiscations.

Breakdown of assets administered by category in number and amount

Category Number %/Total Value (M€) %/Total Real estate 225 1.68% 97.16 46.99% Cash 10 753 80.52% 68.31 33.04% Bank accounts 945 7.08% 34.48 16.68% Life insurance 18 0.13% 2.20 1.06% Receivables (payment into CDC account)

11 0.08% 2.16 1.04%

Vehicles 714 5.35% 0.93 0.45% Boats 3 0.02% 0.60 0.29% Receivables ( not paid into CDC account)

1 0.01% 0.37 0.18%

Businesses 1 0.01% 0.25 0.12% Hifi/Video/Electrical appliances/Telephones

235 1.76% 0.12 0.06%

Jewelry 78 0.58% 0.08 0.04% Clothing, Shoes, Luxury leather goods

53 0.40% 0.03 0.02%

Miscellaneous 317 2.37% 0.07 0.04% Total 13 354 100.00% 206.75 100.00%


18

Breakdown by type and number of offences

63,59%

1,78% 4%

12% 13%

22% 20%

7%

Drugs Money laundering Obtaining propertyby deception/breach

of trust

Theft/Receivingstolen goods

Offences recorded Amounts seized

Geographical location of cash seized (in K€)


19

For 2012 : Optimisation of the work of the Agency through the

introduction of new procedures and recommendations for redrafting

of statutory provisions.

Optimising activity by introducing new internal and external procedures

Adapting the organisation and resources of the Agency

Ensuring a level of funding in keeping with outgoings

Since its setting-up the Agency has encountered two main difficulties:

- Obtaining a level of funding in keeping with outgoings, the current level resulting from the small number of final confiscations in comparison with the stock of assets managed (assets valued at 206 M€ worth in 2011 compared to 50k€ of confiscated assets);

- Being in a position to assume its growing workload which is outstripping expected levels at the time of its setting-up notwithstanding an absence of reference points making it possible to predict requirements in the short and long term.

With respect to the first difficulty, it is hoped that the widening of the base of Article 706-163 3° of the Code of Criminal Procedure referred to above, together with the completion of the first sales of real estate of which the proceeds are expected during the second semester will make it possible to overcome this difficulty in 2012. As regards the second difficulty, the Agency has obtained the agreement of its Supervisory Authorities to increase staff numbers to 20 by the end of 2012. The arrival of such new members of staff will be staggered throughout the year in order to prevent any rise in this item of expenditure. This strengthening of the team is mainly designed to do away with delay in dealing with cases, entrust adjustment of the CDC account to a member of staff specifically in charge of the same and provide back up for the Accounts Department in order to ensure the smooth running of operations especially where restitutions are concerned.

Make it possible to recruit contract staff.

In view of the specificities of its manner of operation, it is advisable that the Agency be able to have recourse in the short term to staff under contract. The know-how concerning the management of certain assets, in particular real estate, may be best found in the private sector. Furthermore, given the sensitive nature of its computerised data system, it may be in the interests of the Agency to recruit a technician specifically in charge of management and implementation in this field.

Make it possible to access Cassiopée

Insofar as the Agency creates a new file and registers data for each new case referred to it direct access to Cassiopée and the criminal channel reserved for courts would be a most useful measure. This would enable the Agency not to have to ask Court offices or judges to communicate data indispensable for it to perform its statutory mission. Request for access (in consultation mode) has thus been made to the Ministry of Justice.

Continuing to sign protocols of agreement with our current and future partners

Although one of the main goals of the Agency is to increase the number of confiscations, the necessary follow-up must be ensuring the sale of confiscated assets in the best possible conditions. Statute law has given the Agency free rein to choose those bodies with which it will work.

Agreement with France Domaine (The National Property Disposal Office)

France Domaine has a part to play, under statutory provisions concerning public ownership, when the AGRASC sells confiscated real estate, in particular when it comes to deciding whether or not the real estate involved should exceptionally remain the property of the State and in assessing the value of confiscated real estate. Drafting of a protocol to this end is currently underway.


20

Agreements with Auctioneers and Notaries.

For the purpose of deciding which procedure is best suited to the great variety of assets, comprising not only chattels but also real estate, which are entrusted to the Agency, the decision has been taken to enter into agreements with accredited Auctioneers for the sale of chattels and Notaries for that of real estate. France Domaine of course still remains a preferred service provider for the Agency.

Protocol with the Paris Tribunal de grande instance.

It has been decided, with a view to optimising the relationship between AGRASC and the Tribunal de grande instance of Paris, the leading court in Europe, to sign a protocol introducing specific rules governing day to day collaboration. This protocol has been drafted and is awaiting signature.

Improve procedures affecting the working of the Agency.

Limit the number of seizures of small amounts of cash

The segmentation of cash seizures shows that almost 67% of monies registered in the Agency database involve amounts of less than 1000 euros, and account for fewer than 3% of the total amount of cash seized. Since its setting-up the Agency has been confronted with the problem of administering a great number of assets of minimal financial value and this impacts adversely on its work. In order to illustrate this problem, the estimated average cost of dealing with cases has been calculated and, as shown in the chart below, stands at 150€

Number of cases 7 630 Operating costs 531 948.36€ Staff costs 614 361.32€ Total outgoings 1 146 309.68€ Cost per case 150.24€

Thus for a case involving one or more assets valued at less than 150€, even in the event of confiscation the processing of this case results in a net loss for the Agency. In 2011 for the cash seizures representing more than 80% of assets administered, 3.251 cases, i.e 43% of cases registered on the database, were of such a nature (cases which accounted for only 0.32% of financial intake) A working group comprising persons from both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior may look into this question in order to draw up guidelines for CID officers as to the sums of money to be seized and those which, in view of their modest amount, should be returned to persons who are apprehended. The Agency has drawn the attention of its Supervisory Authorities to this problem on several occasions.

Increase the number of confiscations.

In all of the States with which comparisons may be made, in particular within the European Union, it is obvious that the amount of assets seized greatly exceeds the number of court ordered confiscations. In Italy for instance 7 billion euros worth of assets have been seized compared to 2 billion euros worth of confiscations. The Dutch speak of 650 million euros worth of seizures to be set against 50 million euros worth of confiscations. After several months of operation, it has become quite clear to the AGRASC that efforts should be made to markedly increase the number of confiscations in the coming years. Four types of action will be undertaken to attain this goal: Organising feedback to courts and encouraging the introduction of a property reference number useful for

judgments of this nature.

It is up to the Agency to ensure that judges are informed of the fate of seized property and trial courts be given all necessary information to enable them to order confiscations. In cases of sale of property prior to judgment information must be given as to the date of sale and the price obtained. For seizures of real estate in criminal matters, the publication of the seizure must systematically be appended to the case file. As regards seized bank accounts, feedback must be given to judges enabling them to know the amounts actually seized and transferred to the Agency account. This property reference number should offer the opportunity to draw up a full record of all assets seized and liable to be confiscated when the case comes to trial.


21

Systematically communicating information on the role of the Agency to trial judges.

The Agency has suggested to the ENM (National School for the Judiciary) that it intervene during all changes of post of trial judges, especially those appointed to preside Tribunaux correctionnels (criminal courts) or sit on Benches of Chambre d’appels correctionnels (criminal appellate courts) and Chambres d’instruction ( responsible for hearing appeals as to committal for trial). This intervention will make it possible to enhance awareness of such judges of the provisions which should be set out in decisions handed down in order to permit confiscation of assets, and of the statutory provisions which allow for the seizure of assets and subsequent confiscation thereof if such seizures have not been ordered during the investigation (Articles 373-1 and 484-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Cours d’assises and Tribunaux correctionnels.) Putting on line frameworks for use in the holdings of judgments or appellate decisions convicting offenders.

The Agency has already put on line several documents making it possible to order confiscation of bank accounts or real estate. It will continue to do so to ensure that all confiscations ordered by courts may be duly enforced and thus become effective. Designate in all courts contact points for penalty enforcement.

When visiting a Court of Appeal, the General Prosecutor of the latter suggested that contact points in the field of penalty enforcement more specifically responsible for the confiscation of assets become contact points for the AGRASC. This is a particularly interesting idea insofar as the Agency has had occasion to realise the extent to which the absence of dedicated contact points in these fields makes it difficult to carry out one of its essential missions.

Some ideas for necessary statutory redrafting Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of July 9th 2010, the Agency wishes to put forward some recommendations for statutory redrafting.

A further penalty of confiscation of property in the event of money laundering by a legal

entity In the absence of any statutory provision dealing with such cases, Criminal courts are confronted with a major practical problem concerning confiscation of assets of legal entities in the event of the latter being convicted of money laundering. Money laundering is one of the offences where all the property of the convicted offender is liable to be confiscated. Under Article 131-21 paragraph 6 of the Criminal Code. The difficulty encountered arises from the wording of Article 324-7 12° of the Criminal Code applicable to natural persons ( “Natural persons convicted of the offences provided for in Article 324-1 and 324-2 shall also be liable to the imposition of the following additional penalties …(…) 12° the confiscation of all or part of the property of the convicted offender regardless of the nature thereof, whether in the form of chattels or real estate, held in co-ownership or otherwise”) and, as regards the additional penalties applicable to legal entities convicted of money laundering, the reference made by Article 324-9 to Article 131-39, which itself refers to Article 131-12 in general, do not make it possible to state with any certainty that the additional penalty of general confiscation of property is incurred. Hence if a legal entity is involved in a money laundering scheme, a situation which is frequently encountered in practice, it will not be possible to confiscate all the property of the convicted legal entity since confiscation of such property will require proof that each item thereof derives from the proceeds of the offence. Numerous offenders thus have recourse to simple legal mechanisms to ensure that their property remains out of the law’s reach. Parliament must therefore intervene to provide expressly for the possibility of imposing on legal entities convicted of money laundering the additional penalties of confiscation of all their property.

Some thoughts on the sustainability of conservatory measures The Act of July 9th 2010 has retained in the Code of Criminal Procedure the conservatory measures found in Article 706-103 and even extended their application to the offences of misappropriation by adding Article 706-166 to the Code of Criminal Procedure. These measures, modelled on civil judgment enforcement measures, concern solely property owned by the convicted offender and are henceforth designed solely to guarantee the payment of fines and compensation of victims ( criminal


22

seizures being on the other hand designed to guarantee enforcement of court-ordered confiscation penalties). Experience has shown that these conservatory measures are extremely difficult to take and especially to implement by courts of law (one example is the need to renew provisional mortgages every three years) while their usefulness is less evident since the Act of July 9th 2010, when inserting Article 706-164 into the Code of Criminal procedure, has made it possible for the AGRASC to give civil claimants in criminal cases first ranking compensation out of confiscated property. In order to ensure subsequent confiscation or compensation of victims, enforcement methods of criminal law offer a far more effective solution than the taking of conservatory measures. At the present time, the conservatory measures of Articles 706-103 and 706-166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure offer only one advantage: they make it possible to take measures concerning property which is not connected with the offence, which is not the case with seizures under criminal law in the cases where extended confiscation (and thus extended seizure) pursuant to paragraphs 5 & 6 of Article 131-21 is not incurred. The Act on penalty enforcement amends Article 131-21 of the Criminal Code to allow for general confiscation valuewise ( i.e confiscation of property equivalent in value to the profits made by the offender). This being the case the removal of Articles 706-103 and 706-166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be contemplated since their remaining in force merely adds to confusion and complexity for those responsible for such enforcement.

Possibility for Courts of appeal to order seizure and confiscation at the hearing in court The Act of July 9th 2010 inserts into the Code of Criminal Procedure via Articles 373-1 and 484-1 provisions allowing criminal courts (Tribunaux correctionnels and Cours d’assises) when ordering confiscation of property to order the seizure thereof when such a measure has not already been ordered at an earlier stage of proceedings. In such cases courts may order the handing over to the Agency of the asset of which they order the seizure for the disposal thereof if such asset is no longer needed for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and if keeping the same would entail a diminution of its value. It would be particularly useful to make recourse to such provisions available to Chambres des appels correctionnels (Criminal appellate courts) which is not the case at the present time and which would enable such courts to proceed to order seizures not ordered at first instance.

Widening the scope of Article 706-163 3° of the Code of Criminal Procedure The overall amount of assets managed by the Agency corresponds to some 50% of the bank accounts and cash payments into the CDC account. Managing such amounts is particularly time-consuming for the Agency, which is required to ensure total traceability thereof. A considerable percentage of such amounts is retrieved after the intervention of the Agency, whether in a national framework (in particular through intervention with credit institutions) or in an international framework, after complex procedures of applications for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (for instance after contacting foreign judicial authorities and drawing up freezing and confiscation certificates). More often than not such amounts were not recovered by courts prior to the setting up of the AGRASC, which has obtained payments from countries previously reluctant to cooperate such as the British Virgin Islands. Paragraph 3° of Article 706-163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as currently worded, deprives the Agency of revenue from confiscated cash and bank accounts. Although remuneration of 1% of the balance of the CDC account has been provided for to the benefit of the Agency, the expense incurred in retrieving and administering recovered sums of money may quite easily be far higher. Administering currency may rapidly incur outgoings greater than expected revenue, in particular in the case of seizures exceeding several million euros. The Agency would therefore suggest that the scope of Article 706-163 3° of the Code of Criminal procedure be extended to cover confiscated cash and bank accounts. This recommendation has received a favourable opinion from the Director of the Budget and should be included in a Government Supplementary Finance Bill in 2012.


23

CONCLUSION

Thanks to the monopoly granted to the Agency by the Act of July 9th 2010 : centralised administration of monies seized, sale before judgment, seizure and confiscation of real estate in criminal matters, the AGRASC data base has been able, for the first time in 2011, to produce statistics which reflect the activity of courts as regards investigations into the property of offenders. The Agency has thus proved to be a remarkable indicator of the workings of courts in matters of seizures and confiscations when confronted with all kinds of offences. The dynamic created by the Agency will continue to progress and expand. However although it is indisputable that judges are becoming more and more familiar with new procedures and Court offices every more operational in dealing with the latter, there is still marked room for improvement to optimise the working of the Agency. 2012 should enable the Agency to pursue its strategy on several fronts to prioritise investigations into the assets of offenders by stepping up the effectiveness of seizures and full enforcement of confiscations.


24

agrasc - agency for the recovery and management of seized and ... - ministry of justice ·...

Documents