organised crime in europe - springer978-1-4020-2765-9/1.pdf · organised crime in europe concepts,...

Organised Crime in Europe

STUDIES OF ORGANIZED CRIME

Volume 4

Frank Bovenkerk, University of Utrecht, Willem Pompe Institute, The Netherlands

Editorial Board:Maria Los, University of Ottawa, CanadaLetizia Paoli, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law,

Freiburg, GermanyFrancisco Thoumi, Independent Researcher, Doral, Florida, U.S.A.Xiabo Lu, Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University, NY, U.S.A.

Series Editor:

Organised Crime in EuropeConcepts, Patterns and Control Policies in the

European Union and Beyond

Edited by

Cyrille FijnautProfessor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Tilburg University,

The Netherlands

and

Letizia PaoliSenior Research Fellow, Department of Criminology,

Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Published by Springer,P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Sold and distributed in North, Central and South Americaby Springer,

101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A.

In all other countries, sold and distributedby Springer,

P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved© 2004 Springer

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording

or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exceptionof any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered

and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Printed in the Netherlands.

ISBN 1-4020-2615-3 (HB)ISBN 1-4020-2765-6 (e-book)

v

Preface

Preface

Letizia Paoli and Cyrille Fijnaut

The idea of this book began to take shape over four years ago in a pleasant but aimless conversation at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg, Germany. While discussing recent progress and persistent deficiencies of research into organised crime, it suddenly occurred to us that we could make a meaningful contribution to European scientific and public debate by together editing a book that nobody had until that point dared to write: namely, a volume attempting a systematic comparison of both organised crime patterns and control policies in Europe.

Even before drafting the project proposal and recruiting experts from thirteen European countries, we knew that our aim was ambitious and daring. We were also fully aware that the practical and methodological difficulties that had so far prevented our colleagues from embarking on similar projects would hamper our efforts too. Nonetheless, we decided to unite forces – as well as experiences and networks of contacts – and give it a try.

Four years later and thanks to the valuable contributions of many of the most outstanding European scholars on organised crime, we are now happy to present the final product of our efforts. As explained in more detail in the general introduction, we are aware of both its strengths and limits.

The main strength of the book lies in the full realisation of our original aim. Bringing together experts from different social and legal disciplines, this volume represents the first attempt systematically to compare organised crime concepts, patterns and control policies in thirteen – western and eastern – European countries. These include seven ̒ established ̓Member States of the European Union (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom), two new eastern European members (the Czech Republic and Poland), a candidate country (Turkey) and three non-European Union countries (Albania, Russia and Switzerland).

Further strengths derive from seminal reflections on the history of organised crime, an attempt to assess the effectiveness of organised crime control policies in Europe, and the attention given to the interaction between European Union bodies and member, candidate and neighbouring states in the development and implementation of a harmonised organised crime control policy.

vi


The bookʼs main limits are closely linked to its very innovative character. In none of the areas of research pursued have we had the ambition – or indeed the possibility – to provide any conclusive judgments. With this volume we merely intend to open up new research paths, and create an awareness of their scientific relevance and political necessity. We are fully aware, however, that we are far from having exhausted the associated tasks.

In the course of such a long and ambitious project, we have amassed many intellectual and material debts. Our greatest debt of gratitude is to the 33 authors of the country reports. Without their expertise and their willingness to present their knowledge of organised crime patterns and control policies in their countries of origin or specialisation along the lines indicated in our protocol, this book would not have been possible. We have genuinely learned a great deal from their papers, which constitute the main pieces of the mosaic we have begun to put together.

We also thank the few other scholars who participated in different stages of the project but for a variety of reasons could not deliver a final contribution: Prof. Dr. Jörg Jepsen of Aarhus University, Ass. Prof. Dr. Didem Aydin of Bilkent University and Prof. Dr. Peter Young of University College, Dublin, who assumed initial responsibility for reports on organised crime in Denmark, organised crime control policies in Turkey and organised crime and control policies in Ireland, respectively.

The conference held in Freiburg from 27 February to 1 March 2003 to present and discuss the first drafts of the country reports was made possible through the financial support of the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung. We are most grateful to the foundation board for the generosity and rapidity with which it decided to fund this project. Irina Rabkov (formerly Mirimovitch) and Sarah Brandherm (Max Planck Institute, Freiburg) made valuable contributions to the conferenceʼs success, with their competent organisation and by taking care of all practical details and we thank both heartily. Through her unfailingly reliable and valuable assistance to Letizia Paoli, Irina Rabkov also managed to maintain contact with project participants and keep track of the different versions of their reports.

We also owe much to our home institutions – the University of Tilburg and the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law – for their continuous financial and practical support, without which we would not have been able to realise this ambitious project. A special thank you is due to Prof. Dr. Hans-Jörg Albrecht, director of the Max Planck Institute, who has been particularly generous, providing not only material support but also constant encouragement and pointed advice throughout the project.

At different stages, Gabrielle MacManus (La Trobe University, Melbourne), Corene Rathgeber (Max Planck Institute, Freiburg) and Sara Harrop (Cambridge University Institute of Criminology) revised the country reports written by non-native English speakers and our own introductory and comparative pieces. We are

vii

Preface

very grateful to them for their invaluable help. Many sincere thanks also go to Steve Lambley, our copy-editor, who competently typeset the whole manuscript.

And now the moment has come to say: ʻHabent sua fata libelli! ̓(or, for those who have not refreshed their Latin recently, ʻBooks have their own destinyʼ).

viii


ix

Contents

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vLetizia Paoli and Cyrille Fijnaut

General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Letizia Paoli and Cyrille Fijnaut

PART I: THE HISTORY OF ORGANISED CRIME

Introduction to Part I: The History of the Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Letizia Paoli and Cyrille Fijnaut

The Mafia and the ʻProblem of the Mafiaʼ: Organised Crime in Italy, 1820-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Gianluca Fulvetti

Multiple Underworlds in the Dutch Republic of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Florike Egmond

Gangs of Robbers in Early Modern Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Katrin Lange

Banditry in Corsica: The Eighteenth to Twentieth Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Stephen Wilson

Crime in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181Yakov Gilinskiy and Yakov Kostjukovsky

Urban Knights and Rebels in the Ottoman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203Yücel Yeşilgöz and Frank Bovenkerk

Comparative Synthesis of Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225Cyrille Fijnaut and Letizia Paoli

ʻMany a Lord is Guilty, Indeed For Many a Poor Manʼs Dishonest Deedʼ:

From Thievish Artel to Criminal Corporation: The History of Organised

x


PART II: CONTEMPORARY PATTERNS OF ORGANISED CRIME

Introduction to Part II: Sources and Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239Cyrille Fijnaut and Letizia Paoli

Organised Crime in Italy: Mafia and Illegal Markets – Exception and Normality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263Letizia Paoli

Crossing Borders: Organised Crime in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303Edward Kleemans

Organised Crime in Germany: A Passe-Partout Definition Encompassing Different Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333Jörg Kinzig and Anna Luczak

How Organised is Organised Crime in France? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357Nacer Lalam

Spain: The Flourishing Illegal Drug Haven in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387Alejandra Gómez-Céspedes and Per Stangeland

The Nature and Representation of Organised Crime in the United Kingdom . . . 413Dick Hobbs

The Czech Republic: A Crossroads for Organised Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435Miroslav Nožina

Organised Crime in Poland: Its Development from ʻReal Socialism ̓to Present Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467Emil Pływaczewski

Illegal Markets and Organised Crime in Switzerland: A Critical Assessment . . . 499Claudio Besozzi

Organised Crime in Albania: The Ugly Side of Capitalism and Democracy . . 537Vasilika Hysi

Contemporary Russian Organised Crime: Embedded in Russian Society . . . . 563Louise Shelley

The Turkish Mafia and the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585Frank Bovenkerk and Yücel Yeşilgöz

Comparative Synthesis of Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603Letizia Paoli and Cyrille Fijnaut

xi

Contents

PART III: ORGANISED CRIME CONTROL POLICIES

Introduction to Part III: The Initiatives of the European Union and the Council of Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625Cyrille Fijnaut and Letizia Paoli

The Paradox of Effectiveness: Growth, Institutionalisation and Evaluation of Anti-Mafia Policies in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641Antonio La Spina

Organised Crime Policies in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677Henk Van de Bunt

Organised Crime Policies in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717Michael Kilchling

The Control of Organised Crime in France: A Fuzzy Concept but a Handy Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763Thierry Godefroy

Organised Crime Control Policies in Spain: A ʻDisorganised ̓Criminal Policy for ʻOrganised ̓Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795José Luis De la Cuesta

The Making of the United Kingdomʼs Organised Crime Control Policies . . . . 823Michael Levi

Denmark on the Road to Organised Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853Karin Cornils and Vagn Greve

Organised Crime Policies in the Czech Republic: A Hard Road from Under-Estimation to the European Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879Miroslav Scheinost

The Development of Organised Crime Policies in Poland: From Socialist Regime to ʻRechtsstaatʼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899Emil Pływaczewski and Wojciech Filipkowski

Organised Crime Policies in Switzerland: Opening the Way for a New Type of Criminal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Elias Hofstetter

Organised Crime Control in Albania: The Long and Difficult Path to Meet International Standards and Develop Effective Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963Vasilika Hysi

xii


Anti-Organised Crime Policies in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987Thomas Krüßmann

Comparative Synthesis of Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035Cyrille Fijnaut and Letizia Paoli

General Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043Letizia Paoli and Cyrille Fijnaut

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053

1

General Introduction


Letizia Paoli and Cyrille Fijnaut

Since the late 1980s organised crime has become a ʻhot ̓topic in public debate and in the political and scientific agenda all over Europe. To control organised crime, far-reaching legal and institutional reforms have been passed in all European states and ad hoc instruments have been adopted by all major international organisa-tions, ranging from the European Union to the Council of Europe and the United Nations.

Despite the popular and media success of the term and the flurry of national and international initiatives, comparative research on organised crime has so far been very limited and sketchy even within Europe. Bringing together experts from different social and legal disciplines, this volume represents the first attempt systematically to compare concepts of organised crime as well as its concrete historical and contemporary patterns and control policies in thirteen – western and eastern – European countries. These include seven ʻestablished ̓ Member States of the European Union (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom), two new eastern European members (the Czech Republic and Poland), a candidate country (Turkey) and three non-European Union countries (Albania, Russia and Switzerland). Whether they are European Union members or not, these thirteen countries all play host to activities and protagonists that are routinely labelled as organised crime and are perceived as a threat for the European Union. All have adopted numerous – and sometimes radical – measures for controlling this criminal phenomenon.

In the first part of this introduction, we would like to recall briefly how organised crime has come to be perceived as a serious problem of driving concern for the whole of Europe. The first section focuses on the expansion of European illegal markets. The second highlights a few large-scale transformation processes and a variety of worldwide and local events that have fostered changes on the illegal marketplace and altered the perception of organised crime in Europe. The third section shows how organised crime has progressively become a ʻpicklock ̓for the introduction of criminal law and justice reforms.

After a fourth section recalling the hindrances to comparative research on organised crime, the second half of the introduction focuses on the research project underlying this book. The fifth section explains its main rationale: i.e. beginning a

2


systematic comparison of organised crime patterns and policies across and within European countries. The sixth section considers two further lines of reflection and investigation that enrich the project (and this book) – namely, the historical and inter-national lines (the latter encompassing the relationships between the European Union and the member, candidate and neighbouring states) – and the constraints imposed on our efforts to pursue them. The seventh and final section explains the criteria we used in selecting the countries involved and lists the project participants.

1. Perception Changes: The Expansion of European Illegal Markets …

Today most European countries agree that each has an organised crime problem. Each dutifully sends yearly reports on its situation to Europol, the European Union coordination and intelligence police office, and has underwritten numerous international agreements – ranging from a variety of European Union directives and other binding and non-binding agreements to several conventions of the Council of Europe and of the United Nations – to tackle specific criminal activities considered typical of organised crime or the problem in its entirety.

The apparent consensus now dominating much European official and media discourse is in itself astonishing since until the late 1980s organised crime was considered a problem that concerned only a limited number of countries: prima-rily the United States and Italy, with the eventual addition of Japan, China, and Colombia.

Before the watershed date of 1989, the scientific communities, political leader-ships and public opinions of virtually all European countries aside from Italy considered themselves largely unaffected by organised crime. True, popular fiction, TV programmes and movies about the mafia had already enjoyed great success throughout the Western world. In all European countries except Italy, however, these were enjoyed by informed and casual consumers alike, all with the serene conviction that organised crime had nothing to do either with their countries or, even less, with their own personal lives. Fascinating as it was, organised crime was perceived – and presented by the media – as exotic and far removed.

This perception started to change in the 1980s. Several long-term processes and a variety of both far-reaching and localised historical events contributed to this change. Some of these changes and occurrences directly impinge on the activities and perpetrators typically associated with organised crime; others are related to them only indirectly.

Among the first group, the most significant long-term change was undoubtedly the rise of the illegal drug industry. In virtually all Western countries since the 1970s this has become the largest and most profitable illegal market activity, attracting the greatest number of traditional underworld figures and fostering a re-conversion of

3


professional crime to the drug business. Even according to the most conservative (and realistic) estimates, drug markets in the United States and western Europe have a yearly turnover of about USD 120 billion (Reuter, 1998). This is a substantial figure, probably much larger than the turnover of any other illegal entrepreneurial activity, though reliable estimates exist for none of these.

Since the late 1980s a second wave of expansion of European illegal markets has been triggered by the rising number of migrants from Second and Third World countries wishing to enter the European Union. Due to the restrictive migration policies of virtually all Western countries, this growing demand can only to a minimal extent be satisfied legally and has thus fostered the development of a veritable human smuggling and trafficking industry in both source and destination countries (for a more detailed analysis of these two waves of expansion, see the comparative synthesis at the end of Part II).

2. … and the Underlying Social Processes and Events

These two major changes affecting European illegal markets cannot be properly understood unless we consider wider social processes and events. These have profoundly affected not only the organisation and flow of illegal markets but also the general perception of organised crime.

The worldwide processes of globalisation have accelerated the interconnection between previously separate domestic illegal markets and increased the mobility of criminals across national borders. At the same time, economic liberalisation has reduced the ability of governments to withstand and regulate market forces and has unintentionally facilitated the sectors of the global economy that remain criminal-ised. Some of the very initiatives designed to promote legal economic exchange – trade and financial liberalisation, privatisation, deregulation of transportation – also benefit illegal economic exchanges (Andreas, 2002). For illegal entrepreneurs it has become easier than ever to move drugs and other illegal commodities from producing to consuming countries, to repatriate profits, to establish business partnerships with foreign counterparts and even to operate in foreign countries themselves. The incentives for embarking on these enterprises have also become greater, as the gap between living standards in Western countries and the rest of the world has become increasingly apparent and getting rich fast through illegal means looks like an appealing shortcut for thousands of people, particularly if they are living in less privileged countries.

Illegal exchanges were also further facilitated by the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. This paved the way for the transition of eastern European countries to democracy and capitalism and was followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR) two years later. The opening of the eastern borders, once strictly patrolled by Warsaw Pact troops, has triggered a veritable boom of illegal markets all over

4


the former Soviet Union and its satellite countries and objectively enhanced the movement of people, goods and capital across the two formerly segregated portions of Europe: criminals as well as ordinary people, drugs as well as regular commodities, dirty as well as hot and legitimate money could all circulate more freely than before.

The fall of the Iron Curtain also had a tremendous impact on the perception of the organised crime problem. Throughout Europe, organised crime – particularly in its transnational variant – became one of the most frequent and successful labels to express the rising sense of insecurity caused by the sudden collapse of the bipolar world and the obscure menaces coming from the East. From the early 1990s on, many professional Sovietologists, bereft of their primary object of study, as well as populist politicians and ambitious journalists ceased upon the topic of organised crime as ̒ the ̓new threat capable of replacing the former ̒ empire of evilʼ: the USSR. Features typical of the Soviet Union – power, high-level technology, nuclear weapons, lack of scruples, avidity and expansionism – have, since its fall, been transferred to Russian organised crime. The latter has also been characterised by qualities that Western public opinion has associated with Russia since the nineteenth century and thus presented as particularly violent, brutal and barbarous (see Woodiwiss, 2001; Paoli, 2004).

Within the countries of the European Community (integrated into the Union in 1993), the widespread feeling of insecurity was further increased by the completion of the internal market and the abolition of internal border controls. Though the latter measure was not extended to the majority of western European countries until the mid-1990s, by the end of the previous decade it had already become clear that the implementation of the internal market programme de facto generated a common internal security zone encompassing all Member States. Ordinary people and politi-cians alike progressively realised that in the new, united Europe free movement, increased economic interdependency and the facilitation of cross-border financial activities rendered internal borders increasingly ineffective both as instruments of control and as obstacles to the movement of criminals and their activities.

This realisation came at a time when the southern Italian mafia associations were proved by the testimonies of high-ranking defectors and the resulting inquiries of the Sicilian judiciary (Tribunale di Palermo, [1985] 1992) to be well-structured and mighty criminal organisations, staged alarming acts of terrorism in several northern Italian cities and were purported to be ready to invade the rest of Europe and take control of the most profitable illegal markets. The media magnified this perception, as hundreds of newspaper and TV reports and books on the topic (some carefully researched, others far less so) were published (as an example of a well researched book, see Stille, 1995). In Germany, for example, then Chancellor Helmut Kohl allegedly became convinced of the necessity of tackling organised crime after read-ing Der Mob (see Raith, 1989: 37). This is a book on the Italian mafia, published in 1987 by the journalist Dagobert Lindlau, which immediately became a best-seller,

5


though it contained numerous mistakes and provided unfounded analyses and apocalyptic forecasts.

In addition to the murders of Judges Giovanni Falcone and Borsellino in 1992 and the bombs attacks in Continental Italy in 1993, organised by the Sicilian Cosa Nostra mafia organisation, which received widespread media attention throughout Europe, a variety of unrelated local events brought home for millions of European citizens the conviction that organised crime had become a problem much closer to home. These ranged from the murders of a journalist investigating the drug wholesale trade in Ireland and of a prominent politician in Belgium to the arrest of Italian mafiosi and scandals linking politicians to illegal market entrepreneurs in several European countries (see Fijnaut, 1993; Mooney, 2001).

In short: since the 1970s the above-mentioned processes and events have fostered an unprecedented expansion of illegal markets in virtually all western European countries. Illegal activities also spread across eastern Europe at an alarming pace over a decade later – the time lag being due merely to the communist dictatorshipʼs lack of familiarity with the darker side of the market economy prior to 1989. Wider social changes have also radically affected the perception of organised crime: together with several other, at least partially overlapping, concepts (the drugs and arms trafficker, the white slaver and, after September 2001, the terrorist), organised crime has become a convenient tool to express the anxieties of the general population at living in the ever more uncertain and insecure world of the late or post-modern stage of modernity (Bauman, 2000). These anxieties tend to rebound as perceptions of threats to the personal and property safety and have contributed to make organised crime a veritable ʻfolk devil ̓(Cohen, 1972).

3. Organised Crime as a Picklock for Criminal Law and Justice Reforms

The stigmatisation of organised crime as a new folk devil, however, has been far from uncontested. Besides many critical voices from the scientific community, several European governments have long resisted this trend, denying that their countries had an organised crime problem and insisting they did not need the special investigative techniques and control policies introduced by the United States and Italy to fight it. The notion of organised crime and its related policy package have remained until now particularly controversial in Denmark and most other Scandinavian countries. The United Kingdom government also long treated the whole issue of organised crime with a high degree of scepticism, before ʻcapitulating ̓ to growing international pressure in the mid-1990s. Other states, most notably France, have long refused to frame their crime problems in terms of organised crime and have stuck to their own native concepts (for instance, grand banditisme in Franceʼs case).

6


Despite this strong resistance, it is fair to say that from the late 1980s organised crime has been increasingly exploited by politicians and domestic and supranational government agencies alike to thoroughly reform criminal and criminal procedural law, introduce new offences and special investigative powers for law enforcement agencies and, last but not least, propel the transnationalisation of crime control and criminal justice. This has been aggressively promoted since the late 1960s by the United States government through the establishment of United States law enforcement outposts in many foreign countries, the intensification of international law enforcement cooperation and the global diffusion of proactive investigation methods deeply impinging on defendants ̓rights (ranging from the interception of communication to controlled delivery of drugs), harsh penalties for serious offenders and even new offences (most notably, membership of a criminal organisation and money laundering). The idea underlying these United States initiatives is that the ʻfirst line of defence is outside the borders of the United Statesʼ. By referring to the major threat represented by organised crime and several other related ʻevilsʼ, such as drug trafficking, money laundering and more recently terrorism, successive United States cabinets since the Nixon presidency have put a lot of pressure on allied and satellite countries to conform to United States standards in their criminal legislation and practices, sometimes going as far as to provide detailed policy plans for each (see Nadelmann, 1993).1

In 1970 the passage of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act was largely justified by the looming threat represented by Italian American organised crime. Since then, however, internationalisation of law enforcement has been primarily justified by the United States, first by the increased scale of international drug trafficking and the damaging effect of ʻdirty moneyʼ, and, since 11 September 2001, by the need to carry out a widespread crusade against Islamic terrorism. In Europe and the international arena, on the contrary, criminal law and justice reforms have been increasingly justified by appealing to the catch-all concept of organised crime – particularly in its transnational dimension – and its undefined and thus particularly threatening menace. This evocative and emotional approach is well exemplified by a background paper prepared for the World Ministerial Conference on Organised Transnational Crime, which was convened in Naples in 1994 by the United Nations and gave a strong impetus to the growing perception of organised crime as an impending threat, particularly in eastern Europe:

1 For an early example of how disruptive this policy can be, see Fijnaut (1983). The book reconstructs and assesses a political scandal that shook the Belgian police in the early 1980s, after Belgian police officers resorted to illegitimate investigative techniques in the prosecution of an international drug trafficking scheme under the heavy pressure of United States liaison officers.

7


No doubt, organised transnational crime, a new dimension of more ʻtradi-tional ̓forms of organised crime, has emerged as one of the most alarming […] challenges for the safety of humanity […] Organised transnational crime, with the capacity to expand its activities and to target the security and the economies of countries, in particular developing ones and those in transition, represents one of the major threats that Governments have to deal with in order to ensure their stability, the safety of their people, the preservation of the whole fabric of society and the viability and further development of their economies (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 1994: 3).

That the world perception of organised crime could change so abruptly in less than a decade is certainly due also to the ambiguity of the concept itself. Various and sometimes contrasting meanings have been attributed to it ever since it first entered North American discourse in the 1920s. As Mike Levi puts it, organised crime is like the psychiatristʼs Rorschach blot, whose ʻattraction as well as […] weakness is that one can read almost anything into it ̓(2002: 887).

4. Hindrances and Tasks for Comparative Research

Where exactly does organised crime begin? What are its specificities vis-à-vis other forms of serious crime? Despite more than three decades of passionate and occasionally acrimonious debates, it is still unclear whether organised crime involves sets of criminalised activities or groups of people engaged in crime (see Paoli, 2002). Other questions derive from this basic ambiguity. If organised crime is understood as a set of criminalised profit-making activities, how does it dif-ferentiate from enterprise (i.e. profit-making) crime? If instead it involves groups of criminals, what is the minimum number of individuals necessary in a group or network to apply the label of organised crime? As we will see in the introductory chapter to Part I, these are some of the key questions that pop up persistently in scientific and public debate on organised crime, and only half-hearted scholars, superficial journalists, opportunist politicians and law-abiding practitioners are able to ignore them.

A key issue in its media and popular success, the plurality of meanings of the concept of organised crime unavoidably represents a major hindrance to scientific – and especially comparative – research. The confusion surrounding its definition, along with media glamorisation of the topic, has long alienated the attention of scholars from organised crime. In particular, the distressingly long list of associated protagonists and activities have discouraged most researchers from embarking on wide-ranging comparative projects even within the restricted realm of the European Union.

8


If at all, the few criminologists and social scientists willing to transcend national borders have produced birdʼs eye views of transnational illegal activities, usually relying on media sources and limiting empirical data collection to one or just a few countries (see Levi, 1998; Ruggiero and South, 1995; Naylor, 2002) or have offered unsystematic accounts of organised crime in Europe (Ruggiero, 1996; Van Duyne, 1996; Van Duyne et al., 2000, 2003, 2004). Direct and systematic comparisons have so far been limited to the scale and organisation of markets for a single illegal commodity – usually drugs (Ruggiero, 1992; Paoli, 2001; Gruppo Abele, 2003) and human beings (De Ruyver et al., 1998; Siron et al., 1999) – in two or three European countries (for a more detailed summary of the scientific literature, see the introduction to Part II).

Even leaving aside the language problem, access to data also represents a power-ful hurdle discouraging comparative research. The illegal nature of organised crime activities makes data collection not only particularly difficult and occasionally risky but it also makes the researcher almost unavoidably dependent on the cooperation of the police and the judiciary. In most European countries this is still far from optimal, as many law enforcement agencies are hardly willing to open their files to social scientists. Jealously guarding their data and cases, many police officers and representatives of the criminal justice system are unused to cooperating with academic researchers, particularly those from foreign countries. Moreover, even when they are willing to provide support, police and judicial bodies collect and file data on concrete organised crime cases for other purposes than those of scholarly analysis – thus neglecting or losing much of the information that would be most interesting for researchers (see Fijnaut, 1996 for a review of the methodological problems limiting research on organised crime).

Possibly because the terrain is less contested and the methodological difficulties are less constraining, there have already been some attempts to compare in a system-atic way the legal instruments adopted to fight and prevent organised crime (Gropp, 1993; Tak, 2000b; Gropp and Huber, 2001; Militello, Paoli and Arnold, 2001). To our knowledge, however, there has so far been no effort – expect for specific topics (such as confiscation; see Kilchling, 2001) – to compare the effectiveness of the measures introduced or to assess the impact of the numerous recent initiatives launched by the European Union and other international organisations on domestic legislation and the everyday containment of organised crime. As Cyrille Fijnaut has written elsewhere regarding police cooperation in the European Union, ̒ there is no, or hardly any, research being carried out on how this cooperation actually operates and what effects it has on the problems of crime […] most of the literature about this cooperation is normative, formal by nature, and completely disregards the practice of police cooperation or reflects only the personal impressions of the researchers on this point ̓(2004: 270; see also Tak, 2000a). Unfortunately, Fijnautʼs comments on police cooperation can be extended to most other areas of the European Union and international home affairs and justice policies.

9


With the launch of the Falcone programme and other related initiatives, since the mid-1990s the European Commission has made a valuable effort to foster communication and exchanges among European practitioners and researchers on such important topics as organised crime and the trade in human beings. Primarily targeting practitioners and initially funding projects lasting no longer than twelve months, however, these European Union programmes have proved unsuitable to support comprehensive, synchronic analyses of concrete manifestations of organised crime and the repressive and preventive measures enforced in several European countries (for more information on Europe-wide research projects on organised crime patterns and control policies, see respectively the introductions to Parts II and III).

5. The Main Rationale of the Project

The project underlying the present book aims to start filling the above-mentioned gaps in research: namely, to begin a much needed systematic comparison of organised crime patterns and control policies in Europe. As we will see more precisely in the seventh section, 33 scholars representing 13 European countries have been involved in the project.

To guarantee the possibility of a systematic comparison of organised crime patterns and policies, all the collaborators were asked to follow a common research protocol in writing their country reports. The protocol is loose enough to allow the authors to highlight the specificities of their own countries: for example, we have avoided imposing a common definition of organised crime on the project participants, asking them instead to present the conceptions of organised crime that are most common in their countries. However, the protocol has bound the authors to structure their contributions along similar lines and (to try) to answer the same questions in specific sections of their papers. The rapporteurs on contemporary organised crime patterns, for example, have been asked to reconstruct the public, academic and professional debate on organised crime and to summarise the existing scientific research in the first section of their contributions. The second section provides an overall picture of the organised crime problem in each selected country and highlights its most prevalent forms of organised crime. The third focuses on the scale and organisation of illegal markets, and the fourth will critically consider organised crime infiltration into the legitimate economy. In the fifth section, after analysing the strategies of those involved in organised crime to avoid prosecution, the authors are asked in their concluding remarks to discuss the most probable changes affecting the immediate future of organised crime perpetrators and activities.

The reports on organised crime control policies have a similar structure. Their authors have been invited to review public debate and scientific research on organised crime policies in the first section of their papers. In the following section

10


they provide an overview of the policies developed in their country of nationality or study in the past 20 years and of the social and political context in which the process of legal and institutional change has taken place. The third and fourth sections analyse in detail this process of change, focusing respectively on the legal instruments introduced and the institutional reforms made to contain organised crime. The fifth section of these contributions reconstructs the development of international police and judicial cooperation and assesses the relevance of the instruments provided by the European Union, the Council of Europe and other international organisations. Finally, in their concluding remarks the authors of the policy papers were asked to discuss the most probable trends in the development of organised crime control.

The first drafts of the country reports were presented and discussed at a confer-ence, convened at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg, Germany on 27 February – 1 March 2003. In the following months, the two editors sent detailed comments to the report authors, who submitted the finalised versions of their pieces in 2003. A second round of interaction was necessary in a few cases, after which the papers were all edited by native English speakers. Meanwhile, several meetings of the two editors took place in Freiburg and elsewhere to identify the main similarities and differences in organised crime patterns and control policies.

The country reports on contemporary organised crime patterns are collected in Part II ʻContemporary Patterns of Organised Crimeʼ; those on control policies form Part III, which is entitled ʻOrganised Crime Control Policiesʼ. At the end of each part, the editors have written a comparative synthesis, pointing out the main similarities and differences of, respectively, organised crime and control policies in the countries involved. The two parts are each prefaced by introductory chapters, also written jointly by the editors. The chapter introducing Part II assesses the current state of knowledge about organised crime in Europe, as it emerges from national and supranational official reports on organised crime and earlier comparative research efforts. The introduction to Part III critically reviews the initiatives taken by the European Union, the Council of Europe and other international or regional organisations to contain organised crime.

Ensuring a systematic cross-national comparison represents the most important, but by no means exclusive, rationale of the project resulting in this book. A second important aim is the contemporaneous scrutiny of organised crime patterns and policies in each selected country. In our view, this scrutiny constitutes a necessary – though neglected – prerequisite to an evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of containment policies.

Pressurised by tragic events or by the damning reports of moral entrepreneurs, politicians and government agencies can seldom afford to wait for the results of scientific inquiries before launching initiatives in such sensitive areas of governance as crime control. But if policies cannot always be designed on the basis of accurate

11


and empirically based ex ante knowledge of the phenomena they target, they should at least be ex post contrasted with these phenomena, to soundly assess their output and impact. This should especially be the case with organised crime control policies. In this area, in fact, domestic and international initiatives have been numerous and far-reaching, the sums invested and the resulting costs for tax-payers are relevant and many of the new investigative powers granted to law enforcement agencies ostensibly touch, and sometimes sharply restrict, the defendants ̓and the general populationʼs civil rights.

The European Union and the Council of Europe sponsor mutual evaluation programmes to assess the implementation of international agreements signed by their members. However, they understand the key concept of implementation in a very technical way and the delegations in each Member State sent to review the enactment and application of the laws and regulations resulting from international agreements do not assess their outcome and impact on the concrete manifestations of organised crime.2 As already mentioned, the comparative works published so far on organised crime control policies in Europe do not focus on implementation, as they primarily adopt a juridical approach. Our book thus also aims to start filling this gap, considering the impact of the policies enacted on the concrete crime phenomenon.

Despite the editors ̓wishes, not all the reports collated in Part III have thoroughly explored the implementation and effectiveness of organised crime control policies due to lack of empirical data or to the purely legal training of their authors. In this case – as in the case of cross-country comparison of organised crime patterns and policies – we have merely opened up a new research path, aware of its scientific relevance and political necessity, but we are far from having exhausted the associated tasks.

6. International and Historical Dimensions

In addition to providing a horizontal intra- and cross-country analysis of organised crime patterns and control policies, this book is further enriched by an international – to a certain extent, vertical – dimension. This is provided not only by the multi-national background of the authors, who represent fourteen different nationalities,

2 The European Union has so far restricted its mutual evaluation efforts to mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. The first Final Report on the First Evaluation Exercise was published in the Official Journal, C 216/14-26, 1 August 2001. Subsequent reports were not published officially. An important example of the mutual evaluation initiatives promoted by the Council of Europe takes place under the umbrella of the Greco (Group of States against Corruption) Programme, the mechanisms and goals of which are explained in the introductory chapter to Part III.

12


but, more specifically, by the attention to the interaction between European Union bodies and member, candidate and neighbouring states in the development and implementation of a harmonised organised crime control policy. One of the bookʼs additional aims is to assess the impact of European Union legislation on national policies (and eventually upon organised crime manifestations themselves). This ̒ top-down ̓perspective is complemented by a ʻbottom-up ̓approach. As far as possible, project participants were asked to identify the states ̓efforts to influence European Union policies and assess their varying degrees of success. As the reports in Part III show, some authors have convincingly pursued both lines of investigation.

This first, tentative exploration of the interaction between the European Union and its member and neighbouring states is necessitated by the impetuous development of the European Unionʼs organised crime control policy. With the implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May 1999, the development of European Union policies in ʻjustice and home affairs ̓(JHA) – of which organised crime control constitutes a major goal – was transformed into a fundamental treaty objective: Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union provides for the maintenance and development of the European Union as an ʻarea of freedom, security and justiceʼ. As Jörg Monar puts it, ʻthere is no other example of a policy-making area which made its way as quickly and comprehensively to the centre of the Treaties and to the top of the European Unionʼs policy-making agenda ̓ (2001: 747-8). Though police and judicial cooperation is still to be dealt with solely under the intergovernmental rules laid down in Title VI of the European Union Treaty (the ʻthird pillarʼ), the prevention and repression of organised crime, particularly in its cross-border manifestations, have become European Union priorities and a plethora of legal and institutional reforms – ranging from the criminalisation of membership of a criminal organisation to the creation of Eurojust – have been enacted by the European Council (see Fijnaut, 2004; Barents, 2002).

Scarcely mentioned by the media and sometimes ignored even by legal scholars, European Union initiatives in the field of organised crime control shape domestic policies today not only in the 25 European Union Member States but also in all the European Union candidate states and in all the other countries that are dependent – for either historical or geographical reasons – on the Union or some of its members. Though few non-European Union insiders are aware of it, organised crime control policies have, at least since the early 1990s, become an integral part of the European Unionʼs foreign policy. This inclusion has been made official with the adoption of the European Security Strategy in December 2003 (more information on this can be found in the introductory chapter to Part III).

The book also has a historical dimension. In addition to the analysis of contem-porary organised crime patterns and control policies, it begins to draft a history of criminal groups and activities that may not usually be labelled as organised crime but fit into even the most stringent definitions of this phenomenon. The underlying idea is to show that – while the concept of organised crime was imported to Europe

13


from the United States in the early 1970s, and most European countries did not consider themselves affected by the problem until the late 1980s – more or less cohesive forms of collective crime can be traced in the history of many European states besides Italy, sometimes as late as the nineteenth century. Indeed, in some contexts there is no clear break between historical and contemporary manifestations of organised crime.

Due to paucity of research on these issues (and the need to keep the book to around 1,000 pages) we have restricted exploration of the historical dimension of organised crime in Europe to six countries: France (or more precisely, Corsica), Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Russia, and Turkey. The respective articles constitute Part I, which is entitled ̒ The History of Organised Crimeʼ. As in Parts II and III, these historical contributions are compared in a final synthesis written by the editors. The country reports in Part I are introduced by a jointly written article summarising the political and scientific debate on organised crime and critically (though synthetically) reviewing the flurry of definitions that have been attributed to this expression.

Convinced of the added value provided by the historical dimension, we have also accepted contributions for Part I that were not able to provide a nationwide or longitudinal history of organised crime in the selected countries or to comply with our country reports ̓protocol. Even when studying deviance and crime, most historians hardly frame their subjects of study in terms of contemporary ideas of organised crime. Moreover, they tend to specialise in single phenomena and to devote all their energies to patient and time-consuming archive research, not caring much for comparisons across time and space even within the same country. For these reasons, only two of the experts contributing to Part I were able to follow the protocol that we had provided, whereas the remainder focused on specific ante litteram manifestations of organised crime. As mentioned earlier, the aim of our book has not been to provide a conclusive assessment of either the history of organised crime or its contemporary manifestations and control policies, but merely to open up new research paths.

7. The Countries Involved and the Project Participants

To obtain as varied a picture as possible of organised crime patterns and control experiences and to analyse the impact of European Union legislation from various perspectives, our project does not exclusively involve the Member States of the European Union. Instead, we have adopted a wider, geographical definition of Europe, which by and large takes the membership criteria of the Council of Europe into account. Besides seven ʻold ̓ European Union Member States (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom), there are therefore two ̒ new ̓members (the Czech Republic and Poland), a candidate country

14


(Turkey) and three other countries (Albania, Russia and Switzerland), that have either no interest in or no means to join the European Union, but host organised crime activities and protagonists that are perceived as a potential or actual threat to the European Union.

Like the European Unionʼs ʻtraditional ̓ Member States, the non-European Union members have all passed a flurry of legal and institutional changes to contain organised crime and are directly or indirectly influenced by European Union decision-making. For the Czech Republic and Poland – as for the other eight countries that joined the Union on 1 May 2004 – the full subscription of the acquis communitaire (and of the conventions of the Council of Europe) has been a precondition for accession to the European Union. Albania and Turkey are striving in the same direction, whereas European Union influence is at its weakest in the cases of Russia and Switzerland: these two countries are, however, bound by numerous international and bilateral agreements that sometimes meticulously prescribe legal texts and institutional procedures even on home policy matters.

Following the table of contents of the book, we present here the experts who have participated in the project, analysing the historical or contemporary manifestations of organised or control policies in any of the thirteen selected countries:

Part I. The History of Organised CrimeIntroduction: Dr. Letizia Paoli (Max Planck Institute for Foreign and

International Criminal Law [hereinafter Max Planck Institute], Freiburg and Prof. Dr. Cyrille Fijnaut (Tilburg University)

Italy: Dr. Gianluca Fulvetti (University of Pisa) The Netherlands: Dr. Florike Egmond (University of Leiden) Germany: Dr. Katrin Lange (Gießen)France (Corsica): Prof. Dr. Stephen Wilson (University of East Anglia) Turkey (Ottoman Empire): Dr. Yücel Yeşilgöz and Prof. Dr. Frank Bovenkerk

(University of Utrecht)Russia: Prof. Dr. Yakov Gilinskiy and Dr. Yakov Kostjukovsky

(Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg) Comparative Synthesis: Prof. Dr. Cyrille Fijnaut and Dr. Letizia Paoli

Part II. Contemporary Patterns of Organised CrimeIntroduction: Prof. Dr. Cyrille Fijnaut and Dr. Letizia PaoliItaly: Dr. Letizia Paoli The Netherlands: Dr. Edward Kleemans (Research and Documentation

Centre, The Netherlands Ministry of Justice, The Hague)Germany: Dr. Jörg Kinzig and Anna Luczak (Max Planck Institute,

Freiburg)

15


France: Dr. Nacer Lalam (Institut National des Hautes Etudes de Sécurité, Paris)

Spain: Alejandra Gómez-Céspédes and Prof. Dr. Per Stangeland (University of Malaga)

The United Kingdom: Prof. Dr. Dick Hobbs (University of Durham) The Czech Republic: Dr. Miroslav Nožina (Institute of International Relations,

Prague)Poland: Prof. Dr. Emil Pływaczewski (University of Białystok)Switzerland: Dr. Claudio Besozzi (International Center for Crime

Prevention, Montreal)Albania: Prof. Dr. Vasilika Hysi (University of Tirana)Russia: Prof. Dr. Louise Shelley (American University,

Washington, DC) Turkey: Prof. Dr. Frank Bovenkerk and Dr. Yücel Yeşilgöz

(University of Utrecht)Comparative Synthesis: Dr. Letizia Paoli and Prof. Dr. Cyrille Fijnaut

Part III. Organised Crime Control Policies Introduction: Prof. Dr. Cyrille Fijnaut and Dr. Letizia PaoliItaly: Prof. Dr. Antonio La Spina (University of Palermo)The Netherlands: Prof. Dr. Henk Van de Bunt (Free University,

Amsterdam)Germany: Dr. Michael Kilchling (Max Planck Institute, Freiburg)France: Dr. Thierry Godefroy (Centre de Recherches

Sociologiques sur le Droit et les Institutions Pénales, Paris)

Spain: Prof. Dr. José Louis De la Cuesta (University of the Basque Country)

The United Kingdom: Prof. Dr. Michael Levi (Cardiff University)Denmark: Dr. Karin Cornils (Max Planck Institute, Freiburg) and

Prof. Dr. Vagn Greve (University of Copenhagen)The Czech Republic: Dr. Miroslav Scheinost (Institute of Criminology and

Social Prevention, Prague)Poland: Dr. Wojciech Filipkowsky and Prof. Dr. Emil

Pływaczewski (University of Białystok) Switzerland: Dr. Elias Hofstetter and Prof. Dr. Karl-Ludwig Kunz

(University of Bern)Albania: Prof. Dr. Vasilika Hysi (University of Tirana) Russia: Dr. Thomas Krüssmann (University of Passau)Comparative Synthesis: Prof. Dr. Cyrille Fijnaut and Dr. Letizia Paoli

16


The selection of the countries and the recruitment of experts have been dictated not only by scientific, but also by practical reasons. First, we had to limit the number of countries involved to avoid producing a mammoth publication and were thus obliged to neglect the other 32 Member States of the Council of Europe, most of which would have certainly provided interesting additions. Second, we have had to exclude some countries especially in eastern Europe, because we had difficulties recruiting qualified and interested researchers.

Due to the same problems, we have also been unable to ensure a full match for two of the selected countries. The report on organised crime control policies in Denmark is not accompanied by an article on the phenomenon itself. In turn, the two papers on historical and contemporary manifestations of organised crime in Turkey are not matched by a review of Turkish control policies. In both cases, the collaborators originally selected were not able to submit their contributions in time and we have not been able to find an adequate replacement.

Despite these and the other shortcomings mentioned earlier, we do hope that our book may provide an innovative, well-founded and unprejudiced contribution to scientific and political debate on organised crime in the Europe Union and beyond.

References

Andreas, P. (2002), ʻTransnational Crime and Economic Globalization ̓in M. Berdal and M. Serrano (eds), Transnational Organized Crime and International Security. Business as Usual? Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 37-52.

Barents, R. (2002), Strafrecht. Deventer, Kluwer, 2 vols. Bauman, Z. (2000), ̒ Social Uses of Law and Orderʼ, in D. Garland and R. Sparks (eds),

Criminology and Social Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 23-45.Cohen, S. (1972), Folk Devils and Moral Panics. The Creation of the Mods and Rockers.

London, MacGibbon & Kee.Duyne, Van P. (1996), Organized Crime in Europe. Commack, Nova Science.Duyne, Van P., V. Ruggiero, M. Scheinost and W. Valkenburg (2000), Cross-Border

Crime in a Changing Europe. Tilburg, University of Tilburg. Duyne, Van P., K. Von Lampe and J. Newell (eds) (2003), Criminal Finances and

Organising Crime in Europe. Nijmegen, Wolf. Duyne, Van P., M. Jager, K. Von Lampe and J. Newell (eds) (2004), Threats and

Phantoms of Organised Crime, Corruption and Terrorism. Nijmegen, Wolf.Fijnaut, C. (1983), De zaak-François. Beschouwingen naar aanleiding van het vonnis.

Antwerp, Kluwer.Fijnaut, C. (1993), ̒ De Italiaanse mafia in België. Een analyse van de zaak Bongiorno-

Steinierʼ, in H. DʼHaenens, H. De Meyer and A. Francois (eds), Liber amicorum J. DʼHaenens. Gent, Mys en Breesch, 147-64.

17


Fijnaut, C. (1996), ̒ Empirical Criminological Research on Organised Crime. The State of Affairs in Europeʼ, in Lʼévolution de la criminalité organisée. Actes du XVIIIe Cours International de Haute Spécialisation pour les Forces de Police. Paris, La Documentation Française, 47-57.

Fijnaut, C. (2004), ̒ Police Cooperation and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justiceʼ, in N. Walker (ed.), Europe s̓ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 241-82.

Gropp, W. (1993), Besondere Ermittlungsmaßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Or-ganisierten Kriminalität. Ein rechtsvergleichendes Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums der Justiz. Freiburg, Edition Iuscrim.

Gropp, W. and B. Huber (eds) (2001), Rechtliche Initiativen gegen organisierte Kriminalität. Freiburg, Edition Iuscrim.

Gruppo Abele (ed.) (2003), Synthetic Drugs Trafficking in Three European Cities. Major Trends and the Involvement of Organised Crime. Turin, Gipiangrafica.

Kilchling, M. (ed.) (2001), Die Praxis der Gewinnabschöpfung in Europa. Freiburg, Edition Iuscrim.

Levi, M. (1998), ̒ Organising Plastic Fraud. Enterprise Criminals and the Side-stepping of Fraud Preventionʼ, The Howard Journal 37/4: 423-38.

Levi, M. (2002), ̒ The Organisation of Serious Crimesʼ, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 878-913.

Lindlau, D. (1987), Der Mob. Recherchen zum Organisierten Verbrechen. Hamburg, Hoffmann & Campe.

Militello, V., L. Paoli and J. Arnold (eds) (2001), Il crimine organizzato come fenomeno transnazionale. Manifestazioni empiriche, prevenzione e repressione in Italia, Germania e Spagna. Freiburg, Edition Iuscrim.

Monar, J. (2001), ʻThe Dynamics of Justice and Home Affairs. Laboratories, Driving Factors and Costsʼ, Journal of Common Market Studies 39/4: 747-64.

Mooney, J. (2001), Gangster. The Inside Story on John Gilligan, His Drugs Empire and the Murder of Journalist Veronica Guerin. Edinburgh, Cutting Edge.

Nadelmann, E. (1993), Cops across Borders. The Internationalization of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement. University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press.

Naylor, R. (2002), Wages of Crime. Black Markets, Illegal Finance, and the Underworld Economy. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Paoli, L. (2001), Pilot Project to Describe and Analyse Local Drug Markets. First Phase Final Report. Illegal Drug Markets in Frankfurt and Milan. Lisbon, EMCDDA.

Paoli, L. (2002), ̒ The Paradoxes of Organised Crimeʼ, Crime, Law and Social Change 37/1: 51-97.

Paoli, L. (2004), ʻVerbrechensfurcht und organisierte Kriminalität. “Die Russen-Mafia”ʼ, in M. Walter, H. Kania and H.-J. Albrecht (eds), Alltagsvorstellungen von

18


Kriminalität. Individuelle und gesellschaftliche Bedeutung von Kriminalitätsbildern für die Lebensgestaltung. Münster, LIT, 287-310.

Raith, W. (1989), Mafia. Ziel Deutschland. Vom Verfall der politischen Kultur zur Organisierten Kriminalität. Cologne, Kösler.

Reuter, P. (1998), ̒ Review. United Nations International Drug Control Program, World Drug Reportʼ, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18: 730-3.

Ruggiero, V. (1992), La roba. Economie e culture dellʼeroina. Parma, Pratiche editrice.

Ruggiero, V. (1996), Organised and Corporate Crime in Europe. Offers than Can t̓ Be Refused. Aldershot, Dartmouth.

Ruggiero, V. and N. South (1995), Eurodrugs. Drug Use, Markets and Trafficking in Europe. London, UCL.

Ruyver, De B., W. Van Eeckhoutte, J. Meese, K. Van Impe and S. Vanheste (1998), Multidisciplinary Research on the Phenomenon of Trafficking in Human Beings from an International and a National Perspective. A Pilot Study with Poland and Hungary. Ghent, Research Group Drug Policy, Criminal Policy and International Crime.

Siron, N., P. Van Baeveghem, B. De Ruyver, T. Vander Beken and G. Vermeulen (1999), Trafficking in Migrants through Poland. Multidisciplinary Research into the Phenomenon of Transit Migration in the Candidate Member States of the European Union, with a View to the Combat of Traffic in Persons. Antwerp-Apeldoorn, Maklu.

Stille, A. (1995), Excellent Cadavers. The Mafia and the Death of the First Italian Republic. London, Jonathan Cape.

Tak, P. (2000a), ʻBottlenecks in International Police and Judicial Cooperation in the European Unionʼ, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 8/4: 343-60.

Tak, P. (ed.) (2000b), Heimelijke opsporing in de Europese Unie. Antwerp, Inter- sentia.

Tribunale di Palermo, Ufficio Istruzione Processi Penali ([1985] 1992), Ordinanza-sentenza di rinvio a giudizio nei confronti di Abbate Giovanni + 706. 8 November. Selected parts reprinted in Mafia. Lʼatto dʼaccusa dei giudici di Palermo, edited by C. Stajano. Rome, Editori Riuniti.

United Nations Economic and Social Council (1994), Problems and Dangers Posed by Organized Transnational Crime in the Various Regions of the World. Background document for the World Ministerial Conference on Organised Transnational Crime, E/CONF.88/2, 18 August.

Woodiwiss, M. (2001), Organized Crime and American Power. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

19

Introduction to Part I

PART I THE HISTORY OF ORGANISED CRIME

organised crime in europe - springer978-1-4020-2765-9/1.pdf · organised crime in europe concepts,...

Documents