Rita BORSELLINO
Constituencies
-
Italy
Partito Democratico
2009/07/14 - 9999/12/31
Groups
-
S&D
Member
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
2009/07/14 - 9999/12/31
Committees
| Role | Committee | Start | End |
|---|---|---|---|
| Member of | Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs | 2012/01/19 | 9999/12/31 |
| Member of | Special committee on organised crime, corruption and money laundering | 2012/03/28 | 9999/12/31 |
| Substitute of | Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety | 2012/01/19 | 9999/12/31 |
Show earlier commitees...
Delegations
| Role | Delegation | Start | End |
|---|---|---|---|
| Member of | Delegation for relations with the Arab Peninsula | 2009/09/16 | 9999/12/31 |
| Substitute of | Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee | 2009/09/16 | 9999/12/31 |
Contact
Online
- [javascript protected email address]
Brussels
- Phone
- +322 28 45506
- Fax
- +322 28 49506
- Office
- Bât. Altiero Spinelli 15G165
- Full Address
-
- City
- Bruxelles/Brussel
- Zip
- B-1047
- Street
- 60, rue Wiertz / Wiertzstraat 60
Strasbourg
- Phone
- +333 88 1 75506
- Fax
- +333 88 1 79506
- Office
- Bât. Louise Weiss T06054
- Full Address
-
- City
- Strasbourg
- Zip
- CS 91024 - F-67070
- Street
- 1, avenue du Président Robert Schuman
Postal
- Parlamento europeo
- Rue Wiertz
- Altiero Spinelli 15G165
- B-1047 Bruxelles
Rapporteur
| Shadow | 2012/0036(COD) | Freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the EU |
| Responsible | 2010/2308(INI) | European Union's Internal Security Strategy |
Born
1945/06/02 Palermo- Degree in pharmacy (1968). Pharmacist.
- Member of the Sicilian Regional Assembly (2006).
- Honorary President of the association Libera contro le Mafie (Free against the Mafia).
Amendments
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 1 |
2009/2002(BUD) 2010 budget: section III, Commission
2009/08/09
LIBE
1 amendments...
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) source: PE-428.129
|
| 2 |
2010/2308(INI) European Union's Internal Security Strategy
2012/09/02
LIBE
2 amendments...
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Takes note of the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the EU policy cycle with a view to implementing the general strategic objectives through actions based on intergovernmental cooperation at operational level; believes, however, that a clear division of tasks between the EU and national levels is necessary, that Parliament needs to be part of the process and that an in-depth assessment of the policy cycle should be undertaken in 2013; moreover, considers that in the light of the nature of the cycle this should be renamed "EU operational cycle";
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls that data processing and collection in the
source: PE-480.655
|
| 7 |
2010/2309(INI) Organised crime in the European Union
2011/05/31
LIBE
7 amendments...
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to set out clear guidelines for assisting witnesses and informers and their families, according them European transnational legal status and extending any protection granted to them within the Member States, if so requested by the Member State of origin of the informer or witness;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Calls on the Commission to allocate specific budgetary funds to assist victims of organised crime, witnesses and informers, including via support for non- governmental anti-Mafia and anti-racket associations recognised by the Member States;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the EAW is correctly implemented so as to ensure that suspects are arrested and handed over in cases involving offences related to organised crime and/or the Mafia, irrespective of whether the offence of criminal or Mafia-style association exists in the jurisdiction to which the application is made;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Calls on the Commission and the Council to give a new impetus to the work of joint investigation teams, both by ensuring full implementation of Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA by those Member States that are currently falling short in this respect and by providing adequate financial support;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Calls on the Commission to incorporate specific provisions on the role of organised crime in the legislative framework applicable to the fight against counterfeiting and piracy;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 b (new) 22b. Calls on the Commission to provide that the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of illegal activities concern not only the assets of the person in question, but also those of his or her close relatives/spouse insofar as the latter are unable to prove the legitimate origin of those assets or where the family unit’s declared income is clearly inconsistent with its assets.
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Calls on the Commission to develop innovative instruments for the prosecution of environmental offences in which organised crime plays a role, such as toxic waste trafficking, in the context of the planned merger of Directive 2008/99/EC on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law with Directive 2009/123/EC on Ship- Source Pollution;
source: PE-464.937
|
| 1 |
2011/2069(INI) Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011)
2012/08/20
LIBE
1 amendments...
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Regards it as important for the European Union to designate a ‘European Capital of Rights’ from among Member State cities each year in order to highlight the role cities can play in promoting fundamental rights and civil rights, including minority rights; believes that this would help to establish shared values such as human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights as the foundation for a society based on pluralism, tolerance, solidarity and gender equality;
source: PE-492.760
|
| 62 |
2012/0036(COD) Freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the EU
2012/12/13
LIBE
31 amendments...
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 1 (1) The main motive for
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 9 (9) Confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds following a final decision of a court and of property of equivalent value to those proceeds should therefore refer to this broadened concept for the criminal offences covered by this Directive. Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA required Member States to enable the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime following a final conviction and to enable the confiscation of property of equivalent value to the proceeds of crime. Such obligations should be maintained for the criminal offences not covered by this Directive and the concept of proceeds as defined in this Directive should be extended also for the criminal offences not covered by this Directive.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 12 (12) The issuance of confiscation orders generally requires a criminal conviction. In some cases, even where a criminal conviction cannot be achieved, it should
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 13 (13) The practice by a suspected or accused person of transferring property to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and increasingly widespread. The current Union legal framework does not contain binding rules on the confiscation of property transferred to third parties. Therefore it is becoming increasingly necessary to allow for confiscation of property transferred to
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 13 a (new) (13a) In order to grant a more efficient fight against criminal organizations and serious crime, complying with already existing experiences, Member States should introduce in their criminal system an offence to punish and prosecute those behaviours aimed at fictitiously attributing ownership and availability of property to third parties, with the aim to avoid seizure or confiscation measures. Also the support in committing this offence should be suitably punished.
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 15 (15) Suspected or accused persons often hide property throughout the entire duration of criminal proceedings. As a result confiscation orders cannot be executed, leaving those subject to confiscations orders to benefit from their property once they have served their sentence. It is accordingly necessary to enable the determination of the precise extent of the property to be confiscated even after a final conviction for a criminal offence, in order to permit the full execution of confiscation orders when no property or insufficient property was initially discovered and the confiscation order remains unexecuted. Given the limitation of the right to property by freezing orders, such provisional measures should not be maintained longer than necessary to preserve the availability of the property with a view of possible future confiscation. This may require
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 16 a (new) (16a) In order that civil society can concretely perceive the effectiveness of the action of the Member states against organized crime, including mafia type, and that proceeds are actually detracted from the criminals, it is necessary to adopt common measures to avoid that the criminal organizations take possession another time of property illicitly obtained. Best practices in several Member States have shown to be effective tools: management and administration by Asset Management Offices (AMO) or similar mechanisms, as well as the use of the confiscated property for projects aimed to contrast and prevent crime, for other institutional or public purposes or social use.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 17 (17) Reliable data sources on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime are scarce. In order to allow for the evaluation of this Directive, it is necessary to collect a comparable minimum set of appropriate statistical data on asset tracing, judicial and asset management and disposal activities.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 18 a (new) (18a) Some Member States have already successfully adopted non conviction-based systems of confiscation. As a matter of facts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has never considered as a violation of fundamental rights, sanctioned in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on Human Rights, the fact that individuals can be subjected to such a measure of privation of their goods.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 20 (20) Since the objective of this Directive, namely facilitating confiscation of property
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 This Directive establishes minimum rules on the seizure or freezing of property with a view to possible later confiscation
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new) This Directive is without prejudice to the court procedures that Member States may use in order to deprive the perpetrator of the property in question.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (4)
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 (5)
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new) (6a) as well as any other legal instruments if these instruments provide specifically that this Directive applies to criminal offences harmonised therein.
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. Each Member State shall adopt the necessary measures to enable
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new) Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable judicial authorities to confiscate any assets belonging to a person unable to justify their legitimate origin where a court find, on the basis of specific circumstances and respecting the right of the defence and bona fide third parties, that those assets derive from criminal activities that are allegedly related to that person.
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) proceeds or instrumentalities which were transferred
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) other property
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2. The confiscation of proceeds or property referred to in paragraph 1 shall be possible where
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part (b) the proceeds or property were transferred for free or in exchange for an amount significantly lower than their market value
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new) (ba) in the case of proceeds, the third party knew about their illicit origin, or, in the absence of such knowledge, a reasonable person in its position would have suspected that their origin was illicit, based on concrete facts and circumstances;
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new) (bb) in the case of other property, the third party knew that it was transferred in order to avoid confiscation of property the value of which corresponds to the proceeds or, in the absence of such knowledge, a reasonable person in its position would have suspected that it was transferred to avoid such confiscation, based on concrete facts and circumstances.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 a (new) Article 6a Fictitious assignment of property to third parties Each Member State takes legislative measures in order to introduce provisions aimed at prosecuting conducts of those who fictitiously attribute ownership and availability of property to third parties, with the aim to avoid seizure or confiscation measures.
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a directive Article 10 – title Management of frozen, seized and confiscated property
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 2 2. Each Member State shall ensure that the measures referred to in paragraph 1 to frozen property optimise the economic value of such property, and shall include, only if necessary, the sale or transfer of property which is liable to decline in value. Each Member State shall take all the necessary measures to prevent any criminal infiltration in this phase.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures, based on existing best practices, to provide for the disposal and the destination of property confiscated. It shall be a priority to destine such property to law enforcement and crime prevention projects as well as to other projects of public interest and social utility. Any other destination of such property shall be considered only if the above mentioned are not possible and in any case each Member State shall take all the necessary measures to prevent any criminal or illegal infiltration in this phase.
source: PE-498.052
2013/08/01
LIBE
31 amendments...
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 1 (1) The main motive for
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 9 (9) Confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds following a final decision of a court and of property of equivalent value to those proceeds should therefore refer to this broadened concept for the criminal offences covered by this Directive. Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA required Member States to enable the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime following a final conviction and to enable the confiscation of property of equivalent value to the proceeds of crime. Such obligations should be maintained for the criminal offences not covered by this Directive and the concept of proceeds as defined in this Directive should be extended also for the criminal offences not covered by this Directive.
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 12 (12) The issuance of confiscation orders generally requires a criminal conviction. In some cases, even where a criminal conviction cannot be achieved, it should
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 13 (13) The practice by a suspected or accused person of transferring property to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and increasingly widespread. The current Union legal framework does not contain binding rules on the confiscation of property transferred to third parties. Therefore it is becoming increasingly necessary to allow for confiscation of property transferred to
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 13 a (new) (13a) In order to grant a more efficient fight against criminal organizations and serious crime, complying with already existing experiences, Member States should introduce in their criminal system an offence to punish and prosecute those behaviours aimed at fictitiously attributing ownership and availability of property to third parties, with the aim to avoid seizure or confiscation measures. Also the support in committing this offence should be suitably punished.
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 15 (15) Suspected or accused persons often hide property throughout the entire duration of criminal proceedings. As a result confiscation orders cannot be executed, leaving those subject to confiscations orders to benefit from their property once they have served their sentence. It is accordingly necessary to enable the determination of the precise extent of the property to be confiscated even after a final conviction for a criminal offence, in order to permit the full execution of confiscation orders when no property or insufficient property was initially discovered and the confiscation order remains unexecuted. Given the limitation of the right to property by freezing orders, such provisional measures should not be maintained longer than necessary to preserve the availability of the property with a view of possible future confiscation. This may require
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 16 a (new) (16a) In order that civil society can concretely perceive the effectiveness of the action of the Member states against organized crime, including mafia type, and that proceeds are actually detracted from the criminals, it is necessary to adopt common measures to avoid that the criminal organizations take possession another time of property illicitly obtained. Best practices in several Member States have shown to be effective tools: management and administration by Asset Management Offices (AMO) or similar mechanisms, as well as the use of the confiscated property for projects aimed to contrast and prevent crime, for other institutional or public purposes or social use.
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 17 (17) Reliable data sources on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime are scarce. In order to allow for the evaluation of this Directive, it is necessary to collect a comparable minimum set of appropriate statistical data on asset tracing, judicial and asset management and disposal activities.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 18 a (new) (18a) Some Member States have already successfully adopted non conviction-based systems of confiscation. As a matter of facts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has never considered as a violation of fundamental rights, sanctioned in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on Human Rights, the fact that individuals can be subjected to such a measure of privation of their goods.
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 20 (20) Since the objective of this Directive, namely facilitating confiscation of property
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 This Directive establishes minimum rules on the seizure or freezing of property with a view to possible later confiscation
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new) This Directive is without prejudice to the court procedures that Member States may use in order to deprive the perpetrator of the property in question.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (4)
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 (5)
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new) (6a) as well as any other legal instruments if these instruments provide specifically that this Directive applies to criminal offences harmonised therein.
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. Each Member State shall adopt the necessary measures to enable
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new) Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable judicial authorities to confiscate any assets belonging to a person unable to justify their legitimate origin where a court find, on the basis of specific circumstances and respecting the right of the defence and bona fide third parties, that those assets derive from criminal activities that are allegedly related to that person.
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) proceeds or instrumentalities which were transferred
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) other property
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2. The confiscation of proceeds or property referred to in paragraph 1 shall be possible where
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part (b) the proceeds or property were transferred for free or in exchange for an amount significantly lower than their market value
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new) (ba) in the case of proceeds, the third party knew about their illicit origin, or, in the absence of such knowledge, a reasonable person in its position would have suspected that their origin was illicit, based on concrete facts and circumstances;
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new) (bb) in the case of other property, the third party knew that it was transferred in order to avoid confiscation of property the value of which corresponds to the proceeds or, in the absence of such knowledge, a reasonable person in its position would have suspected that it was transferred to avoid such confiscation, based on concrete facts and circumstances.
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a directive Article 6 a (new) Article 6a Fictitious assignment of property to third parties Each Member State takes legislative measures in order to introduce provisions aimed at prosecuting conducts of those who fictitiously attribute ownership and availability of property to third parties, with the aim to avoid seizure or confiscation measures.
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive Article 10 – title Management of frozen, seized and confiscated property
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 2 2. Each Member State shall ensure that the measures referred to in paragraph 1 to frozen property optimise the economic value of such property, and shall include, only if necessary, the sale or transfer of property which is liable to decline in value. Each Member State shall take all the necessary measures to prevent any criminal infiltration in this phase.
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures, based on existing best practices, to provide for the disposal and the destination of property confiscated. It shall be a priority to destine such property to law enforcement and crime prevention projects as well as to other projects of public interest and social utility. Any other destination of such property shall be considered only if the above mentioned are not possible and in any case each Member State shall take all the necessary measures to prevent any criminal or illegal infiltration in this phase.
source: PE-498.052
|
Rita BORSELLINO on
Activities
Term 7 14.07.2009 / ...
All references link to europarl.euHistory
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| active | changed |
Old
New
True |