UK: Evidence And Judicial Cooperation In The EU

Last Updated: 4 March 2010

Article by Anand Doobay, Partner in the Fraud and Regulatory Department, Peters & Peters Solicitors.

1. Are EU Instruments Necessary?

  • Economic crime can occur, and cause loss, in one Member State but may require evidence from other EU Member States to prove dishonesty. A good example is fraud that exploits the EU tax system, such as the missing trader intra-community (MTIC) fraud. The fraud involves goods imported VAT-free from other EU Member States being sold through contrived business-to-business transaction chains in the UK, and subsequently exported to the EU or elsewhere. The tax loss occurs when the VAT charged on the initial sale of the goods in the UK is not paid to HMRC because the seller disappears. The purchaser can still reclaim the VAT, so the loss crystallises when the trader who exports the goods from the UK makes a repayment claim.
  • Certain economic crimes can involve most or all of the criminal conduct taking place in one Member State but with losses sustained in another. For example, in an advance fee fraud a UK based offender may solicit sums of money from individuals in different EU Member States in return for non-existent prize winnings. In such cases both the UK and the State where the victims were defrauded are likely to have jurisdiction over the offender as well as relevant evidence.
  • Other crimes can involve both the criminal conduct and the economic effects in multiple jurisdictions. A typical international cartel may involve criminal cartel conduct, dishonest agreements to price-fix etc., in more than one territory which would carry adverse consequences for consumer markets in several Member States. All the affected States that criminalise cartel conduct are likely to have jurisdiction in relation to effectively the same conduct.
  • The upshot of the increased criminalisation of corporate conduct and the aggressive use of criminal jurisdiction, is the potential for the prosecution of offenders in more than one country. Criminalisation of corruption, and particularly of foreign public officials, is a good example. A company registered in State A and bribing officials in State B may violate anti-corruption legislation in both States. Again, concurrent jurisdiction may arise.
  • Where there is concurrent jurisdiction, the States may either agree to bring criminal proceedings in one State, or run concurrent proceedings. However they need to ensure the factual overlap between the offences is not so considerable as to engage the double jeopardy bar to any subsequent extradition request. Both cases will require cooperation between the States as regards evidence.

2. Criminal Proceedings In One Member State.

  1. Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings (30 Nov 2009)

    • "promote a closer cooperation between the competent authorities of two or more Member States conducting criminal proceedings, with a view to improving the efficient and proper administration of justice":
      1. prevent situations where the same person is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States in respect of the same facts, which might lead to the final disposal of the proceedings in two or more Member States thereby constituting an infringement of the principle of 'ne bis in idem'; and
      2. reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings.
    • Obligation to contact the competent authority in another Member State where there are reasonable grounds to believe that parallel proceedings are being conducted in that Member State (Article 5).
    • Obligation to reply to within any reasonable deadline indicated by the contacting authority, or, if no deadline has been indicated, without undue delay, and inform the contacting authority whether parallel proceedings are taking place in its Member State (Article 6).
    • Obligation to enter into direct consultations in order to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings, which may, where appropriate, lead to the concentration of the criminal proceedings in one Member State (Article 10).
    • Where it has not been possible to reach consensus in accordance with Article 10, the matter shall, where appropriate, be referred to Eurojust by any competent authority of the Member States involved, if Eurojust is competent to act under Article 4(1) of the Eurojust Decision (Article 12).
    • To reach consensus in accordance with Article 10, the competent authorities shall consider the facts and merits of the case and all the factors which they consider to be relevant (Article 11).
    • The competent authorities should take into account that each case is specific and give consideration to all its facts and merits. In order to reach consensus, the competent authorities should consider relevant criteria, which may include those set out in the Guidelines for Deciding Which Jurisdiction Should Prosecute?(Eurojust Annual Report 2003) and take into account for example the place where the major part of the criminality occurred, the place where the majority of the loss was sustained, the location of the suspected or accused person and possibilities for securing their surrender or extradition to other jurisdictions, the nationality or residence of the suspected or accused person, significant interests of the suspected or accused person, significant interests of victims and witnesses, the admissibility of evidence or any delays that may occur (Recital 9).
    • Concerns:
      1. Criteria for allocating jurisdiction is not binding – Article 15 of the original proposal was not adopted;
      2. Article 3 defines 'competent authority' as a judicial authority or another authority (i.e. prosecutors);
      3. Framework Decision is limited to establishing provisions on the exchange of information and direct consultations between the competent authorities of the Member States and therefore "does not affect any right of individuals to argue that they should be prosecuted in their own or in another jurisdiction, if such right exists under national law" (Recital 17);
      4. Allows prosecution to "forum shop";
      5. Allocation of jurisdiction to a State other than where an accused is located can be challenged in extradition proceedings under Article 8 ECHR BUT:

        - limited scope for HR arguments under Part 1 EA 2003 pursuant to the EAW;

        - risk of divergent application across Member States' courts.
  2. Draft Council Framework Decision on the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters (30 June 2009)

    • Proposed Article 5: "For the purpose of applying this Framework Decision, any Member State shall have competence to prosecute, under its national law, any offence to which the law of another Member State is applicable". The competence conferred on a Member State exclusively by virtue of the Article may be exercised only pursuant to a request for transfer of proceedings.
    • Proposed Article 7: When a person is suspected of having committed an offence under the law of a Member State, the transferring authority of that Member State may request the receiving authority in another Member State to take the proceedings if that would improve the efficient and proper administration of justice, and if at least one of the following criteria is met:
      1. the offence has been committed wholly or partly in the territory of the other Member State, or most of the effects or a substantial part of the damage caused by the offence was sustained in the territory of the other Member State;
      2. the suspected person is ordinarily resident in the other Member State;
      3. substantial parts of the most important evidence are located in the other Member State;
      4. there are ongoing proceedings against the suspected person in the other Member State;
      5. there are ongoing proceedings in respect of the same or related facts involving other persons, in particular in respect of the same criminal organisation, in the other Member State;
      6. the suspected person is serving or is to serve a sentence involving deprivation of liberty in the other Member State;
      7. enforcement of the sentence in the other Member State is likely to improve the prospects for social rehabilitation of the person sentenced or there are other reasons for a more appropriate enforcement of the sentence in the other Member State; or
      8. the victim is ordinarily resident in the other Member State or the victim has another significant interest in having the proceedings transferred.
    • Proposed Article 12: The receiving authority of a Member State may refuse transfer only:
      1. if the act does not constitute an offence under the law of that Member State in accordance with Article 11(Double Criminality);
      2. if taking proceedings would be contrary to the ne bis in idem principle;
      3. if the suspect cannot be held criminally liable for the offence due to his or her age;
      4. if there is an immunity or privilege under the law of that Member State which makes it impossible to take action;
      5. where the criminal prosecution is statute-barred in accordance with the law of that Member State;
      6. if the offence is covered by amnesty in accordance with the law of that Member State;
      7. if the criteria on which the request is based under Art 7 (a) to (h) are not considered met.
    • Concerns:
      1. Article 5 weakens the normal assumption that a case being prosecuted has significant connections with the country prosecuting;
      2. Inadequate rights of the defence under Article 8: "Before a request for transfer is made, the transferring authority shall, where appropriate and in accordance with national law, inform the person suspected of the offence of the intended transfer. If the suspected person presents an opinion on the transfer, the transferring authority shall inform the receiving authority thereof."

3. Obtaining Evidence From A Member State For Proceedings In Another Member State.

  1. Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence (22 July 2003).

    • The competent judicial authorities of the executing State shall recognise a freezing order without any further formality being required and shall take the necessary measures for its immediate execution in the same way as for a freezing order made by an authority of the executing State (Article 5).
    • Article 7: The competent judicial authorities of the executing State may refuse to recognise or execute the freezing order only if:
      1. the certificate is not produced, is incomplete or manifestly does not correspond to the freezing order;
      2. there is an immunity or privilege under the law of the executing State which makes it impossible to execute the freezing order;
      3. rendering judicial assistance for the offence in respect of which the freezing order has been made, would infringe the ne bis in idem principle;
      4. where dual criminality applies (Article 3(2) lists offences excluded from dual criminality), the act on which the freezing order is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State; however, in relation to taxes or duties, customs and exchange, execution of the freezing order may not be refused on the ground that the law of the executing State does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain a tax, duty, customs and exchange regulation of the same kind as the law of the issuing State.
    • The competent judicial authority of the executing State may postpone the execution of a freezing order transmitted in:
      1. where its execution might damage an ongoing criminal investigation, until such time as it deems reasonable;
      2. where the property or evidence concerned have already been subjected to a freezing order in criminal proceedings, and until that freezing order is lifted;
      3. where, in the case of an order freezing property in criminal proceedings with a view to its subsequent confiscation, that property is already subject to an order made in the course of other proceedings in the executing State and until that order is lifted. However, this point shall only apply where such an order would have priority over subsequent national freezing orders in criminal proceedings under national law.
    • Implemented in the UK by the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003.
    • European Judicial Network summary of Member States' replies to its questionnaire on the evaluation of the tools for judicial cooperation in criminal matters (5684/09):
      1. the Framework Decision is unanimously cited as the least used instrument of judicial cooperation;
      2. large majority of Member States have reported experiencing difficulties when applying the provisions on freezing of property or evidence;
      3. Member States indicated that in most instances prosecutors preferred to make requests for assistance, rather than rely on the FD.
  2. Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters (18 December 2008).

    • Intended to 'fast-track' the mutual legal assistance processes relating to the taking of evidence by narrowing the grounds on which a State can refuse to execute a warrant, and by restricting the possibilities of individuals challenging a warrant in the courts of the executing State.
    • Article 3 limits the applicability of the EEW to a limited category of evidence, which is already in existence, and is easily available. It does it not include 'live' evidence taken by means of interviews or hearings, bodily material or biometric data (including DNA samples and fingerprints) or real-time information (such as intercepted communications or bank account monitoring). Nor does it include any analysis conducted on such evidence.
    • In the UK, the Home Office has explained in correspondence to the House of Lords that the defence would be able apply to the court for an EEW.
    • Commission's Green Paper on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one Member State to another and securing its admissibility recommends:
      1. replacing the existing regime on obtaining evidence with a single piece of legislation, covering all types of evidence, including that which does not yet exist (such as witness statements and interception of communications) and existing evidence requiring further investigation (such as DNA samples);
      2. adopting common standards for gathering evidence in the context of admissibility of evidence.

4. Conclusion:

  • Sovereignty and domestic interests
  • Fairness
  • Efficiency of the system

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.