Abstract
This chapter provides the assessment of the level of harmonization of national legislation on organized crime, through the analysis and discussion of the indicators of harmonization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In criminal matters, the United Kingdom has three legal systems: England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Among these areas relevant differences may exist concerning some issues of criminal matters (Vinciguerra 1992, 5). Unless differently specified, every reference to the United Kingdom in this research relates to England and Wales.
- 2.
The concept of conspiracy exists also in civil law systems, but its scope is different. In general, the civil law conspiracies concern the agreement to commit particularly serious offences, e.g. offence against national security (Pelser 2008, 58; Weigend 1997, 531). This differs from the common law tradition, where the offence of conspiracy applies to any criminal (and sometimes even non criminal (Vinciguerra 2002, 465)) behavior. Unless differently specified, this book does not consider the civil law conspiracies. This choice was driven by the aim of focusing on the most specific legal definition of organized crime within the legislation of each EU Member State. For civil law countries indeed other organization offences (criminal association, criminal organization or similar norms) are provided tackling more specifically criminal organizations.
- 3.
Both Malta an Cyprus have actually mixed legal traditions. This is due to the alternate influence of the legal traditions of European continental countries (in particular France, Italy, Greece) and of common law countries (the United Kingdom). For the purpose of this book, Cyprus and Malta are considered as common law countries, since they have conspiracy offences amenable to the common law tradition.
- 4.
Article 25 of Criminal Code of Lithuania:
“Forms of Complicity
1. Forms of complicity shall be a group of accomplices, an organised group or a criminal association.
2. A group of accomplices shall be one in which two or more persons agree, at any stage of the commission of a criminal act, on the commission, continuation or completion of the criminal act, where at least two of them are perpetrators.
3. An organised group shall be one in which two or more persons agree, at any stage of the commission of a criminal act, on the commission of several crimes or of one serious or grave crime, and in committing the crime each member of the group performs a certain task or is given a different role.
4. A criminal organisation is a combination of three or more persons who are associated to each other by constant inter-relationship, distribution of roles and tasks, and who join together to carry out criminal acts – one or several major and grave crimes. An anti-constitutional group or organisation and a terrorist group are also considered to constitute a criminal organization.
- 5.
Notwithstanding the efforts for precise definitions, the Russian legislation received criticisms about its vagueness (Orlova 2008, 106–114).
- 6.
Section 73 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006: “(1) A person who commits a serious offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization is guilty of an offence.
(2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that the person concerned knew any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization concerned.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.”
- 7.
This point was discussed in depth with the national experts for Ireland, Mr. Gerry P. Hickey and Hugh F. Boyle. Mr. Boyle confirmed this point, but also argued that until February 2009, no prosecutions for Section 73 had occurred.
- 8.
In Ireland Section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 introduced the offence of participation in a criminal organisation. The same act, at Section 71, also provided for an offence of conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit an act that constitutes a serious offence (i.e. punished with imprisonment for 4 years or more).
- 9.
Austria has two criminal organization offences (see above, Sect. 4.1.1). § 278 of the Criminal Code, on criminal association, only requires three members (Fabrizy 2007, 5).
- 10.
For recent evolution of the Dutch jurisprudence, with special reference to the continuity and the number of offences, see Pelser (2008, 74–75).
- 11.
E-mail of 30 September 2008 by Ülle Eelmaa, Adviser, Criminal Policy Department, Ministry of Justice of Estonia.
- 12.
- 13.
Translation of the two codes were found on the websites of the Ministry of Interior of Bulgaria (http://www.mvr.bg/en/default.htm) and the Translation and Terminology Centre of Latvia respectively (http://www.ttc.lv/?id=2).
- 14.
Interestingly, Hungary previously adopted a qualitative selection method. The international legal instruments on organized crime have probably made it necessary to introduce a quantitative threshold (Fehér and Geller 1998, 400).
- 15.
“The obligations arising by virtue of Article 2(a) should be without prejudice to Member States’ freedom to classify other groups of persons as criminal organisations, for example, groups whose purpose is not financial or other material gain.”
- 16.
The norm has been introduced after the attacks of 11 September 2001 and in order to ensure the punishability of terrorist organizations. For criminal organizations established outside the EU prosecution need to be authorized by the Federal Ministry of Justice and the activities of the organization must be within Germany or the offender or the victim must be German or found in Germany (Weisser 2007, 142).
- 17.
For the common law model offence, the penalties can be either the “same maximum term of imprisonment as the offence at which the agreement is aimed, or by a maximum term of at least between two and five years” (Article 3, para 1b of the FD).
- 18.
Italy has just recently increased the penalties for mafia-type criminal organization with Decree-law 23 May 2008, no. 92, converted into low with amendments with law 24 July 2008, no. 125.
- 19.
As abovementioned Sect. 4.3.3, the armed nature of the criminal organization is a mandatory requirement in Latvia.
- 20.
§ 129 para 4 provides a penalty from 6 months to 5 years for leaders, supporters (“Hintermänner”) or especially serious cases (nota bene: standard penalty for participation is up to 5 years of imprisonment); the law of 24 June 2005 (entered into force on 1 July 2005) increased the penalty to between 6 months and 10 years “if the aim or the activity of the criminal organisation is directed at the commission of an offence set out in Section 100c (2) No. 1 (a), (c), (d), (e), and (g) with the exception of offences pursuant to Section 239a or Section 239b, (h)–(m) Nos. 2–5 and 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”. The referred offences comprise different typologies including offences against the state, offences relating to human trafficking, aggravated theft, aggravated robbery, extortion, weapons, drugs, corruption, money laundering, etc. It should be highlighted that from the present formulation it is not completely clear whether this penalty increase applies every time any criminal organization aims at the commission of one of the above cited offences or just when either one of these predicate offences and an especially serious case are present. The second solution appears more appropriate, since the amendment has been introduced at para 4 which provides for aggravating circumstances, rather than at para 1 where the standard penalty for the participation/membership is provided.
- 21.
For a detailed analysis, see (Fransen, Beldé and Vermeulen 2005, 67–73).
- 22.
To name just a few of the possible issues, the liability of legal persons may be independent from the liability of natural persons or connected to it. National legislation may provide defenses for legal persons if these show that they have adopted adequate measures to prevent the commission of offences. Liability of legal persons may apply to all criminal offences, or just to a specific list of offences. Clearly, the analysis of all these issues is well beyond the goal of this book.
- 23.
The criteria under b and c can be applied by EU MS “where the offences referred to in Article 2 are committed outside its territory” (Article 7 para 1 of the FD).
- 24.
In common law countries (the United Kingdom and Ireland) there is no systematic regulation of jurisdiction as for the civil law countries. The analysis of the jurisdiction over the offences of participation in a criminal organization reveals a very complex framework. The United Kingdom represents a clear example. In England and Wales the general rule is the principle of territoriality: English criminal law deals with crimes committed in England and Wales (according to the principle “all crime is local”) (Hirst 2003, 6). However, several exceptions to this rule can be encountered either in the common law or in statute law (Vinciguerra 2002, 176). The offence of conspiracy is an exceptional example of complexity as far as jurisdiction is concerned.
“The absence of any coherent overall strategy or guiding principle governing this area of law is reflected in a plethora of largely ad hoc statutory provisions, each of which appears to have its own unique features or quirks. Nor can any of these provisions be described as models of clear or précised drafting. Even the best of them are problematic in certain important respects. The worst examples are so badly flawed as to be incapable of serving any useful purpose.” (Hirst 2003, 135)
Conspiracy is punishable in the United Kingdom if it takes place in the territory of the country. Different rules are applicable when (a) a conspiracy is established in the United Kingdom in order to commit a crime abroad; (b) a conspiracy is established abroad in order to commit a crime in United Kingdom. Traditionally, the jurisdiction for these cases was regulated by the common law and several statutes and basically depended on the conspired crime(s) (the ulterior or predicate offence). Nowadays, conspiracies established in the United Kingdom to commit a crime abroad are punishable when the agreed course of conduct would be an offence in the United Kingdom and under the law of the foreign country and if, in the United Kingdom, a person becomes party to the agreement or anything is done before the formation of the agreement or in its pursuance (Section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1997) (Hirst 2003, 142). Conspiracies established abroad in order to commit a crime in United Kingdom are always punishable. This approach has been adopted after case Somchai Liangsiriprasert v. US Government (Hirst 2003, 156; Ormerod 2005, 373).
For the purpose of this book, the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and Ireland has been interpreted as territorial jurisdiction, unless differently specified.
For Malta a specific provision exist in Article 83A of the Criminal Code of Malta. Paragraph (5) provides that “The criminal action for an offence against the provisions of this article may be prosecuted in Malta notwithstanding that the organization of persons is based or pursues its criminal activities outside Malta.” As a consequence of this norm, Malta establishes its jurisdiction of criminal organizations based in any place. The territorial jurisdiction typical of common law systems is therefore extended beyond its traditional limits.
- 25.
Recently, Ireland has moved towards the active personality jurisdiction. However, this change applies not to the most specific offence tackling organized crime, but to the general criminal organization offence of conspiracy. Indeed, the offence of organised crime provided by Section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 does not have special provisions as far as jurisdiction is concerned. However, Section 71 (Offence of conspiracy) extends the Irish conspiracy (to commit a serious offence, i.e. an offence punished with at least 4 years of imprisonment) to both acts committed by or against an Irish citizen.
- 26.
See the Footnote 24 for the particular provision relating to Malta’s jurisdiction of criminal organizations.
- 27.
As mentioned above (Sect. 4.3.3, Footnote 16), in Germany the prosecution of organizations outside the EU need to be authorized by the Federal Ministry of Justice and the activities of the organization must be within Germany or the offender or the victim must be German or found in Germany.
- 28.
See Footnote 25.
- 29.
Recently, Ireland has moved towards the passive personality jurisdiction, but not for the offence of organized crime provided by Section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. See Footnote 25.
- 30.
For interesting remarks on the Scandinavian approach in relation to the Finnish criminal system before the introduction of the COO see Hietalahti (1997, 783–85).
References
Aleo S (2002) The definition and repression of organized crime. In: Longo F (ed) The European Union and the challenge of transnational organised crime: towards a common police and judicial approach. Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, Milano, pp 61–75
Asp P (2007) Sweden. Revue internationale de droit pénal 78(3–4):273–280 Rapports nationaux
Beale SS, Safwat A (2004) What developments in Western Europe tell us about American Critiques of corporate criminal liability? Buffalo Criminal Law Review 8(1):89–163
Bernardi A (2002) La disciplina prevista dal nuovo codice penale francese in tema di criminalità organizzata. In: Strategie di contrasto alla criminalità organizzata nella prospettiva di diritto comparato. Cedam, Padova, pp 33–93
Blakesley CL (1998) General report: the criminal justice systems facing the challenge of organized crime. In: Les systèmes pénaux à l'épreuve du crime organisé/The criminal justice systems facing the challenge of organised crime. Special issue of Revue internationale de droit pénal 69(1–2):69–100
Cedras J (1998) France. In: Les systèmes pénaux à l'épreuve du crime organisé/The criminal justice systems facing the challenge of organised crime. Special issue of Revue internationale de droit pénal 69(1–2):341–367
Chamilothoris I (2006) Les règles de fond sur la lutte contre le crime organisé/Fight against organised crime in criminal law. Paper presented at the XVII international congress of comparative law, Utrecht, 2006
Cornils K, Greve V (2004) Denmark on the road to organised crime. In: Fijnaut C, Paoli L (eds) Organised crime in Europe: concepts, patterns and control policies in the European Union and beyond. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 853–878
Council of Europe (2004) Effectiveness of provisions on membership in criminal organisations. Organised crime – Best Practice Survey no 7. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
De Hert P, Pitto E (2006) Evaluation in the context of enlargement. In: Weyembergh A, De Biolley S (eds) Comment évaluer le droit pénal européen? Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, pp 163–195
De Nauw A, Deruyck F (1998) Belgique/Belgium. In: Les systèmes pénaux à l'épreuve du crime organisé/The criminal justice systems facing the challenge of organised crime. Special issue of Revue internationale de droit pénal 69(1–2):165–243
Den Boer M (2002a) Law-enforcement cooperation and transational organized crime in Europe. In: Berdal M, Serrano M (eds) Transnational organized crime and international security: business as usual? Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, pp 103–116
Dolman MM (2007) Netherlands. Revue internationale de droit pénal 78(3–4):213–246 Rapports nationaux
European Commission (2008b) JAI-Acquis: October 2008. Consolidated and completely revised new version
Fabrizy EE (2007) Austria. Revue internationale de droit pénal 78(3–4):3–11 Rapports nationaux
Fava F (2007) Il sistema sanzionatorio austriaco in materia di criminalità organizzata. In: Fornasari G (ed) Modelli sanzionatori per il contrasto alla criminalità organizzata. Un'analisi di diritto comparato. Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento, pp 149–168
Finckenauer JO (2005) Problems of definition: what is organized crime? Trends in Organized Crime 8(3, Spring):63–83
Flyghed J (2002) Sweden. In: Den Boer M (ed) Organised crime: a catalyst in the Europeanisation of national police and prosecution agencies? European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, pp 159–177
Fornasari G (2002) Le strategie di contrasto alla criminalità organizzata: Aspetti comparatistici nell'esperienza europeo-continentale. In: Fornasari G (ed) Strategie di contrasto alla criminalità organizzata nella prospettiva di diritto comparato. Cedam, Padova, pp 173–198
Fransen B, Beldé J, Vermeulen G (2005) European and international legislation. In: Vermeulen G (ed) EU standards in witness protection and collaboration with justice. Maklu, Antwerpen and Apeldoorn, pp 19–78
Girault C (2007) France. Revue internationale de droit pénal 78(3–4):117–140 Rapports nationaux
Giudicelli-Delage G (2002) La risposte pénale contre la criminalité organisée en droit français. In: Manacorda S (ed) L'infraction d'organisation criminelle en Europe: (Allemagne – Espagne – France – Italie – Union Européenne). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 111–190
Hagan FE (2006) “Organized Crime” and “organized crime”: indeterminate problems of definition. Trends in Organized Crime 9(4, Summer):127–137
Harding C (1996) Criminal liability of corporations – United Kingdom. In: de Doelder H, Tiedemann K (eds) La criminalisation du comportement collectif/Criminal liability of corporations. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 369–382
Harding C (2005) The offence of belonging: capturing participation in organised crime. Criminal Law Review 690–700
Heikinheimo S (1998) Finlande/Finland. In: Les systèmes pénaux à l'épreuve du crime organisé/The criminal justice systems facing the challenge of organised crime. Special issue of Revue internationale de droit pénal 69(1–2):327–339
Hirst M (2003) Jurisdiction and the ambit of the criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jakulin V (1998) Slovénie/Slovenia. In: Les systèmes pénaux à l'épreuve du crime organisé/The criminal justice systems facing the challenge of organised crime. Special issue of Revue internationale de droit pénal 69(1–2):501–511
Joutsen M (2002a) International cooperation against transational organized crime: the general development. In: UNAFEI (ed) Resource material series no. 59. UNAFEI, Tokyo, pp 345–363
Karsai K, Végvári R (2007) Hungary. Revue internationale de droit pénal 78(3–4):175–188 Rapports nationaux
Kinzig J (2006) Les règles de fond sur la lutte contre le crime organisé. Fight against organised crime in criminal law. Paper presented at the XVII international congress of comparative law, Utrecht, 2006
Kruize P (2002) Denmark. In: Den Boer M (ed) Organised crime: a catalyst in the Europeanisation of national police and prosecution agencies? European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, pp 159–177
Lahti R, Sahavirta R (2007) Finland. Revue internationale de droit pénal 78(3–4):101–116 Rapports nationaux
Levi M, Smith A (2002) A comparative analysis of organised crime conspiracy legislation and practice and their relevance to England and Wales. Home Office Online Report, vol 17/02. Home Office, London
Manacorda S (2002a) La risposte pénale contre la criminalité organisée dans le droit de l'Union Européenne. In: Manacorda S (ed) L'infraction d'organisation criminelle en Europe: (Allemagne – Espagne – France – Italie – Union Européenne). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris
Manacorda S (2008) La parabole de l'harmonisation pénale: À propos des dynamiques d'intégration normative relatives à l'organisation criminelle. In: Delmas-Marty M, Pieth M, Sieber U (eds) Collection de l'UMR de droit comparé de Paris, vol 15, Les chemins de l'harmonisation pénale: harmonising criminal law. Société de législation, Paris, pp 269–287
McLean D (2007) Transnational organized crime: a commentary on the UN convention and its protocols. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Militello V (2001) Participation in a criminal organisation as a model of European criminal offence. In: Militello V, Huber B (eds) Towards a European criminal law against organised crime: proposals and summaries of the Joint European Project to counter organised crime. Iuscrim, Freiburg, pp 15–41
Mitsilegas V (2009) EU criminal law. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland
OECD (2006) Czech Republic: phase 2 – report on the application o the convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions and the 1997 recommendation on combating bribery in international business transactions
Office H (2004) One step ahead: a 21st century strategy to defeat organised crime. Home Office, London
Orlova AV (2008) A comparison of the Russian and Canadian experiences with defining “organized crime.”. Trends in Organized Crime 11(2):99–134
Ormerod D (2005) Smith & Hogan criminal law, 11th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Peers S (2006) EU justice and home affairs law, vol 2, 2nd edn, Oxford EC Law Library. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pelser CM (2008) Preparations to commit a crime: the Dutch approach to inchoate offences. Utrecht Law Review 4(3):57–80
Picotti L (2007) General report. Revue internationale de droit pénal 78(3–4):405–452
Silva Sanchez J-M (2002) La risposte pénale contre les organisations criminelles en droit allemand. In: Manacorda S (ed) L'infraction d'organisation criminelle en Europe: (Allemagne – Espagne – France – Italie – Union Européenne). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 59–110
Spinellis D (1997) Grèce/Greece. Revue internationale de droit pénal 68(3–4):813–831
Streteanu F (2005) Les règles de fond sur la lutte contre le crime organisé en Roumanie. Paper presented at the XVII international congress of comparative law, Utrecht, 2006
Traest P (2006) Les règles de fond sur la lutte contre le crime organisé. In: Dirix E, Leleu Y-H (eds) The Belgian reports at the congress of Utrecht of the international academy of comparative law. Bruylant, Bruxelles
Turone G (2008) Il delitto di associazione mafiosa, 2nd edn. Giuffrè, Milano
Verbruggen F, Fijnaut C (1997) Belgique/Belgium. Revue internationale de droit pénal 68(3–4):628–687
Vinciguerra S (1992) Introduzione allo studio del diritto penale inglese: I principi. Cedam, Padova
Vinciguerra S (2002) Diritto penale inglese comparato. Cedam, Padova
Volk K (2002) La risposte pénale contre les organisations criminelles en droit allemand. In: Manacorda S (ed) L'infraction d'organisation criminelle en Europe: (Allemagne – Espagne – France – Italie – Union Européenne). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 7–57
Weigend T (1997) General report: the criminal justice systems facing the challenge of organized crime. Revue internationale de droit pénal 68(3–4):523–546
Weisser B (2007) Germany. Revue internationale de droit pénal 78(3–4):141–169 Rapports nationaux
Wells C (2001) Corporations and criminal responsibility, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wenin R (2007) La criminalità organizzata nell'esperienza giuridica tedesca. In: Fornasari G (ed) Modelli sanzionatori per il contrasto alla criminalità organizzata. Un'analisi di diritto comparato. Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento, pp 234–278
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Calderoni, F. (2010). Assessing Harmonization: The Horizontal Analysis. In: Organized Crime Legislation in the European Union. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04331-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04331-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04330-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04331-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)