GREECE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ovvadias S. Namias, Vasileios Petropoulos, Ilias Spyropoulos and Emmanouil V. Apostolakis, Ovvadias S. Namias Law Firm
Αsset tracing in the Greek legal order In the Greek legal order, the above issues are regulated in Articles 260–269 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP), as well as in the special criminal law on money laundering (Law 4557/2018). It follows from the above-mentioned GCCP pro - visions that freezing exclusively covers those assets derived directly or indirectly from the act under investigation – ie, the direct or indirect product of the criminal activity. Bank accounts, safety deposit boxes, financial products and any other assets (whether immaterial or tangi - ble, movable or immovable), belonging to the accused or to a third party, are subject to freez - ing. It is also important to note that the seizure of digital data is also foreseen, whether on a com - puter system (ie, data stored on the computer system), on a computer data storage medium or on a remote computer system. The provisions on the freezing of assets are similar for money laundering, with a difference being the introduction of the possibility of freez - ing assets in an urgent procedure by order of the President of the Independent Anti-Money Laundering Authority, provided that: • an investigation into money laundering acts is being carried out; • there is a risk of losing the traces of the act committed; and • the assets to be frozen are derived from a predicate offence or a money laundering offence. Αsset tracing in the context of mutual legal assistance between states The above-mentioned criminal law arsenal acquires great practical importance when com - bined with Regulation 2018/1805 on the mutual
recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. This Regulation is based on Article 82 of the Treaty on the Function of the European Union (TFEU), which establishes the principle of mutu - al recognition of judgments and orders in the field of judicial co-operation in criminal matters, and covers judgments relating to any criminal offence. Article 1(1) of the Regulation lays down rules according to which a member state should recognise and execute, in its territory, freez - ing orders and confiscation orders issued by another member state, within the framework of proceedings in criminal matters. The EU legisla - ture has also specified that the Regulation cov - ers any freezing and confiscation order-issued proceedings in relation to a criminal offence, and that criminal proceedings could include crimi - nal investigations by the police and other law enforcement authorities – without, of course, this reference leading to the conclusion that recogni - tion of orders that have not been validated by a judicial or prosecutorial authority is permitted. For both the freezing order and the confiscation order, the issuing authorities must ensure that the principles of necessity and proportionality are respected when issuing them. Moreover, it is the authorities of the issuing state that are solely responsible for making this assessment, not the authorities of the executing state. Therefore, the authorities of the executing state must (and are obliged to) trust the authorities of the issuing state that the decision transmitted to it respects the principles of legality, subsidiarity and pro - portionality. For the purpose of this Regulation, “property” means property of any description, whether cor - poreal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, or legal documents or instruments evidencing title
168 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook