Competencias del director de proyectos según PMI

Complicity in the crime shall be and intentional joint participation of two or more persons in the perpetration of the crime.

Article 186. Acquisition or Sale knowingly of an Object Obtained by Criminal Means

1. Use, acquisition, possession or realisation of an object obtained by criminal means, -

is punished by a fine, or socially useful work for a term from one hundred and eighty hours to two hundred hours, or correctional work for a term of up to one year or imprisonment for a term of up to two years. 2. The same act, committed:

a) by a prior consent of a group; b) repeatedly;

c) against a car; d) in large quantities;

e) by the one who has been twice or more than twice convicted of misappropriation or extortion of other’s movable object, shall be punishable by fine or by deprivation of liberty for the term extending from two to five years;

2. The act referred to in Paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article, committed: a) by an organized group;

b) by using one’s official position, -

Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for the term extending from four to seven years; Note:

Legal entity for the act referred in this article shall be punished by liquidation or by deprivation of right to pursue a particular activity and by fine.

Article 1941. Use, Acquisition, Possession or realisation of the object received through the illicit income legalization

1. Knowingly use, acquisition, possession or realisation of the object received through the illicit income legalization, -

shall be punishable by fine or by socially useful labor from 180 to 200 hours or by corrective labour for up to 1 year or by deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.

2. The same act committed: a) By a prior consent of a group; b) Repeatedly;

c) Involving generation of income in large quantities,-

Shall be punishable by fine or by deprivation of liberty for the term extending from two to five years; 3. The act referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 of this Article committed:

a) By an organized group

b) By using one’s official position;

c) Involving generation of income in especially large quantities,-

Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for the term extending from four to seven years; Note:

1. for this Article income is considered to be in large quantities from thirty thousand to fifty thousand Lari, as for especially large quantities – profit from fifty thousand Lari.

(…)

4. For the act referred to in this Article legal entity is punished by liquidation or by deprivation of the right to pursue a particular activity and fine.

Please provide examples of cases and attach case law if available (b) Observations on the implementation of the article

Article 23 of the Convention is a mandatory provision. Georgia appears to be in compliance with the article. The legislation even goes beyond the minimum standards with extending the scope of the offence to undocumented property as well. There is no limitation on what can count as a predicate offence.

Georgia has adopted comprehensive criminal provisions to address money laundering in Articles 194, 1941 and 186. Significantly, in 2010, the Government prioritized the investigation of money laundering and financial aspects of criminal activity in Georgia. As a result, from 2009 to 2011, money laundering prosecutions rose from 6 to 143, while convictions rose from 1 to 123.

Money laundering is defined broadly in Article 194 to include “giving a legal form to the illegal and/or undocumented property […] for purposes of concealing its illegal and/or undocumented origin”. The inclusion of “undocumented property” extends liability to include property that is suspected of being derived from criminal activity. Articles 186 and 1941 also criminalize the knowing use, acquisition, possession or realization of proceeds derived from criminal activity without the additional purpose of concealment. The scope of Article 194 was amended to include conversion or transfer of criminal proceeds with the purpose of helping another person evade the legal consequences of the underlying criminal activity. In addition, Article 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) permits law enforcement monitoring of bank accounts to identify suspicious financial transactions and to facilitate asset tracing.

(c) Successes and good practices

Fight against money laundering is one of the priorities for the Government of Georgia. In order to create strong AML system since 2007 the criminalisation of money laundering has been upgraded for several times in line with the requirements of Vienna and Palermo conventions and FATF recommendations. The detailed information on the legislative changes has been provided in our previous submission. The recent important amendment to the criminal legislation was the introduction of the alternative purposive element (conversion, transfer of property for purposes of helping any person to evade the legal consequences) to the money laundering criminalization (Article 194 of the CCG). Based on the amendments of October 28, 2011 the paragraph 1 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of Georgia was formulated in the following way:

“Article 194. Legalization of Illicit Income (Money Laundering)

1. Legalization of illicit income, i.e. giving a legal form to the illegal and/or undocumented property (use, acquisition, possession, conversion, transfer or other action) for purposes of concealing its illegal and/or undocumented origin and/or of helping any person to evade the legal consequences, as well as concealing or disguising its true nature, originating source, location, allotment, circulation, ownership and/or other related property right

- Shall be punishable by fine or deprivation of liberty from 3 to 6 years.”

As a result of the constant efforts of Georgia towards the improvement and strengthening of its anti-money laundering system, nowadays Georgia has achieved remarkable results in respect to detection, investigation and prosecution of money laundering.

Statistical data of prosecutions for money laundering speaks about significant positive developments in this area: In 2007 only 2 persons were prosecuted for money laundering, 4 in 2008, 6 in 2009, 29 in 2010 and 143 persons in 2011. The statistics of convictions which have been rendered by Georgian courts in the same years are as follows: 2 in 2007, 5 in 2008, 1 in 2009, 19 in 2010 and 123 persons in 2011.

The predicate offences that have been identified in recent years are tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement and misappropriation, corruption, abuse of power, illegal entrepreneurship, and infringement of the customs rules, environmental crimes, theft and falsification of documents. Due to the present wide criminalisation of money laundering, as it is not necessary requirement to establish the existence of the specific predicate offence, there is also a large number of autonomous money laundering prosecutions and convictions, where predicate offences are not specified.

According to the practice of investigation and prosecution of money laundering cases the most common ways in which the money was laundered were as follows: use of false documents in order to conceal and disguise illicit origin of proceeds; intermingling of proceeds of crime with legal businesses to make appearance that they are also legal; use of fictitious and offshore companies, fictitious directors and representatives; providing the competent AML bodies with false information regarding trading with goods and having particular business in order to justify the movement of illicit money.

As is it is seen from the statistics above, in 2010 and 2011 the number of money laundering prosecutions and convictions have been increased, which respectively is a positive sign of

rising effectiveness of the system. The main reasons which served the bases for the above- mentioned progress are as follows:

- The recent amendments to the AML legislation, especially in the criminalization of money laundering, which brought the Georgian legislation in full compliance with Vienna and Palermo conventions and FATF recommendations. (The detailed information is provided in the previous submission).

- The Recommendation of the Minister of Justice: in January 2010, the Minister of Justice of Georgia issued recommendations on rules and methodology to detect crimes of money laundering, correctly apply Article 194 (legalization of illicit income) of the Criminal Code and improve the quality of investigation of money laundering;

- The regular trainings which have been provided for the investigators and prosecutors of Georgia in the AML/CFT area, in order to strengthen financial investigations as a tool for detecting money laundering, terrorism financing and other offences.

Thus, due to the comprehensive money laundering criminalization, above-mentioned recommendation of the Minister of Justice and numerous AML/CFT trainings, in recent years the law enforcements authorities of Georgia started to more proactively apply money laundering article. Respectively the numbers of detection, investigation and prosecution of money laundering and subsequent convictions have been increased. The fact that the above- mentioned numbers are relatively high can be attributable to the significant increase of efficiency in the law enforcement authorities.

In the light of the foregoing the articles criminalising the money laundering are effectively implemented in Georgia. The Government of Georgia continues its efforts in strengthening its AML system by keeping the relevant legislation constantly upgraded as well as by multifaceted capacity building of the law enforcement authorities.

Article 23 Laundering of proceeds of crime