I move amendment No. 4: In page 10, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 36A of Act of 2010 9. The Act of 2010 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 36A: “Examination of background and purpose of certain transactions 36A. (1) A designated person shall, as far as possible, in accordance with policies and procedures adopted in accordance with section 54, examine the background and purpose of all transactions that— (a) are complex, (b) are unusually larg…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 10, after line 42, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 37 of Act of 2010 10. The Act of 2010 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 37: “Enhanced customer due diligence — politically exposed persons 37. (1) A designated person shall take steps to determine whether or not— (a) a customer, or a beneficial owner connected with the customer or service concerned, or (b) a beneficiary of a life assurance policy or other investment-related assurance p…

I move amendment No. 6: In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 38 of Act of 2010 11. The Act of 2010 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 38: “Enhanced customer due diligence – correspondent banking relationships 38. (1) A credit institution or financial institution (‘the institution’) shall not enter into a correspondent relationship involving the execution of payments with another credit institution or financial institution (‘the responde…

I agree with what other speakers have said about this amendment. I raised this on Second Stage. This is a very reasoned approach to solving this problem. I recognise the difficulty with enshrining into primary legislation aspects that are not necessary to transpose the directive and update the law in this area. However, I also acknowledge and agree exactly with what Senators McDowell and Bacik have said. Perhaps most acute is the fact that we talk so often in this House about encouraging people to get into politics…

I move amendment No. 8: In page 11, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 38A of Act of 2010 12. The Act of 2010 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 38A: “Enhanced customer due diligence – high risk third countries 38A. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a designated person shall apply the following measures to manage and mitigate the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing additional to those specified in this Chapter, when dealing with a custo…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 40 of Act of 2010 13. The Act of 2010 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 40: “Reliance on other persons to carry out customer due diligence 40. (1) In this section, ‘relevant third party’ means— (a) a person, carrying on business as a designated person in the State— (i) that is a credit institution, (ii) that is a financial institution (other than an undertaking that is a financ…

I move amendment No. 11: In page 12, lines 10 and 11, to delete “including any information from relevant trust services as set out in the Electronic Identification Regulation” and substitute the following: “, including any information from relevant trust services as set out in the Electronic Identification Regulation,”. I am unsure if the Minister of State is prepared to accept this amendment. If he is not I will withdraw it as it is a technical and small amendment.

Tarraingím siar an leasú sin, I withdraw that amendment.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach agus cuirim fáilte ar ais roimh an Aire Stáit. In the first instance I want to welcome this legislation. As the Minister of State pointed out at the outset of the debate, this furthers and refines the measures at European level to ensure that the State can tackle money laundering and deal with issues surrounding money laundering and the financing of organisations like terrorist and illegal organisations and it is tremendously important. As I have said in this contex…

I want to raise an issue that is sometimes easy to forget in circumstances where we have so many problems to deal with in this country, particularly with Covid. I refer to the aftermath of the fraudulent presidential election that took place in Belarus last August and the violence and protests that took place after it. Perhaps it is easy for us to move on in this country and forget that many political prisoners are still in jails in Minsk and throughout Belarus as a result of the protests. They are held not because…

I propose to share time with Senator Seery Kearney.

I welcome the Bill. We recently had statements on exactly this issue and the Bill was discussed extensively on that occasion as well. This is very important legislation and I will not repeat what other speakers have said about its import. Suffice it to say that most people find it astonishing that this kind of activity is not already against the law. We are behind the curve on the matter. It is right and proper that we should correct that this week, so I look forward to the passing of this Bill into law. I wish to …

I have great sympathy with the proposal Senator Ruane has put forward. I know she has recognised that there is a certain reality to the proposal being put but the definition of these offences is a very difficult issue to grapple with and is technical, and the notion that one has to cover every eventuality is very difficult because one has to imagine offences that have not even been committed yet or things that we may wish to make into offences. The definition is difficult. Both section 1 itself, in the definition o…

Section 2 is a relatively measured section, but I still think there are issues in terms of the manner in which it was drafted. I raise the same issues that I did in respect of the definition section, that there may be scope, in particular in subsection 2(a), for example, to overly broadly create an offence. Subsection (2) states: For the purposes of subsection (1) , [which deals with the offence of distributing, publishing or threatening to distribute an intimate image] a person causes harm to another person where—…

I speak on amendment No. 11, which proposes to substitute a new paragraph (b) in subsection (1). I like this amendment and I think it sets up exactly the type of test a court should conduct. The amendment would see the section essentially stating that, subject to subsection (2), a person is guilty of an offence where he or she has been responsible for the distribution or publication of an intimate image and “(b) that his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would interfere with …

I endorse what Senator Seery Kearney said. I was speaking to a female colleague in the Dáil, who has two relatively young female staff in her office. She indicated to me that it is a routine matter that they receive fairly offensive and profane images by email in her office every day. One of the points she was making was exactly what Senator Seery Kearney said, that in a strange way, as part of this Bill, she has to be offended. Even though the behaviour by its nature is offensive and should be illegal, she has to …

I wish to raise a matter. The Minister of State referred to the importance of the Constitution's freedom of speech provisions and the protection of same. I have a concern about the way section 4 is phrased in that it is overly broad. This matter was raised on Second Stage. The section reads: (1) A person who— (a) by any means— ... (ii) sends any threatening or grossly offensive communication to another person, and (b) with intent by so distributing, publishing or sending to cause harm, is guilty of an offence. Harm…

The amendment specifically refers to proceedings in the Circuit Court. The offences in the Act can be tried summarily or on indictment. Therefore, it seems to me that this amendment precludes the action intended from applying to summary proceedings in the District Court. The basis on which somebody might wish to make his or her name public in that court is just as strong. I am surprised by the provisions of the Bill generally in relation to section 5. I speak to the section rather than the amendment but it seems st…

On subsection 5(2), the Minister of State has mentioned in his reply on amendment No. 18 the fact that the judge in proceedings is obliged to take into account the view of the alleged victim of the offence before making a direction under subsection (2). I have mentioned that I find it confusing that a victim is, on the face of it in the Bill, precluded from going public with his or her situation and what he or she may have suffered. Specifically in relation to section 5(2), the fact the judge is obliged to take int…

I welcome the provisions of section 6. They create a liability for the directors and officers of corporate bodies. I have two questions for the Minister of State. There was much discussion during the debate on Second Stage about the need for regulation of social media platforms, many of which essentially provide the base on which much of the abuse, harassment and so forth take place. Is there provision in this section to allow us to enforce certain actions by social media platforms? For example, offences under this…