Thank you for all of your help. The service was outstanding - all of my questions were answered promptly, everything ran smoothly

M. Elliot
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas

Taxation Law - The Brussels Agreement - The Direct Involvement of the CIA in Banking and Revenue Matters

Date: August 05, 2010

Authors: Tony Anamourlis B.A., LL.B., MTaxLaw, GradDipLegPrac, SJD Candidate (La Trobe); ATIA

The Brussels Agreement

The Brussels agreement which was  formalised in late 2009 is an important development to overcome the issue of banking secrecy in the European Union. It is an agreement between EU countries and the USA which   provides the CIA with powers to access bank accounts held by individuals in the European Union. (It is also referred to as the 'SWIFT Agreement' in European Union papers.) The Brussels agreement is an extension and formalization of existing arrangements by the authorities in the United States of America (USA) that were established shortly after the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001. A key feature of the Brussells agreement is that it grants the CIA with power to access data held by SWIFT (this is the Brussels-based co-operative that processes virtually all international bank transfers.)

The scope of the Brussels Agreement is a significant step forward in overcoming bank secrecy rules. However, it may raise issues for those who are concerned about civil liberties or due process. Because of the ability to overcome bank secrecy laws the Brussels agreement may be considered to be more important than Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) in terms of the power it provides to the CIA in accessing confidential information held by banks.

The Brussels Agreement requires that all 27 EU member states grant requests “as a matter of urgency” for banking information made by the CIA in the USA, under its terrorist finance tracking programme. It is intended that the banking records will be kept for five years in a database run by the CIA in Langley, Virginia.

The Brussels Agreement grants   the CIA much more scope to consult bank accounts than that granted to domestic law enforcement agencies in Europe. In the UK and most of Europe a judge must authorise a specific search to access bank information concerning any individual, entity and in fact any taxpayer after receiving a sworn statement from a law enforcement officer. However, in the case of requests from the USA, this due process is completely bypassed. The USA can also, under the agreement, request so-called “general data sets” perhaps better known as fishing trips, based on broad categories such as “relevant message types, geography and perceived terrorism threats” of particular individuals.

One of the reasons for rushing through the Brussels agreement was due to the fact  that SWIFT at the end of 2009 moved part of its systems infrastructure and business operations to Switzerland, away from its existing computing bases in Brussels and the USA. This would have placed a lot of data outside EU and USA jurisdiction, a change apparently demanded of SWIFT by Swiss banks and others concerned about the privacy of their clients' information. As a result, a number of banks had threatened to stop using the SWIFT system altogether if additional privacy protections were not put in place.

Certain representatives in Europe were concerned about the way the Brussels agreement was quickly formalised and circumvented normal mandates and procedures within the EU[1]. While taxpayers may take some comfort from the fact that the agreement is to be used only for terrorist purposes and counter terrorism, the issue arises as to whether such a focus may be used by the authorities to access information which is unrelated to such an outcome but is driven by other reasons such as tax evasion and tax avoidance.

In this respect it may be argued that the issue of money laundering and tax evasion are closely related to criminal and perhaps terrorist activities. It should be noted that while the Brussels agreement provides the CIA with the ability to access and exchange information which was previously protected especially under bank secrecy provisions it raises another issue as to whether the CIA may pass such information on to other authorities in the USA such as the FBI and IRS. 

From a banking secrecy point of view, perhaps the most important feature of the Brussels Agreement is that the agreement has a higher legal force and may override laws in an individual EU country which may seek to provide confidentiality concerning the bank details of individuals. Under the Brussels agreement, the USA authorities can gain access to Bank Accounts located in EU countries While the enormous scope of the Brussels agreement may appear to make the exchange of information based on tax information exchange agreements less important, it should be remembered that both are a complementary means of facilitating the exchange of information between countries concerning a taxpayers affairs especially in relation to tax avoidance and criminal activity.

[1] Draft decision on the signing of the European Union and the USA on the processing and transfer of messaging data and the transfer of financial messaging data from the EU to the USA for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (“Swift Agreement”) http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files/2009/12/091110-SWIFT-Agreement.pdf
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas