Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Cigarette Smuggling

EU questions ‘continued relevance’ of tobacco deal

Feb 24th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

https://euobserver.com/economic/132442

A long-awaited report assessing an agreement between tobacco multinational Philip Morris International (PMI), the European Union and its member states says the deal “effectively met its objective”, but may not be fit for the future.

“The evidence suggests, even if no direct causality can be established, that the PMI Agreement has effectively met its objective of reducing the prevalence of PMI contraband on the illicit EU tobacco market, as shown by a drop of around 85% in the volume of genuine PMI cigarettes seized by Member States between 2006 and 2014,” the commission said in the report, published on Wednesday (24 February).

The agreement is due to expire in July, and the commission has promised to take the assessment into account in its decision over whether or not to attempt to renew it.

While the “technical assessment” published on Wednesday does not contain a decision in favour or against renewal, it questions “the continued relevance” of the deal.

The EU executive has assessed the costs and benefits of the tobacco agreement, which made the EU and PMI partners in the fight against cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting, and whose benefits have included payments from PMI to national budgets and the EU budget of around €1 billion, in total. The EU budget received 9.7 percent of this amount.

The report says that PMI used the agreement “on multiple occasions” to give national and EU anti-fraud authorities “information of direct investigative value”.

“This information has regularly led to seizures by Member States’ enforcement authorities, and in many cases to arrests and criminal indictments,” the report says, without quantifying what constitutes regularly.

“Transnational criminal organisations were dismantled and potential losses to Member States’ and the EU budget of several million euros were prevented,” the authors write. Elsewhere in the report, they say that cigarette smuggling is costing national and EU budgets more than €10 billion annually, in lost public revenue.

They also add “it can also be argued that PMI’s incentives in this type of assistance to enforcement might as well be independent from the existence of the PMI Agreement”.

Costs

There was little cost involved on the side of the EU, the report notes, but that is also because in the first ten years of the PMI-EU deal, the EU could have made better use of the investigative powers it was granted under the agreement.

“Low administrative costs were also partly due to the fact that the Commission has in the past underinvested in the full implementation of the PMI Agreement including the auditing of the compliance by PMI with the obligations under the Agreement, to which only limited resources were dedicated,” the report says.

“The Commission has in recent years brought improvements to the way how the PMI Agreement is managed in practice, even if resources remain stretched,” it adds.

In its assessment, the commission also says that while the deal may have worked well in the past, the world has changed since it was signed in 2004.

“The market and legislative framework has changed significantly since the entry into force of the Agreement,” it said. Many of the rules in the agreement are now EU law, and some parts of the deal contradict international obligations that are expected to come into force soon.

The report also acknowledges criticism that the deal allows too cozy a relationship between tobacco companies and the EU, but says this is “essentially a matter of political appreciation and falls outside the scope and mandate of this technical assessment”.

It does state dryly “that the tobacco industry has launched a legal challenge against the 2014 Tobacco Product Directive (TPD), which prompts some to question whether it is opportune for the EU to enter into a contract with an entity on policy issues related to the ones legally challenged”.

MEPs

The assessment has been long-awaited by several members of the European Parliament, who have been critical of the deal.

The EU commissioner Kristalina Georgieva responsible for the deal is due to appear in front of the plenary session of the European Parliament on Thursday (25 February).

Last December, EUobserver published a four-part series of articles about the EU’s agreement with tobacco company PMI

Part one: Will EU renew $1.25bn deal with tobacco firm PMI?

Part two: EU sleuths ignore special powers on tobacco smuggling

Part three: Scant evidence EU tobacco deal curbed smuggling

Part four: How did the EU spend its €110 million in tobacco money?

Report

  1. Technical assessment of the experience made with the Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement

EU tobacco control policy must separate foxes from chickens

Feb 23rd, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

https://euobserver.com/opinion/132402

Imagine you are a farmer and that your chickens are disappearing. Imagine that you are approached by a fox, who offers help including a hi-tech tracking system so that you can trace the chickens and find out who is stealing them. After all, he says, this is an issue that unites foxes and farmers.

Do you accept this, or do you reflect that foxes are known to have a taste for chicken? Is it wise to put a fox in charge of a hen house?

Last week, EUobserver carried a piece by Alvise Giustiniani, who heads Philip Morris International’s (PMI) anti-illicit trade department.

The article contained a number of extraordinary statements, for example the suggestion that the tobacco industry shares a “common agreement” on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s (FCTC) Anti-Illicit Trade Protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products. The Protocol “contains many of the measures” that feature in a PMI agreement with the European Union (EU), and “shares our commitment to tackle this problem in every part of the world,” the company said.

Let’s pause for a moment and establish a couple of facts.

Fact 1: The tobacco industry is behind a concerted worldwide effort to prevent countries and organisations joining the Protocol.

Fact 2: PMI’s “commitment” is the result of legal action by the EU in 2004 which detailed the tobacco industry’s involvement in the illicit trade. As a consequence, PMI has since paid about $1.25 billion to the EU. This is not an act of charity, it’s a legal settlement.

Fact 3: Both the FCTC and its Protocol are crystal clear that the tobacco industry is part of the problem, not part of the solution. What we share is a battlefield – with the industry on one side and the Convention on the other. Article 8.12 of the Protocol states that “obligations assigned to a party shall not be performed by or delegated to the tobacco industry”. And Article 5.3 of the Convention states that “parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry”.

PMI’s black box

It’s easy to understand why the tobacco industry hopes to muddy the waters. Its 2004 agreement with the EU is ending and it’s desperate for a renewal. It seeks to argue that the PMI-EU agreement is in accordance with the EU’s treaty obligations as a party to the FCTC.

But the two really aren’t the same and – let’s be clear about this – the EU risks a breach of its treaty obligations if it renews.

Such a settlement also has detrimental international implications. It is well known that the tobacco industry uses it as an example and argument to promote other agreements around the world. Since the EU settlement, more than 100 parties to the Convention have engaged in voluntary agreements with the industry, seriously compromising the entering into force of the Protocol.

There is another important issue – the tracking-and-tracing systems required by the Protocol and by regulations including the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive.

The current PMI-EU anti-illicit trade agreement uses a system invented by PMI called Codentify, which is the tobacco industry’s supply chain control system. While PMI claims that Codentify can track and trace tobacco products, and in turn reduce illicit trade and counterfeiting, the technology is more accurately described as merely a code generator system, which offers no effective tracking and tracing services of contraband tobacco products.

There are other major problems with Codentify. It’s essentially a “black box” that is protected by a tobacco industry patent. We don’t know what’s inside, but we do know that it’s managed and controlled by the tobacco industry.

This industry solution does not meet the requirements of Article 8.12 of the Protocol and it should be rejected.

So too should a multitude of measures proposed by the tobacco industry. The 180 Parties that have ratified the FCTC did so in order to end tobacco usage and should be alert to the industry’s often-underhand behaviour.

Invitations from tobacco industry front organisations should be refused and so-called memorandums of understanding with the industry should be rejected. These are simply designed to ensure that countries do not become parties to the Protocol.

The tobacco industry likes to portray itself as a responsible party, on a par with governments or non-governmental organisations in tobacco-control policy. It suggests that we’re all in it together, but we’re not all in it together.

Farmers and foxes have different interests.

Dr Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva is Head of Secretariat at the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

EU tobacco control policy must separate foxes from chickens

Feb 23rd, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

https://euobserver.com/opinion/132402

Imagine you are a farmer and that your chickens are disappearing. Imagine that you are approached by a fox, who offers help including a hi-tech tracking system so that you can trace the chickens and find out who is stealing them. After all, he says, this is an issue that unites foxes and farmers.

Do you accept this, or do you reflect that foxes are known to have a taste for chicken? Is it wise to put a fox in charge of a hen house?

Last week, EUobserver carried a piece by Alvise Giustiniani, who heads Philip Morris International’s (PMI) anti-illicit trade department.

The article contained a number of extraordinary statements, for example the suggestion that the tobacco industry shares a “common agreement” on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s (FCTC) Anti-Illicit Trade Protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products. The Protocol “contains many of the measures” that feature in a PMI agreement with the European Union (EU), and “shares our commitment to tackle this problem in every part of the world,” the company said.

Let’s pause for a moment and establish a couple of facts.

Fact 1: The tobacco industry is behind a concerted worldwide effort to prevent countries and organisations joining the Protocol.

Fact 2: PMI’s “commitment” is the result of legal action by the EU in 2004 which detailed the tobacco industry’s involvement in the illicit trade. As a consequence, PMI has since paid about $1.25 billion to the EU. This is not an act of charity, it’s a legal settlement.

Fact 3: Both the FCTC and its Protocol are crystal clear that the tobacco industry is part of the problem, not part of the solution. What we share is a battlefield – with the industry on one side and the Convention on the other. Article 8.12 of the Protocol states that “obligations assigned to a party shall not be performed by or delegated to the tobacco industry”. And Article 5.3 of the Convention states that “parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry”.

PMI’s black box

It’s easy to understand why the tobacco industry hopes to muddy the waters. Its 2004 agreement with the EU is ending and it’s desperate for a renewal. It seeks to argue that the PMI-EU agreement is in accordance with the EU’s treaty obligations as a party to the FCTC.

But the two really aren’t the same and – let’s be clear about this – the EU risks a breach of its treaty obligations if it renews.

Such a settlement also has detrimental international implications. It is well known that the tobacco industry uses it as an example and argument to promote other agreements around the world. Since the EU settlement, more than 100 parties to the Convention have engaged in voluntary agreements with the industry, seriously compromising the entering into force of the Protocol.

There is another important issue – the tracking-and-tracing systems required by the Protocol and by regulations including the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive.

The current PMI-EU anti-illicit trade agreement uses a system invented by PMI called Codentify, which is the tobacco industry’s supply chain control system. While PMI claims that Codentify can track and trace tobacco products, and in turn reduce illicit trade and counterfeiting, the technology is more accurately described as merely a code generator system, which offers no effective tracking and tracing services of contraband tobacco products.

There are other major problems with Codentify. It’s essentially a “black box” that is protected by a tobacco industry patent. We don’t know what’s inside, but we do know that it’s managed and controlled by the tobacco industry.

This industry solution does not meet the requirements of Article 8.12 of the Protocol and it should be rejected.

So too should a multitude of measures proposed by the tobacco industry. The 180 Parties that have ratified the FCTC did so in order to end tobacco usage and should be alert to the industry’s often-underhand behaviour.

Invitations from tobacco industry front organisations should be refused and so-called memorandums of understanding with the industry should be rejected. These are simply designed to ensure that countries do not become parties to the Protocol.

The tobacco industry likes to portray itself as a responsible party, on a par with governments or non-governmental organisations in tobacco-control policy. It suggests that we’re all in it together, but we’re not all in it together.

Farmers and foxes have different interests.

Dr Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva is Head of Secretariat at the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Sneaking a Smoke – Paraguay’s Tobacco Business Fuels Latin America’s Black Market

Feb 5th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/paraguay/2016-02-05/sneaking-smoke

As a small country of 6.9 million inhabitants, Paraguay rarely draws international attention. Unlike some of its neighbors, it does not face debilitating violence, nor is it overwhelmed by paramilitary or gang activity. In fact, Paraguay has enjoyed economic growth in recent years. But beyond its apparent normalcy, the nation is grappling with pervasive corruption and organized crime.

One particular sector seems to play a significant role in the nation’s corruption-related challenges—Paraguay’s tobacco industry. According to a 2009 study by Uruguay’s Tobacco Epidemic Research Center (CIET), Paraguay accounts for approximately 11 percent of the world’s supply of contraband cigarettes. Paraguayan cigarette manufacturers produced 68 billion cigarettes in 2006, more than 20 times what the country consumes. Estimates suggest that 90 percent of the nation’s production—worth an estimated $1 billion—disappears every year to the black market.

More recent figures paint a similar picture. In 2013, the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) put Paraguay’s illicit production at 65 billion cigarettes per year, many times higher the country’s annual domestic consumption of only 2.5 billion. In other words, Paraguayans are puffing away on less than three percent of the nation’s output. A KPMG study commissioned by British American Tobacco from May 2015 pegged the country’s domestic consumption even lower, at 0.78 billion cigarettes smoked in 2014.

In most cases, smuggled Paraguayan cigarettes head to the black market in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Some have been found as far away as Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, and even Europe. Paraguayan cigarette brands represented 73 percent of the total illicit…

Hong Kong Customs conducts special operation against illicit cigarette activities before Chinese New Year

Feb 5th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://7thspace.com/headlines/523932/hong_kong_customs_conducts_special_operation_against_illicit_cigarette_activities_before_chinese_new_year.html

Hong Kong (HKSAR) – Hong Kong Customs concluded a two-week territory-wide operation to combat illicit cigarette activities before Chinese New Year yesterday (February 4). According to its past enforcement experience, Customs believes that people engaged in illicit cigarette activities will try to replenish stocks before Chinese New Year, and mounted the special operation with a view to combating these activities.

In the operation, Customs detected a total of 38 suspected illicit cigarette cases including two smuggling, 10 storage and distribution, seven peddling and 19 telephone-order cases.

A total of about two million sticks of suspected illicit cigarettes were seized with a total market value of about $5.3 million and duty potential of about $3.8 million. A total of 32 men and seven women, aged between 23 and 81, were arrested. After a series of enforcement actions, Customs believes that the operation has successfully disrupted the supply chains for illicit cigarettes in the territory.

Under the Import and Export Ordinance, smuggling is a serious offence.

The maximum penalty is a fine of $2 million and imprisonment for seven years.

Under the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance, anyone involved in dealing with, or possession of, or selling or buying illicit cigarettes commits an offence. The maximum penalty is a fine of $1 million and imprisonment for two years.

Members of the public are urged to report any suspected illicit cigarette activities to the Customs’ hotline at 2545 6182.

Ex-top cop in fight against illicit trade

Feb 3rd, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=165904&story_id=46028703&d_str=20160203

A former senior police superintendent has decided to continue fighting smuggling by joining the civil organization Hong Kong United Against Illicit Trade.

Patrick Wong, who spent 37 years with the police, said smuggling is not simply a trade issue, but more of a social problem especially the profound impact it has on youths.

As such, he has decided to use his past experience not only to fight illicit trade, but also to raise public awareness.

“It’s not just a matter of buying a packet of smuggled cigarettes or a counterfeit handbag. It’s more about directly funding the criminals and providing more economic incentives for an illegal business,” Wong said.

Crime syndicates often recruit young people looking for quick cash as transportation “mules.” It is especially dangerous as it weakens the youths’ sense of the rule of law, easily turning them into habitual offenders.

Wong said he had seen many youths ruined during his years of police service.

One was a teenager who joined a triad society and sold counterfeit DVDs on the street. At age 17, he was involved in a gang fight and accidentally killed another triad member.

He was arrested and served prison time for his crime.

“If not for the profits that come with the illicit trade, this teenager might not have joined the triad and become a murderer,” Wong said.

“This incident had a profound and lasting impact on me. I believe that the illicit trade does not merely impact legitimate business, but is really a social problem that calls for the public’s serious attention.”

There is a host of illicit trade activities in Hong Kong, involving electronic products, cigarettes, fuel, ivory products, plants, cars and various types of counterfeit goods and products.

Illicit trade is so pervasive that it goes into the daily life of virtually everyone.

Wong said Hong Kong United Against Illicit Trade focuses on activities that have the most serious impact on society, such as the illicit trade in cigarettes and counterfeit goods.

Hong Kong United Against Illicit Trade has about 30 supporting members and individuals, including community organizations, small businesses, trade groups and individuals.

Wong said that while counterfeit DVDs have nearly died out, illicit cigarettes have become one of the most popular smuggled items.

The trade becomes particularly active in February whenever there is rumor of a possible tobacco tax hike.

In fact, both buying and selling illicit cigarettes are illegal, and public housing residents can even be evicted from their homes, Wong said.

Last year, the organization worked with Oxford Economics to release the Asia-16 Illicit Tobacco Indicator 2014, showing that about one in four cigarettes consumed in the SAR comes from the black market, costing the government HK$2.5 billion in lost tax revenues.

Wong believes stiffening criminal penalties could serve as a deterrent.

Hong Kong Customs detects suspected case of smuggling illicit cigarettes using cross-boundary private car

Jan 29th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://7thspace.com/headlines/523646/hong_kong_customs_detects_suspected_case_of_smuggling_illicit_cigarettes_using_cross_boundary_private_car.html

Hong Kong Customs detected a suspected case of using a cross-boundary private car to smuggle illicit cigarettes yesterday (January 28). About 130 000 sticks of suspected illicit cigarettes were seized.

Customs earlier identified a syndicate using a cross-boundary private car to smuggle illicit cigarettes and distribute them to peddlers speedily. Customs officers took enforcement action last night and intercepted the cross-boundary private car in Sheung Shui.

About 130 000 sticks of suspected illicit cigarettes were found in the vehicle. The market value of the cigarettes was about $350,000 with a duty potential of about $240,000. A 40-year-old male driver was arrested and the cross-boundary private car used in the suspected smuggling of illicit cigarettes was detained for further investigation.

This is the fourth such case detected by Customs in the past three months.

Hong Kong Customs will closely monitor illicit cigarette smuggling activities using cross-boundary private cars and continue to carry out stringent enforcement action against illicit cigarette activities.

Under the Import and Export Ordinance, smuggling is a serious offence. The maximum penalty is a fine of $2 million and imprisonment for seven years.

Under the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance, anyone involved in dealing with, possession of, selling or buying illicit cigarettes commits an offence. The maximum penalty is a fine of $1 million and imprisonment for two years.

Members of the public are urged to report any suspected illicit cigarette activities to the Customs hotline at 2545 6182

Brussels blocks Big Tobacco lobbying push

Jan 21st, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Cigarette makers tried to influence Commission deliberations through a backdoor.

The European Commission has derailed an attempt by the tobacco industry to use a low-profile industry standards organization to sway Brussels on proposed changes to cigarette packaging.

Big Tobacco planned to use the outside group as a Trojan horse to push its preferred packaging technology over that of its competitors, according to documents obtained by POLITICO. The Commission faces a looming deadline to implement controversial and expensive “track and trace” measures that are intended to fight tobacco counterfeiting and smuggling.

The tobacco companies’ move backfired, the documents show. A top Commission health official intervened to scuttle the campaign and told the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) to keep out of the way. The organization, established by industry to set common standards for consumer goods, backed down and said it would defer to the Commission.

The behind-the-scenes clash is the latest skirmish between the tobacco lobby and the Commission, and comes at a politically trying time for cigarette makers. It follows the adoption of new EU laws through the 2014 Tobacco Products Directive that force tobacco companies to change their packaging to make them possible to trace through the distribution chain. The Commission must also choose from a range of high-tech digital watermarks to prevent counterfeit.

Big Tobacco’s lobbying efforts are an attempt to promote the industry’s in-house technology, called Codentify, over systems pushed by the world’s largest printers and packaging companies.

Codentify was developed by a consortium of the world’s top four tobacco companies: British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group, Japan Tobacco International and Philip Morris International.

A senior Commission official said the Commission is waiting on the results of a second feasibility study and hasn’t made up its mind about which one to back. In the meantime, Commission officials refuse to see any lobbyists on the issue, tobacco lobbyists say.

The unusual and complex fight, which took place out of the public eye, highlights the creative lengths that the tobacco industry is going to in order to influence the EU when officials in Brussels are under political pressure to keep them at arm’s length.

It comes against the backdrop of another battle playing out in European capitals over the introduction of so-called “plain packaging” for tobacco products. The 2014 reforms did not mandate plain packaging but allowed EU member governments to adopt their own legislation to remove branding from cigarette packets.

Backdoor lobbying push

According to tobacco industry insiders who have spoken to POLITICO, the four companies backing Codentify, acting in a consortium called the Digital Coding and Tracking Association, were behind a push to involve CEN. The organization established a working committee to examine packaging standards under consideration in what was an attempt to influence the Commission’s own decision-making process.

One of three European, independently-run standardization organizations to have been recognized by the EU, CEN represents 33 national organizations. Its contributions often shape the implementation of EU laws across the bloc.

CEN announced its plan to examine packaging standards last July. The decision followed a formal request from a national standards body, Belgium’s Bureau for Standardization, but sources with direct knowledge of the decision said that request was driven by the tobacco industry’s Digital Coding and Tracking Association.

None of the four tobacco companies behind the Digital Coding and Tracking Association responded to requests for comment. The European Commission declined to comment.

While the Commission’s review considered a wide range of technologies and viewpoints, CEN documents reveal that the proposed committee would have focused on packaging. CEN recommended that a range of European groups with ties to the industry — as well as the Digital Coding and Tracking Association — be part of the panel.

Four of the seven industry bodies listed in CEN’s proposal said they had no idea that their organizations had been put forward and some expressed concern about being included.

“We were not involved in CEN’s request to establish this committee,” said Henri Barthel, the vice president of GS1, an industry organization that deals with global standards for consumer goods, including tobacco products. “They did not ask us to participate. It was not our request.”

“The initiative to request the creation of a CEN technical committee came from the [tobacco] industry,” Barthel added. “The [Belgian Bureau for Standardization] wouldn’t simply wake up one morning and decide to set up a committee.”

The Bureau for Standardization didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Some tobacco industry groups were surprised to find they had been named. “I was not aware that [we] had been proposed as a member of any such committee,” said Antonella Pederiva, from the Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers.

Others objected to CEN’s exclusion of non-industry groups, in spite of its stated commitment to open the process up to “all stakeholders,” with a particular reference to “law enforcement, customs and other market surveillance authorities.”

“We do not understand why CEN has not questioned the involvement of [the tobacco industry] in the setting up of a ‘possible’ committee,” said members of the Smoke Free Partnership, an NGO that wrote a scathing letter to CEN over its plans to establish a committee.

“Let us remind you that economic operators have been, and continue to be, involved in the illegal trade of their own products,” the letter reads, referring to long-standing accusations that the tobacco industry had been aware of, and in some cases encouraged, the smuggling of its products to dodge taxes.

Smoke Free Partnership Director Florence Berteletti said she had no objection to the creation of common standards for tracing EU cigarette packages, but such decisions “should be made by independent experts, not by the tobacco industry trying to push for Codentify.”

Commission strikes back

While the correspondence obtained by POLITICO does not include the response from Andrzej Rys, a director at the Commission’s directorate general for health and food safety, CEN’s letter refers to Rys “expressing some concerns” about the “incompatibility of standardization processes” and the Commission’s legislative timetable.

“It is of course not our intention to duplicate any technical work or procedure, or to infringe any legislation,” CEN’s Elena Santiago Cid wrote to Rys. “However, your conclusion regarding the (in)compatibility of our standardization process and the legislative ones seem to be contradictory to [EU regulation].”

Industry insiders suggest CEN had not understood the political implications of establishing a technical body that would shadow work being done by the Commission. Rightly or wrongly, officials saw CEN’s push as interference by the tobacco lobby in the regulatory process and made sure the proposed committee never saw the light of day.

By late November 2015, CEN had backed away from its demands, telling the Commission it would abandon plans to form the technical committee and wait until the Commission finished its own consultations.

“For CEN … this is a question of principle,” Santiago Cid told POLITICO in an email. “We are convinced about the benefits of a coherent European legal framework, the voluntary nature of European standards and the complementary and different roles of standards and legislation.

These concepts did not seem to be well differentiated in the … legal documents.”

This backflip left industry observers aghast. “Frankly, it does not happen that often that the Commission manages to put a technical committee on ice,” said an expert working on standards.

Another prominent CEN member and tobacco lobbyist said the Commission saw the standards organization’s intervention in political terms, while in this person’s view the industry wanted to engage in the technical side of the “track and trace” requirements.

“We are going to have to redesign our packaging machines to include identification marks and number systems — we need a whole IT system behind us,” the lobbyist said. “We are facing a May 2016 deadline and it would have been nice to have some idea of what is expected of us.”

Lobbyists said the tobacco industry has been left in the dark about the changes. “What is always lost in the heat of the debate is whether changes are technically possible or not,” the lobbyist said.

“It might be a great idea — but what is its impact on industry?”

Other observers said the politics of the decision before the Commission can’t be ignored. “I am not surprised the Commission argued against CEN’s request,” said Barthel, from GS1. “At the end of the day, this is a business and political issue, rather than a technical one.”

Operations exposes illegal cigarette trade in Galway

Jan 21st, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Illegal cigarettes can easily be bought in Galway city, an undercover operation into illicit tobacco trade suggests.

The survey, conducted in December by retired undercover detectives, reveals the ease with which cigarettes and loose tobacco can be purchased in the city.

It was paid for by one of the tobacco industry’s leading players, Philip Morris International, whose main brand of cigarette is Marlboro.

A Galway website dedicated to selling illegal tobacco was uncovered in the sting; and illegal cigarettes were purchased in city pubs, from customers and staff, as well as from people trading on the streets.

The authors of the report gathered intelligence that suggested illegal tobacco was also for sale in Tuam and Athenry. “In nearly every town now there are one or two outlets where you can buy illicit or illegal cigarettes,” said Kevin Donohoe, a retired Detective Chief Superintendant in the Garda Síochána.

All intelligence is forwarded to Revenue Customs and Gardaí, he said.

Mr Donohoe, along with Will O’Reilly, former Detective Chief Inspector with Scotland Yard, carried out the research into the illegal tobacco trade in Ireland. The pair and a team of buyers visited Galway and 14 other urban areas last year.

The team of four visited Galway on December 8 and 9 last year, and despite the extremely wet weather, found it was easy to buy illicit cigarettes.

In total ten illicit tobacco products were purchased during the operation. The haul included two packs of illicit cigarettes, one carton of illicit cigarettes, five pouches of illicit roll-yourown tobacco, and two clear plastic bags of loose cut tobacco leaf. The cigarettes were being sold at about half the price of normal retail prices.

“In Galway City purchases were made twice from staff in a public house, once from a customer in a public house, three times (including one repeat) from males selling via the internet, and twice from sellers in the street. Overall we found illicit tobacco products relatively easy to obtain,” the report said.

MP decries illegal tobacco trade

Jan 19th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://in-cyprus.com/mp-decries-illegal-tobacco-trade/

Akel MP Irene Charalambidou told the House Watchdog Committee that there exists a ring of illicit tobacco traffickers involving known members of the Cyprus elite.

Charalambidou criticised state authorities for lack of co-ordination between relevant departments and claimed these cases are handled in a particularly compromising way.

Speaking before the Watchdog Committee on Tuesday, Charalambidou said the man who was a key suspect in the case of illegal tobacco imports, which made headlines in 2009, is also involved in the record tobacco haul in Aradippou in October 2015.

In October, police raided a warehouse in Aradippou and found hauls of illegal tobacco worth €2million in unpaid taxes. Six people –including what investigators suspect is a Cypriot operations manager– were arrested in the joint operation between the customs officers and police.

Police later raided more warehouses – being run by a bogus company – seizing more illegal tobacco. The overall seizure has come to just under 20 tonnes making it the biggest haul ever recorded on the island.

Charalambidou had then spoken of a “cover-up” because the company owner had yet to be found while she also questioned why the foreign workers at the factory have all been deported from Cyprus.

The Cyprus Customs and Excise Department had denied all accusations.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →