...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
                                                                                                                          ...
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge

16,648 views

Published on

The WAITO Foundation’s 2011 report provides an international reference in the fight against organized crime and dangerous counterfeiting (Counterfeiting-crime©) prejudicing the stability of States and the security of their populations, and industrial sectors, whose responsibility it is to guarantee the protection of consumers.

Contribute to the fight against Counterfeiting:
http://www.waitofoundation.org

WAITO offers an innovative approach to the fight against Counterfeiting-crime®
For the health and safety of consumers. Counterfeiting affects our daily lives and is not longer limited to luxury brands.

Having been restricted to specialized networks for three months, the report is now publicly available for free.

'The problem of counterfeiting does not only an issue of seizure volumes and tax revenues, it also has a major
impact on consumer safety and national stability'

'This is no mean feat, but the health and safety of consumers and the protection of our democracies.'

Pierre DELVAL
Membre Fondateur
Directeur Général de WAITO Foundation

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
16,648
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
47
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Waito Report 2011: Counterfeiting Crime a major challenge

  1. 1.      
  2. 2.   2       IF2C   Report  2011    Editorial  team:  WAITO  Foundation,  Villa  Sise,  Ch.  Grand-­‐Montfleury  48,  1290  Versoix,  Switzerland  Tel.  +41  (0)22  566  87  30;  Fax.  +41  (0)22  566  87  40    Chairman:  Chemavon  CHAHBAZIAN    Director  general  and  Editor  in  chief:  Pierre  DELVAL    Advisors:  Alain  BAUER  and  Xavier  RAUFER    Public  relations:  Laurent  ULMANN    Coordinator:  Frédéric  HAHN    Technical  coordinator:  Nicole  AGHROUM    Translator:  Esther  BARRETT    Board  of  experts:       Alain   BAUER,   Professor   of   criminology   at   the   Conservatoire   National   des   Arts   et   Métiers   (Paris),   New   York   and   Beijing,   Member   of   the   Board   and   Chairman   of   the   WAITO   Foundation  Ethics  and  Code  of  Practice  Committee.   Ghazi  BEN   TOUNES,  Economist,  Member  of  the  WAITO  Foundation  Board,  Director  of  the   WAITO  Office  in  Tunis  and  Vice-­‐chairman  for  Public  Affairs  in  the  Arab  World.   Pierre   DELVAL,   Criminologist   and   forensic   scientist,   Director   General   of   the   WAITO   Foundation.     Bernard   MARQUET,   Representative   at   the   Parliamentary   Assembly   of   the   Council   of   Europe   for   Monaco   and   Reporter   for   the   MEDICRIME   Convention.   President   of   the   Commission   on   the   Environment   and   Living   Environment   of   the   National   Council   of   the   Principality  of  Monaco.  Member  of  the  WAITO  Foundation  Board.     Kunio  MIKURIYA,  Secretary  general  of  the  World  Customs  Organization  (WCO).     Marco   MUSUMECI,   UNICRI   programme   coordinator,   Member   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   Board.     Eric  PRZYSWA,  Expert  on  Cybercrime,  Risk05  blog  editor.   Xavier   RAUFER,   Criminologist,   Director   of   studies   and   research   at   the   MCC   of   Université   Panthéon-­‐Assas  Paris  II,  Chairman  of  WAITO  Foundation  Scientific  Committee   Pau  ROCA,  Secretary  general  of  the  Federación  Española  del  Vino.     Michèle   RUDLER,   Emeritus   university   professor,   holds   a   Phd   in   Pharmacy   and   is   the   former  Director  of  the  Scientific  Police  Laboratory  in  Paris.     Christophe   ZIMMERMANN,   Anti-­‐counterfeiting   Coordinator   at   the   World   Customs   Organization  (WCO)    Editor  in  Chief:  Pierre  DELVAL       www.waitofoundation.org     (Website  coordinator:  Nicole  Aghroum)    Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  3. 3.   3                      Counterfeiting-­‐crime©  A  major  challenge      Report  2011Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  4. 4.   4                                   Acknowledgements        The   WAITO   Foundation   wishes   to   thank   the   public   and   private,   European   and   international  organizations  that  have  assisted  us  and  contributed  to  the  drafting  of  this  report.      In  particular,  we  would  like  to  thank:       THE  WORLD  CUSTOMS  ORGANIZATION  (WCO-­‐OMD)   THE  UNITED  NATIONS  INTERREGIONAL  CRIME  AND  JUSTICE  RESEARCH  INSTITUTE   (UNICRI)   THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  RESEARCH  ON  MODERN  CRIMINAL  THREATS  (MCC)  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  PANTHEON  ASSAS  PARIS  II   THE  FRENCH  CONTRUCTION  FEDERATION  (FBB)          The  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  this  report  will  be  allocated  in  their  entirety  to  the  operation  of  the  International  Forum  on  Counterfeiting-­‐crime©  (IF2C).  Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  5. 5.   5      Preface  (by  Alain  Bauer)    For  a  long  time,  counterfeiting  was  only  seen  as  a  threat  to  trademarks,  particularly  in  the  luxury  sector.      Then   came   the   time   when   the   issue   of   copyright   and   brand   licensing   was   overtaken   by  concerns  regarding  public  health  and  safety.      Counterfeit   medicines,   cigarettes,   aeroplane   parts,   electric   switches   and   milk-­‐bottles  made  their  appearance,  posing  new  risks  for  society.      Counterfeiting  does  not  just  concern  seizure  volumes  or  taxes.  It  also  represents  a  major  threat  to  consumer  safety  and  national  stability.      It   has   therefore   become   necessary   to   develop   means   to   analyse   these   problems,  overcoming  confusion,  particularly  in  terms  of  statistics,  over  the  questions  raised.    Three   problems   require   separate   attention:   real   fakes,   look-­‐alikes   and   forgery.   They   have  long  been  referred  to  using,  often  confused,  terms  and  classing  them  indiscriminately  as  smuggling,   counterfeiting   and   fraud   offenses.   The   central   issue   is   determining   whether  they  constitute  crimes  or  offenses.      For   us,   as   criminologists,   in   order   to   avoid   ambiguity,   these   issues   require   simple   and  clear  definitions:    -­‐ Real   fake:   a   fiscal   problem   created   by   the   channelling   of   genuine   products  towards  sectors  that  increase  profits  lost  elsewhere,  and  avoid  taxes.  Some  right  holders  are  accomplices  to  this  practice.      -­‐ Look-­‐alike:  a  technically  compliant  product,  manufactured  by  a  company  lacking  both   the   relevant   rights   and   patents,   producing   illegal   generics   -­‐   in   the   case   of   medicines-­‐  or   using   a   usurped   trademark,   without,   however,   endangering   the   consumer.   This   is   a  problem   concerning   the   protection   of   intellectual   property   rights   and   the   prejudice   of  right  holders’  interests.  Some  States  are  accomplices  to  this  practice.      -­‐ Forgery:   the   most   dangerous   scenario,   with   graver   consequences   for   consumer  safety   and   public   health   than   for   tax   revenues   or   right   holders’   interests,   and   constituting  a  major  social  problem.  In  the  May  2010  issue  of  the  journal  The  European  Files,  Professor  Gentilini   explained   that   a   fifth   of   his   patients   in   Africa   came   to   him   with   problems   caused  counterfeit  medicines.  Organized  crime  is  the  main  supplier  of  such  products.  The  WAITO  Foundation  refers  to  this  as  Counterfeiting-­‐crime©.      The  creation  of  a  coalition  of  interests  on  public  health  and  consumer  safety  is  therefore  crucial.   This   idea   of   control   implies   the   need   to   develop   and   implement   tools   and  mechanisms   managed   by   producers,   this   being   their   interests,   but   controlled   by   the  public   authorities,   this   being   a   necessity.   Public   health   and   safety   issues,   and   political,  economic  and  social  stability  objectives  require  the  construction  of  such  tools,  but  also  create  the  need  to  protect  sovereignty  and  the  criminal  liability  of  right  holders.  These  Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  6. 6.   6      should   be   deterrent   and,   above   all,   effective   judicial   tools,   but   they   should   also   be  technically   preventive,   providing   irrefutable   evidence   of   the   good   or   bad   faith   of   the  manufacturer.      For  example,  it  is  time  that  a  reliable  Community  database  was  built,  able  to  anticipate  counterfeiting   trends   on   an   international   and   regional   scale   in   order   to   take   timely  measures,  in  particular,  by  implementing  tailor-­‐made  preventive  and  deterrent  policies.      It  is  also  time  that  European  and/or  global  public  specifications  were  developed  on  the  characteristics   of   a   mandatory   mechanism   identifying   the   place   of   production   and   the  destination   market,   marking   every   product   and   packet,   whatever   the   contents,   and  ensuring  that  this  device  is  visible  and  legible.  Here  I  am  thinking  of  the  tobacco  industry,  but  this  also  concerns  the  pharmaceutical  industry,  both  at  wholesale  and  retail  level.      These   new   stages   also   require   judicial   customs   departments   that   are   better   equipped  and   prepared,   with   access   to   new   files   and   devices   enabling   them   to   guarantee   the  security   of   their   officers   throughout   their   operations.   This   requires   better   targeting,  which   explains   the   need   for   early   detection   mentioned   earlier.   This   has   been  demonstrated  and  recalled  on  various  occasions  since  09/11:  here  again,  we  must  move  from  standard  to  customized  procedures.      Equipping   and   controlling   everything   is   useless   unless   these   measures   are   correctly  adapted   through   cooperation.   Excessive   and   incoherent   control   kills   control.   The  effectiveness   of   the   device   is,   therefore,   important   and   requires   both   the   private   and  public  sectors  to  work  together,  putting  aside  any  personal  interests  and  disputes.    The  crisis,  which  has  boosted  crime-­‐  not  undergoing  a  recession,  as  it  demonstrates  on  a  daily   basis-­‐,   has   indicated   that   States   must   assume   a   proactive   regulatory   and  disciplinary   role,   that   they   are   not   just   another   partner,   but   must   deliver   instructions,  listen   and,   ultimately,   decide.   The   rehabilitation   of   public   service   is   of   major   importance  for   customs   authorities,   which   have   always   defended   its   values   with   remarkable  determination,  but  also  for  the  police,  which  supplements  the  law-­‐enforcement  system  at  an  intra-­‐territorial  level.      Therefore,  cooperation  is  required  between  producers,  consumers,  regulators,  customs  officers,   judges   and   criminologists.   But   this   is   only   one   stage   in   a   process   that   must  result  in  practical  measures  to  resolve  these  problems.  Otherwise,  contrary  to  what  we  have  long  believed,  failing  to  act  will  be  as  harmful  as  acting  incorrectly.      Public   opinion   is   always   highly   sensitive   to   the   way   in   which   States   combat   criminal  activities,  which  benefit  a  large  number  of  citizens.  They  blame  the  State  both  for  having  prevented   them   from   taking   advantage   of   it,   and   for   having   done   so   ineffectively.   This  difficulty,   or   schizophrenia,   that   exists   in   the   public   opinion   must   be   taken   into  consideration.   But   we   should   now   take   full   advantage   of   the   options   open   to   us   through  the  diagnoses  provided  by  volunteer  criminologists.  It  is  up  to  the  authorities  to  decide  which  type  of  therapy  they  wish  to  undergo.    The  WAITO  Foundation’s  role  is  therefore  essential  in  enabling  this  dialogue.  This  role  will  be  enhanced  within  the  International  Forum  against  Counterfeiting-­‐crime  (IF2C)  in  Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  7. 7.   7      Geneva,   in   partnership   with   UNICRI,   the   WCO   and   the   Chinese   Research   and   Studies  Centre  on  Counterfeiting-­‐crime  in  Beijing,  which  WAITO  is  setting  up  together  with  the  China  University  of  Political  Science  and  Law.  The  WAITO  Foundation,  with  the  support  of   UNICRI   and   the   WCO,   will   carry   out   its   public-­‐interest   mission   by   providing  information   for,   uniting,   communicating   with   and   establishing   partnerships   between  States  and  their  public  authorities,  civil  society  and  companies.  This  first  report  on  the  global   situation   of   Counterfeiting-­‐crime©,   witness   to   their   determination   to   combat  counterfeiting  as  an  enemy  of  democracy,  is  the  starting  point  of  this  mission.          I  hope  you  enjoy  the  read.      Alain  Bauer  Professor   of   criminology   at   the   Conservatoire   National   des   Arts   et   Métiers   (Paris),   New  York  and  Beijing  President  of  the  Ethics  Committee  of  the  WAITO  Foundation.          Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  8. 8.   8      Foreword   (by   Kunio   Mikuriya,   Secretary   General   of   the   World   Customs  Organization)    The   volume   of   illegally   trafficked   goods,   irresolute   criminal   legislations,   the   lack   of  consumer  information,  and  technological  development  all  contribute  to  the  escalation  of  counterfeiting  and  piracy.  One  only  needs  to  look  at  the  results  of  two  major  international  operations,   Operations   TIGRE   and   FRED   60,   carried   out   in   April   and   May   2011   by   the  World  Customs  Organization.    Operation   TIGRE,   from   11   to   15   April   2011,   involved   9   countries   and   13   ports   in   the  Central   America   and   Caribbean   region.   In   5   days,   more   than   3.5   million   counterfeit  products   were   intercepted,   including   19   tonnes   of   insecticides,   151,020   bottles   of   body  products   and   creams,   176,000   medicines,   648,000   spare   mobile   phone   parts   and   2  machines   used   to   manufacture   counterfeit   cigarettes.   It   would   appear   that   organized  crime   is   becoming   more   diverse   and,   in   particular,   targets   products   with   an   effect   on  consumer  health  and  safety.      Operation  Fred  60,  carried  out  from  9  to  13  May  2011  in  West  and  Central  Africa,  brought  together  20  countries  and  21  ports.  In  5  days,  125  containers  were  intercepted  containing  some   43   million   counterfeit   products:   more   than   8   million   medicines,   hundreds   of  thousands   of   spare   vehicle   parts,   thousands   of   toothpaste   tubes,   alcoholic   drinks,   food  products,  etc.    The   results   of   these   two   operations   alone,   confirm   this   as   being   a   major   pandemic  phenomenon.  The  only  way  of  overcoming  it  is  to  act  together  and  on  a  global  scale.      The  WCO  has  put  forward  a  concrete  action  plan  focusing  on  two  main  areas.      The   first   is   to   strengthen   the   capacities   of   customs   authorities,   through   a   committed  policy   on   education   on   legal   and   practical   aspects   in   developing   and   least   developed  countries,   which   are   prime   targets   for   counterfeiters,   by   promoting   risk   analysis  techniques.   To   this   end,   between   2010   and   2011,   the   Japanese   government   financed  training  in  some  140  countries.      The   second   focus   is   on   communication   between   stakeholders,   in   particular   customs  authorities,  the  private  sector  and  non-­‐governmental  organizations.      A  taskforce  on  counterfeiting  and  piracy  (CAP)  made  up  of  customs  representatives,  has  been   set   up   by   the   WCO   to   enable   customs   authorities   to   exchange   opinions,   experiences,  good  practices  and  initiatives.    Participants   also   include   the   members   of   the   Right   holders   Consultative   Group,   a   think  tank  attached  to  the  WCO  Secretariat,  which  works  collecting  the  opinions  of  stakeholders,  to  assist  in  taking  informed  decision.  This  is  not  an  institutional  body  of  the  WCO  in  the  same   capacity   as   the   technical   committees,   but   a   WCO   Secretariat   debate   and   advice  mechanism.  The  purpose  of  the  Right  holders  Consultative  Group  is  to  provide  the  WCO  with   the   direction   it   needs   to   effectively   address   the   practical   needs   of   right   holders   to  fight  against  counterfeiting  and  piracy,  and  to  offer  a  forum  for  exchange  on  cooperation  between  right  holders  and  customs  officials.    Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  9. 9.   9      To  this  end,  the  WCO  has  developed  an  interface  known  as  the  Interface  Public-­‐Members  (IPM).   This   is   a   user-­‐friendly   and   functional   instrument   that   provides   frontline   customs  officials   with   all   the   information   required   to   identify   counterfeit   or   pirated   products.   In  addition   to   information   on   the   products,   IPM   provides   information   on   regular   supply  routes,  packaging  characteristics,  previous  cases  of  counterfeiting,  right  holders’  contact  information  in  each  country  and  information  on  distinctions  between  originals  and  fakes.      While  the  WCO  focuses  on  operational  aspects,  it  is  also  important  to  build  relationships  that   enable   the   up-­‐stream   consideration   of   issues.   To   this   end,   the   WCO   has   recently  established   an   agreement   protocol   with   the   WAITO   Foundation,   to   assist   in   raising  awareness  about  this  phenomenon  and  in  defining  an  effective  policy  to  fight  organized  crime.      I   am   convinced   that   this   agreement   protocol   between   the   WCO   and   the   WAITO  Foundation,   the   activities   of   the   latter   and   this   report   provide   solid   foundations   for   the  establishment  of  a  just  and  safe  society.              Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  10. 10.   10                      Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  11. 11.   11      Introduction  (by  Chemavon  Chahbazian  and  Pierre  Delval)    Throughout   history,   man   has   toyed   with   the   idea   of   world   domination.   Many   people   have  strived   to   achieve   it,   often   through   religion,   generally   by   use   of   force,   and   now,   many  pursue  it  through  trade.        In   the   wake   of   market   globalization,   organized   crime   has   set   its   sights   on   the   potential  gains   generated   by   human   misery,   whether   in   the   food   and   agriculture   sector,   the  pharmaceutical  industry,  or  in  any  other  sector  producing  goods  bought  by  consumers  on  a  daily  basis.      In   these   conditions,   will   the   States   step   up   to   the   task   of   avoiding   or   will   they   leave  companies  to  fend  for  themselves  against  the  mafias?  Will  we  end  up  being  governed  by  criminal  organizations?    Most   probably   it   will   be   neither   the   one   nor   the   other.   States   will   hold   on   to   their  supremacy,   and   Mafias   will   become   more   and   more   powerful.   However,   the   real   power  will  be  wielded  by  the  markets,  with  all  the  forms  of  fraud,  including  counterfeiting,  that  this  entails.      Illicit  trafficking  has  always  existed  but,  with  the  fall  of  the  Berlin  Wall  and  globalization,  it   has   acquired   a   transnational   dimension.   Everyone   is   now   concerned,   from   the   ordinary  citizen   to   the   government   authorities.   These   markets   have   become   interdependent,  particularly   in   the   consumer   environment   where,   up   till   now,   counterfeiting,   food   fraud  and  smuggling  followed  parallel  paths.      Despite  their  differences,  these  movements  obey  the  age-­‐old  rules  of  supply  and  demand  and  the  same  principles  of  competition,  profit,  the  drive  to  innovate,  acquire  market  share  and  reduce  production  costs.  Across  the  board,  the  aim  is  to  generate  profits  as  quickly  as  possible   and   at   the   lowest   possible   risk.   In   this   way,   the   boundary   between   legal   and  illegal  is  becoming  blurred,  and  the  dangers,  whether  technical  or  counterfeiting-­‐related,  are  increasing  for  all  participants  in  consumer  product  chains.      The  risks  of  counterfeiting  are  generated  by  its  capacity  to  deceive  consumers  through  the  production   of   identical   copies   of   the   visible   parts   of   products   and   their   trademarks.  Through  industrialization,  counterfeiting  is  carried  out  on  mass  and  is  becoming  hard  to  control.  The  annual  global  death-­‐toll  is  proof  of  this  threat  in  terms  of  public  health  and  safety:   in   2005,   according   to   the   United   States   Consumer   Product   Safety   Commission  (CPSC),  in  North  America,  some  73,000  children  under  5  had  to  be  rushed  to  hospital  after  handling   counterfeit   toys;   20   of   them   died   from   injuries   or   poisoning.   Russia   holds   the  record  for  aircraft  accidents,  with  8.6  crashes  per  million  flights  in  2007  -­‐thirteen  times  the  world  average.  These  crashes  were  mainly  due  to  the  failure  of  counterfeit  spare  parts.  Again   in   Russia,   in   2005,   the   World   Health   Organization   confirmed   the   deaths   of  thousands  of  people  poisoned  by  adulterated  vodka,  some  of  which  was  sold  under  well-­‐known   brands.   President   Putin   referred   to   this   as   a   “national   tragedy”   justifying   the  stepping-­‐up  of  control  on  the  illicit  traffic  of  alcohol.  Unfortunately,  these  measures  have  not   helped   the   situation.   In   2007   illegal   distilleries   provided   almost   two   thirds   of   the  Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  12. 12.   12      alcohols   consumed1.   In   the   pharmaceutical   sector,   WHO   statistics   published   in   November  2006   estimated   the   “dangerous   counterfeiting   of   active   ingredients”   at   10%   of   total  consumption  in  Russia,  25%  in  India,  35%  in  Lebanon,  40%  in  Peru,  48%  in  Nigeria  and  70%  in  Angola.  There  are  thousands  of  cases  of  deaths  or  irreversible  secondary  effects  among  the  poorest  patients.  Regarding  electrical  equipment,  the  12  million  pieces  seized  by   European   Union   customs   authorities   in   2006   showed   technical   anomalies   clearly  contrary  to  the  security  standards  in  place.  According  to  the  WCO,  seizures  of  counterfeit  food   products   increased   by   more   than   2500%   in   2008,   and   those   of   spare   vehicle   parts  increased  by  more  than  2600%  in  2009,  with  all  the  consequences  implied  in  terms  end-­‐consumer   risks.   In   their   January   2011   report,  MarketsandMarkets  predicted   that   by   2014  the   global   budget   for   the   anti-­‐counterfeiting   device   market   in   the   food   and   medicines  sector  would  have  reached  79.3  million  US$,  with  49  million  US$  for  North  America  alone,  shedding  light  on  the  potential  size  of  global  illegal  markets  in  four  years’  time.    The   most   important   development   in   contemporary   criminality   is   the   convergence   of  crime.  It  is,  thus,  no  longer  uncommon  to  find  combinations  of  fraud  and  counterfeiting  or  counterfeiting  and  smuggling.      For   a   long   time,   there   has   been   a   tendency   to   underestimate   the   real   dangers   of  counterfeiting.   Intellectual   property   rights   have   provided   practically   the   only   shield  against   this   illegal   and   protean   activity.   The   situation   is   now   explosive,   although   it   is  extremely   difficult   to   measure   the   overall   phenomenon.   As   with   any   illegal   activity,   the  overall  estimates  available  are  questionable.  However,  an  amalgamation  of  the  statistics  of   all   industrial   sectors,   added   to   those   of   the   European   customs   authorities,   confirm   a  definite  upward  trend2.      Along  with  a  number  of  other  countries,  France  has  always  distinguished  itself  in  the  fight  against  counterfeiting.  Aware  of  the  developments  in  the  domain  of  counterfeiting  crime,  it  has  consolidated  the  1994  Longuet  Act  and  its  subsequent  amendments3.  France  made  significant  progress  with  the  anti-­‐counterfeiting  act  of  29  October  2007-­‐  one  of  the  first  acts   Christine   Lagarde,   then   French   finance   minister,   presented   to   the   Parliament 4 .  Criminal   sanctions   were   increased   and   simplified   and   accelerated   procedures   were                                                                                                                  1  Communica-­‐  Spring  2007-­‐Swiss  Magazine  belonging  to  the  federal  department  for  the  control  of  alcohols    2  A  key  information  source  to  combat  the  global  plague  of  counterfeiting-­‐  The  International  anti-­‐counterfeiting  directory  2009-­‐ICC  3  What   does   the   Longuet   Act   do?   Exhausted   by   interminable   procedures,   many   industrial   counterfeit   victims   ask  themselves   this   question.   According   to   the   government   “the   Act   of   5   February   1994   has   established   a   solid   legal  foundation”  in  the  French  industrial  landscape,  in  respect  of  the  combat  against  counterfeiting.  In  reality,  while  this  Act  appears   to   be   effective   against   counterfeiting,   it   reveals   a   number   of   weaknesses   despite   the   addition   of   supplementary  legal   measures.   In   a   general   context   of   an   extremely   slow   justice   system,   it   appears   to   be   powerless   in   resolving  disputes  between  two  companies  in  the  same  sector  and  based  in  the  same  city.  It  is  common  for  a  case  to  last  five  years  and  to  result  in  “laughable  compensation”,  simply  because  the  “the  counterfeiters  knew  the  legislation  by  heart”,  as  one  specialized  lawyer  put  it.  Various  on-­‐going  cases  confirm  the  limitations  of  the  current  system.  Apart  from  the  cases  of  “servile   copies”,   where   rapid   summary   proceedings   can   be   ordered   by   the   judges,   most   cases   take   a   long   time.   The  reparation   of   damages   is   another   area   of   weakness.   The   justice   system   makes   use   of   experts   able   to   measure   the  economic  impacts  of  counterfeiting  and  unfair  business  practices.  However,  in  general,  “judges   have   little   concern   from  economic  life”.   The   Longuet   Act   has   aggravated   the   penalties   against   counterfeiters.   But   it   has   also   probably   made   them  more  cunning.  The  result  is  that  the  proceedings  become  more  complicated  and  expensive.  On  the  other  hand,  victims  do  not  consider  that  the  penalties  are  sufficiently  dissuasive.  “In  certain  cases,  we  avoid  publishing  judicial  decisions.  The  compensation  sums  are  so  low  that  they  could  give  other  counterfeiters  ideas”,  one  of  the  case  lawyers  acknowledged.    4  Act   n°   2007-­‐1544   of   29   October   2007   on   anti-­‐counterfeiting.   This   act   was   published   in   the   Official   Gazette   on   30  October  2007,  transposing  European  directive  of  29  April  2004  on  the  enforcement  of  intellectual  property  rights.  Until  then,   only   one   draft   act,   dated   7   April   2007   had   been   produced,   despite   the   deadline   for   the   transposition   of   the  directive,  which  expired  on  29  April  2006.    Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  13. 13.   13      established   for   filing   administrative   proceedings,   to   prevent   an   imminent   infringement   of  intellectual  property  rights.  State  department  powers  were  extended.  But  in  order  to  go  even   further   and   faster   than   this,   during   its   presidency   of   the   Council   of   the   European  Union   (second   semester   of   2008),   France   also   offered   its   European   partners   a   series   of  measures   aiming   to   reinforce   anti-­‐counterfeiting   and   anti-­‐piracy   measures.   All   the  European   states   supported   this   initiative   and   the   Competitiveness   Council   of   25  September  2008  adopted  a  resolution  on  a  comprehensive  European  plan.      This  plan,  in  particular,  aims  to  develop  action  to  raise  awareness  and  communicate.  The  Council   also   invited   the   European   Commission   to   set   up   a   European   counterfeiting   and  piracy   observatory   to   enable   a   regular   assessment   and   a   more   precise   analysis   on   the  extent  of  the  phenomenon.  This  observatory  should  be  in  place  by  end  of  December  2009.      It   was   precisely   during   the   discussion   of   the   creation   of   this   observatory   that   Jacques  Toubon,   then   a   member   of   the   European   Parliament 5 ,   warned   his   colleagues,   the  members   of   the   committees   concerned   and   anti-­‐counterfeiting   inter-­‐professional  federations  of  the  risks  of  placing  too  much  emphasis  on  intellectual  property  rights.  He  considers  that  counterfeiting  also  concerns  consumers,  who  are  too  often  forgotten  in  this  type   of   approach.   He   acknowledged   that   French   consumers   enjoy   one   of   the   best  protections  in  Europe.  However,  he  stressed  the  fact  that  they  are  nonetheless  European  consumers.  “There  is  no  advantage  to  being  in  a  highly  protected  area  such  as  France  or  Germany,   if   these   are   within   an   economic   area   and   in   a   domestic   market   with   areas   of  weakness!”  he  declared  in  July  2009  in  “Les  Cahiers  de  la  competitivité”.  Jacques  Toubon  argues  that  there  is  no  point  in  having  an  effective  anti-­‐counterfeiting  system  in  France,  if  French   products   continue   to   be   exported   to   Europe,   where   there   is   no   criminal   justice  harmonization   on   intellectual   property   rights,   and   to   areas   outside   its   jurisdiction,  outside   the   European   Union.   Jacques   Toubon,   therefore   sees   two   priorities:   “all   EU  countries   need   to   harmonize   their   legislations   and   accept   criminal   sanctions   at   a                                                                                                                  5  European  Parliament  debate-­‐  Wednesday  17  December  2008-­‐  Impact  of  counterfeiting  on  international  trade.  Speech  by  Jacques  Toubon-­‐  MEP.    (…)counterfeiting  is  an  economic,  social  and  health  menace  of  a  size  that,  in  my  view,  is  often  underestimated.  Some  people  estimate  that  a  third  of  the  goods  docked  in  containers  at  Antwerp  or  Rotterdam  are  counterfeits.  I  did  say  ‘a  third’,  and  these  are  estimates  produced  by  official  departments.  I  would  like  to  say  very  clearly,  and  I  am  not  going  to  beat  about  the  bush,  that  I  am  truly  disappointed  by  the  European  Parliament’s   proposals   and   by   the   debate   this   evening.   For   once,   I   am   more   disappointed   by   the   Parliament   than   by   the  Commission  or  the  Council,  since  in  this  sphere,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  have  done  their  work.  The  action  plan  of  25  September,  the  seminar  held  on  25  November  and  the  proposals  which  Mr  Barrot  has  just  set  out  on  behalf   of   the   Commission   are   real   actions,   not   fine   words.   Commissioner,   what   I   would   simply   like   to   say   to   you   is   that   I  would  really  like  the  observatory,  for  example,  to  be  made  operational  during  the  first  half  of  2009  and  for  the  regulation  on  market  surveillance  adopted  by  the  Council  to  be  adopted  in  this  Parliament.  As  far  as  Mr  Susta  is  concerned,  I  am  not  speaking  here  of  his  alternative  proposal  for  a  resolution,  which  unfortunately  we  are  not  going  to  debate.  I  am  speaking  of  his  report.  It  is  much  too  weak,  much  too  timid,  and  says  nothing  on  indications  of  origin,   says   nothing   on   the   observatory   and   is   timid   and   reticent   regarding   the   protection   of   intellectual   and   industrial  property.  You  talk  of  ACTA  and  say  that  we  need  to  adopt  it,  but  you  say  that  we  should  not  use  the  means  that  would  be  effective  in  enforcing  it.  In  addition,  I  must  say  that  I  was  staggered  by  the  comments  made  by  my  two  fellow  Members  from  Sweden,  who  give  the  impression  that  the  danger  comes  not  from  counterfeiting  but  from  the  fight  against  counterfeiting.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  we  are  completely  mistaken  if  we  do  not  take  more  resolute  action.  We  are  dealing  with  this  subject  as   if   it   were   a   marginal   economic   activity,   no   more   than   that,   whereas   it   could   mark   the   end   of   our   industries,   it   could  signal   widespread   exploitation   of   workers   from   the   emerging   countries,   let   us   not   forget,   and   finally,   could   amount   to  widespread  lack  of  safety  for  consumers.  We  must  take  action!    Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  14. 14.   14      community   level”.   Two   years   earlier,   Michel   Danet,   then   Secretary   General   of   the   World  Customs   Organization   (WCO),   had   already   reached   similar   conclusions.   He   argued   that  the  combination  of  overly  restrictive  TRIPS  agreements  and  the  lack  of  effective  industrial  property   protection   in   more   than   60   countries   in   the   world,   rendered   European   rights   on  intellectual  protection  impractical.  Faced  with  this  lack  of  cohesion,  counterfeit  offenders,  generally   from   a   background   of   organized   crime,   have   all   the   financial   and   organizational  facilities  to  get  around  obstacles.    Although   the   defence   of   trademark   rights   is   synonymous   with   consumer   protection,  Jacques  Toubon  also  recognizes  that  the  fight  against  counterfeiting  must  result  in  direct  action   on   consumer   protection:   “this   should,   for   example,   include   law   enforcement   action  to   ensure   food   and   health   safety   and   should   not   just   be   limited   to   the   protection   of  intellectual  or  industrial  property”.      The  harmonization  of  criminal  law  and  consumer  protection  are  two  subjects  that  require  further  consideration.      Harmonization  of  criminal  law    Criminal  sanctions  are  dependent  on  the  danger  posed  by  a  counterfeit  product  and  the  issues  that  this  raises  on  a  legal  and  practical  level.  Counterfeiting,  by  definition,  violates  the  rights  of  right  holders,  but  they  need  to  provide  proof  of  the  danger  implied.  But  this  leads   to   the   question   of   how   this   should   be   gauged.   Should   the   presumption   of   danger   be  applied  de  facto  or  would  this  work  against  the  right  holder’s  interests?  This  would  raise  questions   about   the   genuine   product.   A   medicine,   for   example,   can   be   dangerous   if   the  prescribed  dosage  is  not  respected  or  if  it  is  not  adapted  to  a  specific  pathology;  it  can  also  be  dangerous,  due  to  its  secondary  effects.  If  the  right  holder  provides  private  evidence,  he   will   be   disinclined   to   expose   the   danger   of   his   product.   Moreover,   how   far   should  evidence   be   taken:   is   a   comparison   of   the   counterfeit   product   with   the   genuine   product  acceptable?  And  in  that  case,  what  about  the  possible  dangers  linked  to  a  genuine  product,  such  as  the  secondary  effects  of  a  medicine?    Customs   authorities   in   certain   countries   already   apply   heavier   customs   sanctions   to  dangerous  counterfeits,  without  having  elicited  a  reaction  from  the  judiciary.      All   this   is   generally   treated   in   terms   of   intellectual   property   law   rather   than   using   a   more  appropriate   legal   arsenal   to   supplement   the   intellectual   property   code.   In   theory,   in   the  case  of  dangerous  material  goods,  it  is  not  the  right  holder  that  should  intervene  first,  but  the   public   authorities.   The   focus   should   not   be   on   the   violation   of   intellectual   property  rights,  but  on  the  intention  to  harm  another  person’s  life  through  the  danger  posed  by  the  suspected   counterfeit   product.   Moreover,   the   limitations   of   seizures   and   legal  proceedings,  observed  in  recent  years,  speak  in  favour  of  a  more  nuanced  implementation  of  intellectual  property  legislation.  These  limitations  are  largely  the  result  of  conflicts  of  interest   between   the   right   holders   and   public   authorities   when   qualifying   the   act   of  counterfeiting.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  right  holders  to  try  to  come  to  a  friendly  settlement  with  the  counterfeiter  to  receive  rapid  compensation  and  avoid  long  and  expensive  legal  proceedings.   Nor   is   it   uncommon   for   trademark   owners   to   be   unwilling   to   bring   high-­‐profile  hazards  to  the  public  knowledge  (the  pharmaceutical  industry  kept  the  facts  about  the  counterfeiting  of  its  brand-­‐name  medicines  hidden  for  a  long  time  and  the  agri-­‐food  Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  15. 15.   15      industry   continues   to   keep   cases   of   dangerous   counterfeits   secret).   This   is   not   to   mention  the   fear   of   customs   authorities   and   right   holders   of   being   sued   for   unjustified  infringement  proceedings;  nor  of  weak  intellectual  property  claims  being  disputed  or  the  possibility  of  losing  a  case  for  lack  of  control  over  supply  and  sub-­‐contracting  channels.      With  only  minimal  coherence  between  national  practices,  how  can  the  issue  of  seizures  be  resolved?   How   can   effective   action   be   taken   without   the   cooperation   and   evident  expertise   of   right   holders?   How   can   more   dissuasive   criminal   sentences   be   imposed  without  having  to  show  evidence  of  a  link  to  organized  crime?      Obstacles  to  implementation:  “key”  examples    To  understand  the  situation  on  the  ground,  it  is  important  to  consider  two  key  examples:   • the  “syndrome  of  the  customs  officer  in  a  goods  port”   • the  judge  and  the  demonstration  of  proof    The  “syndrome  of  the  customs  officer  in  a  goods  port”    The   intervention   procedure   of   the   customs   authorities,   at   least   in   Europe,   requires   a  certain   level   of   responsiveness,   largely   due   to   time   restrictions.   Seizures   are   generally  made  after  a  detention  at  customs,  with  the  exception  of  certain  European  Union  Member  States,   such   as   France,   that   immediately   seize   the   products   of   certain   trademarks.   The  customs   officers   are   therefore   dependent   on   the   right   holders   who   must   identify,  authenticate  and  confirm  the  counterfeit.      The   procedure   is   generally   the   following:   when   Customs   detect   products   that   they  suspect   of   counterfeiting,   they   search   for   the   right   holders   and   notify   them   of   the  suspicion   of   counterfeiting.   Experts   appointed   by   the   right   holders   go   to   the   customs  control   post   and   confirm   or   rejects   the   counterfeiting   claim   counterfeiting   in   a   verbal  statement.   This   confirmation   results   in   detention   at   Customs,   or   a   customs   seizure  depending   on   the   type   of   counterfeited   right   (trademarks,   designs   and   models,   copyright,  patents,   etc.).   Then   a   preventive   seizure   order   must   be   requested   from   the   local   public  prosecutor’s  office  and  it  must  be  implemented  within  a  set  period  (10  days  for  ordinary  goods  and  three  days  for  perishable  goods)  after  the  detention  at  customs.    In  the  event  of  a  customs  seizure,  a  summons  must  be  issued  or  a  criminal  complaint  filed  against  the  counterfeiter  or  the  distributor  of  counterfeit  products,  almost  simultaneously.  There  is  always  time  to  file  civil  proceedings  if  this  was  not  done  when  the  case  was  filed.    The  “syndrome  of  a  customs  official  in  a  goods  port”  is  indicative  of  the  impracticality  lack  of   this   procedure.   If   we   take,   for   example,   the   port   of   Antwerp,   158   million   tonnes   of  goods   (2009)   in   thousands   of   containers   arrive   there   every   day.   A   small   group   of  authorized   customs   officers   must   examine   the   manifestos6  transferred   by   the   transporter  onto   their   computer   network,   identify   any   anomalies,   compare   them   with   any   on-­‐going  investigations,   find   the   suspected   containers   and   select   only   a   few   of   them   due   to   time  restrictions  and  the  available  means  of  identification.                                                                                                                    6  Transport  documents.    Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  16. 16.   16      Moreover,   when   controls   are   carried   out   in   the   middle   of   the   night,   at   the   back   of   a  container,  without   being  able  to  contact  the  right  holders  to  get  the  information  required  to  start  the  detention  procedure,  customs  officers  have  little  room  for  manoeuvre.      Despite  the  use  of  fixed  scanners,  this  raises  the  question  of  how  many  of  these  containers,  transporting   illicit   products,   manage   to   slip   through   the   control   authorities’   nets.  “Probably  the  majority”,  is  the  baffled  guess  of  the  customs  officers  at  the  Port  of  Antwerp.      The  control  authorities,  essentially  represented  by  customs  and  the  police,  evidently  lack  the   tools   to   clearly   distinguish   genuine   from   counterfeit   products,   under   pressure,  without   having   to   rely   on   the   right   holder.   The   “syndrome   of   a   customs   official   in   a   goods  port”  must  not  be  seen  as  unavoidable  and  the  use  of  heavy  and  costly  x-­‐ray  equipment,  as  suggested  by  some  Member  States,  will  only  go  so  far  in  resolving  this  tricky  problem,  and  not  very  far  at  that.      The  judge  and  the  demonstration  of  proof    In   terms   of   judicial   action,   procedures   must   allow   the   evidence   of   counterfeiting   as  violation   of   intellectual   property   rights   to   be   produced.   This   implies   establishing   that  these   rights   exist   and   providing   material   evidence   of   their   infraction   through  counterfeiting.  Without  these  specific  elements,  and  without  the  effective  cooperation  of  the   right   holders,   the  judicial   authorities   cannot   apply   their   law   enforcement   instruments  effectively.      Likewise,  in  proceedings  involving  the  seizure  of  products  suspected  of  counterfeiting,  the  judicial   authorities   need   to   be   convinced.   However,   convincing   does   not   always   mean  proving.      Questioning   the   authenticity   of   a   product   and   its   origin,   to   determine   whether   it   is   a  counterfeit,  implies  finding  out  whether  the  product  has  the  fundamental  characteristics  constituting   an   infraction.   To   provide   solid   grounds   for   an   inquiry,   the   nature   of   these  characteristics   must   be   established,   before   determining,   practically   and   objectively,  whether  the  suspect  product  presents  them  or  not.      The   predominant   litigious   trend   in   recent   case   law   highlights   the   importance   in  implementing   law   enforcement   measures.   The   strengthening   of   penalties   for  counterfeiting   crimes   has   crystallized   the   debate   on   the   way   in   which   the   evidence   of  crime  is  administered.  Procedures  are  lengthy  and  give  counterfeiting  networks  the  time  to   disappear   and   regroup.   The   research   carried   out   by   right   holders   and   the   control  authorities   (customs   and   police)   are   rendered   useless.   It   is   a   waste   of   time   and   money,  which  is  becoming  unbearable  for  everyone.      We   are   also   increasingly   seeing   the   validity   of   intellectual   property   licenses   being  contested.   With   increasingly   “perfect”   copies,   proving   that   the   genuine   article   is   truly  authentic   requires   that   title-­‐holders   provide   further   information   and   thus   reveal   their  trade  secrets  to  whoever  wants  to  use  them.  For  companies,  this  is  a  dangerous  spiral  that  only   benefits   the   counterfeiters.   But,   above   all,   it   is   a   spiral   posing   little   constraints   on  criminal   organizations,   against   which   the   intellectual   property   code,   when   applied   to  consumer  goods,  is  too  subtle  to  be  effective.  Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  17. 17.   17      Pharmaceutical  crime:  an  early  form  of  counterfeiting-­‐crime    It  was  in  this  context  that  the  Council  of  Europe  examined  an  innovative  legal  alternative  by   developing   a   legal   instrument   to   combat   pharmaceutical   crime   more   effectively.  During   the   meeting   at   Moscow   of   23   and   24   October   2006,   the   participants   of   the  conference  “Europe  against  counterfeit  medicines”  had  put  forward  a  proposal  to  develop  this  legal  instrument  in  order  to  protect  health  in  Europe.    The   participants   agreed   that   the   following   elements   should   be   taken   into   consideration  when  preparing  a  future  convention:       • the  definition  of  pharmaceutical  crimes  as  aggravated  crimes;     • the  penalization  of  the  manufacture  and  distribution  of  counterfeit  medicines;   • setting   up   a   network   of   contacts   in   each   of   the   sectors   concerned,   especially   in   the   health  and  legal  compliance  sectors;     • the  adoption  of  provisions  on  a  national  level  to  monitor  the  quality  of  components   for   pharmaceutical   use,   packaging,   manufacturing   processes   in   accordance   with   the  standards  established  by  the  European  Pharmacopoeia;   • greater   cooperation   between   the   bodies   responsible   for   implementing   laws   on   a   national  and  European  level.      At   the   end   of   2007,   eleven   experts   were   appointed   and   developed   the   draft   Council   of  Europe   Convention   against   Counterfeiting   of   Medical   Products   and   Similar   Crimes  involving  Threats  to  Public  Health.  Completed  on  26  February  2009,  this  draft  is  currently  being  examined  by  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council.      This  draft  is  of  particular  interest  because,  for  the  first  time,  it  underlines  the  possibility  of   the   development   of   an   anti-­‐counterfeiting   law   enforcement   instrument   that   would  constitute   a   complete   departure   from   the   model   currently   used.   Thus,   for   example,   the  following  acts  are  classified  as  crimes  when  they  are  committed  intentionally:       • the  manufacture  of  counterfeit  medical  products,  active  ingredients  or  components,   including  their  adulteration;     • the  falsification  of  any  document  relating  to  a  medical  product,  an  active  ingredient   or  component;   • the   supply   or   offer   of   counterfeit   medical   products,   active   ingredients   or   components;   • the  promotion  of  counterfeit  medical  products,  active  ingredients  or  components.     • the   illicit   trafficking   of   counterfeit   medical   products,   active   ingredients   or   components.      Aggravating   circumstances   are   a   strong   feature   in   this   draft,   therein   highlighting   the  intention   of   harming   another   person’s   life.   These   circumstances   will   be   of   great  importance   in   determining   the   sanctions   to   be   applied.   This   is   evidently   the   case   of   an  infraction   that   causes   the   death   of   the   victim   or   harms   the   victim’s   physical   or   mental  health.   This   is   also   the   case   of   the   offenses   of   promotion   and   supply   using   mass  distribution  procedures,  and  offenses  committed  by  various  persons  acting  together,  and  those  committed  by  a  criminal  organization.      Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    
  18. 18.   18      The   signatory   parties   to   this   convention   (47   Pan   European   Member   States)   will   grant  themselves   the   right   to   enter   into   bilateral   or   multilateral   agreements   on   issues  addressed  by  said  convention,  in  order  to  complete  or  reinforce  its  provisions  or  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  principles  that  it  enshrines.      The   Group   of   Specialists   on   Counterfeit   Pharmaceutical   Products,   created   by   the  Committee   of   Ministers   of   the   Council   of   Europe   and   under   the   authority   of   the   European  Committee   on   Crime   Problems,   thus   delivers   a   highly   uncomplimentary   verdict   on   the  legal   arsenal   currently   applied   to   curb   the   production   of   counterfeit   medicines.   Firstly,  without  severe  sanctions  to  suppress  the  counterfeiting  of  pharmaceutical  products  and  medical  devices  worldwide-­‐  and  often  without  any  criminal  law  provisions  whatsoever-­‐,  it  is  easy  to  produce  and  distribute  counterfeit  products  without  running  any  particular  risks,   let   alone   being   penalized   for   it.   This   loophole   partly   explains   why   pharmaceutical  crime   has   become   an   area   of   activity   for   organized   crime.   Moreover,   national   legislations,  where   they   exist,   vary   considerably.   The   Group’s   experts   insist   on   the   fact   that   varied,  deterrent  and  proportionate  penalties  are  essential  in  punishing  the  perpetrators  of  these  violations  and  contributing  to  their  effective  prevention.  They  also  specify  that  the  control  of   this   type   of   counterfeiting   cannot   be   limited   to   violations   of   intellectual   property  rights7,   and   argue   that   the   main   objective   of   a   future   anti-­‐counterfeiting   instrument  should   focus   on   criminal   law   measures   against   criminal   behaviour,   targeting   medicines  and  medical  devices,  and  threatening  public  health.  Lastly,  the  group  of  experts  indicates  that   “There   is   no   harmonisation   or   at   least   approximation   in   international   law   of   the  offences   relating   to   counterfeiting   of   medicinal   products   and   medical   devices.  Furthermore,   at   the   time   of   internationalisation   of   trafficking   of   counterfeit   medicinal  products   and   medical   devices,   aggravated   by   internet   trade,   which   undermines   the  credibility   of   legitimately   distributed   genuine   products   and   makes   it   impossible   to  guarantee   the   quality   and   efficacy   of   products   supplied,   there   is   no   international   legal  instrument,  aiming  to  combat  pharmaceutical  crime  and  defining  corresponding  offences”.    Consumer  protection    “There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  good  counterfeiter,  who  has  anti-­‐brand  strategy  and  produces  fake   handbags,   and   a   bad   counterfeiter,   who   wants   to   poison   medicine   consumers   or  endanger   children   who   are   given   counterfeit   toys.   They   are   one   and   the   same.   The  purchase   of   counterfeit   luxury   products   directly   finances   the   counterfeiting   of   non-­‐processed   products.   In   the   field   of   illegal   imitation,   there   is   no   difference   between  criminal   capital   that   kills   and   that   which   does   not”.   The   situation,   as   described   on   16  November   2004   by   the   President   of   an   intellectual   property   rights   defence   association,  has  hardly  changed.  Although  he  is  essentially  right,  he  suggests  that  the  consumer  could  be  considered  as  the  counterfeiter’s  “accomplice”.  It  is  therefore  essential  to  re-­‐establish  the  distinction  between  the  good  and  bad  intentions  at  play  in  the  act  of  purchasing.                                                                                                                    7  According   to   Information   Solution   for   Pharmaceutical   and   Healthcare   Industries,   an   international   service   provider  that   provides   the   pharmaceutical   industry   with   commercial   data   and   consultancy   services,   within   European   Union  Member   States,   the   proportion   of   the   volume   of   medical   products   on   the   market   that   are   not   protected   by   a   patent  varies   from   69%   (Italy)   to   90%   (Cheque   Republic).   According   to   the   European   Generic   medicines   Association,   the  proportion  of  generic  medical  products  (not  protected  by  intellectual  property  rights)  in  comparison  with  the  volume  on  the  market  in  certain  European  countries  lies  between  7.2%  (Italy)  and  79.3%  (Lithuania/Estonia).    Copyright-­‐   This   confidential   report   is   the   Intellectual   property   of   the   WAITO   Foundation   all   rights   reserved.   No   part   of   this   publication  may  be  reproduced  or  diffused  under  any  form  or  by  any  means,  including  photocopies  and  recordings,  or  by  any  information  storage  or  recovery  system.    

×