The extension of the requiremen
ts laid down in the money laundering directive to
cover lawyers as a matter of principle has given rise to doubts as to whether the complete confidentiality of the information communicated to a lawyer is still guaranteed. This question is all the more relevant because in
individual cases a client at least may find it difficult to draw a distinction between a lawyer's financial service-related activiti
...[+++]es, pursuant to the list in Article 2(1)(3)(b), and the act of providing legal advice, which is covered by lawyer-client privilege. Under these circumstances, it is particularly worrying that the protection of professional confidentiality should not be a binding requirement, but has instead been left to the discretion of the Member States.
Cette interrogation est d'autant plus impérieuse qu'il est difficile, au moins pour le mandant, de distinguer dans tel cas particulier les prestations financières fournies par un avocat au sens du descriptif figurant à l'article 2, paragraphe 1, point 3, b), et le conseil juridique privilégié. Aussi est-il tout à fait contestable que la préservation du secret professionnel soit laissée à l'appréciation des États membres, au lieu d'être prescrite obligatoirement.
