2007 – ACPO Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service’s (AVCIS) Stakeholders – a list of overseas organisations and individuals who provide services from a law enforcement, security and commercial perspective.
This list should now, post-Brexit, be considered in conjunction with the information provided about repatriation here.
Baltic Sea Task Force (BSTF)
The Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation was formed by 11 Governments in 1992 to foster peace, stability and prosperity among member States. In 1998, members of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation signed a cooperation agreement with respect to combating crime, in particular in its organised forms. This was followed in subsequent years by two protocols and the formation of the Working Group on Cooperation in Combating Crime, in Particular in its organised forms
The Task Force on organised crime in the Baltic Sea Region acted as a regional best practice group. Established in 1996 and meeting twice a year, the group consisted of Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden, usually joined by representatives of the European Commission, Interpol and Europol.
One of its objectives mentions focusing on criminality around drugs, illegal immigration and the trafficking in stolen vehicles.
The original Baltic Sea Task Force on Organised Crime (BSTF), a working group of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), was absorbed into the broader structure of the BSRBCC (Baltic Sea Region Border Control Cooperation) and is no longer a standalone entity.
The BSRBCC has a marine crime focus.
EU Single Points of Contact (SPoC)
A decision of the Council of the European Union, dated the 22nd December 2004 on the cross border trafficking of stolen vehicles stated 1.2 million vehicles were stolen in member states per year, with an estimated costs of EUR 15 billion, between 30-40% stolen by organised groups are rung and exported outside the EU and co-operation between member states was particularly important as was the exchange of information.
It was agreed that member states should designate national points of contacts for tackling cross border vehicle crime.
The first meeting in January 2006 held at The Hague was attended by two members of the NCIS Organised Vehicle Crime Section.
The UK was not represented at the second meeting hosted by Finland in November 2006. Another meeting was planned in Portugal during the second half of 2007.
Europol
Europol, based at The Hague, aimed to improve the effectiveness and cooperation of member states to prevent and combat terrorism, drug trafficking and other forms of serious and organised crime. The Europol European Organised Crime Threat Assessment (Jan 2006) briefly mentions the market for stolen vehicles in the former Soviet Union countries and the misuse of the transport sector as facilitating organised crime. A second publication, “An overview of motor vehicle crime from a European perspective” (Jan 2006) was available from the Europol website.
A Europol initiative to monitor the trafficking of stolen vehicles (Automated Work File or AWF), closed with insufficient interest to justify the analysis required to produce meaningful reports.
European Expert Group on Whole of Vehicle Marking (WOVM)
The WOVM group led by the Director of the Foundation for Tackling Vehicle Crime in the Netherlands has spent over three years developing a European standard for vehicle marking to supplement those identification marks used by manufacturers, which is both cost effective and simple to use, to reduce the opportunities for vehicle ringing, and breaking stolen vehicles to sell the component parts.
WOVM involves marking several hundred components with simple to read, easy to trace marks. Currently, micro-dots are seen by many as the most effective WOVM system, and this European WOVM group has based much of reasoning for a pan European WOVM standard on the successful pilot’s use of micro-dot technology in Australia and South Africa.
Members take part on a personal basis, not as formal representatives of their countries. The group meets typically twice a year, working to produce an EU Directive for WOVM, and contributing to an international standard for microdots. With manufacturers reluctant to invest in additional security measures without compelling evidence the vast set-up costs is necessary, and other more established competitors seeking to influence manufacturers their products provide a more cost effective solution, the European WOVM group has sought an EU Directive to ensure a common standard is introduced across the EU.
It appears the “European Expert Group on Whole of Vehicle Marking” is not (now) a formally established group, but the topic of vehicle marking is covered by various expert groups within the European Commission and the UNECE. These groups work on developing common standards and harmonizing rules for vehicle markings to improve safety, facilitate international traffic, and support future technologies like automated vehicles
North America Export Committee
A respected, informal working group, established in 1995 focused on the trafficking of stolen vehicles across national borders, with the main participants being law enforcement and insurance investigators from Canada, North America and Mexico.
With few vehicles recovered in the UK having been stolen from Canada, North America or Mexico, UK authorities have not previously participated in this group. However, officers from NCIS last contributed to the group during a fact-finding visit in 2005.
A 2018 paper about US stolen vehicles for export can be read here.
Seaports Information and Communication Group (SIC)
Initially an informal group consisting of officers from the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp and intelligence officers from NCIS representing the UK, the Seaports Information and Communication Group was established in 2003.
The group exchanged intelligence on stolen vehicle trafficking and gradually others joined first Spain, Italy and Germany, then Ireland and Greece, with Europol undertaking a coordinating role.
Forces generated additional intelligence with ‘Plinian’ focus days at ports when specialist examiners and intelligence operatives would examine vehicles, containers and ship’s manifests.
Schengen SIS
Enhanced cross border police co-operation was one of the principal benefits of the Schengen Agreement signed in 1985.
The UK was expected to join in 2005. However, a number of lengthy delays have resulted in a new target date of 2008/9.
The Schengen Information System allows the automatic transfer of PNC data to a number of European law enforcement agencies and permits officers in the UK to check vehicles stolen in other European countries using PNC.
Brexit – the UK no longer has access to the Schengen Information System (SIS). That ended at 23:00 GMT on 31 December 2020, and UK-created SIS alerts were removed. Since then, the UK has relied on alternative (slower/less integrated) channels plus the EU-UK Trade & Cooperation Agreement (TCA).
- Access ended 31 Dec 2020 → UK police and Border Force lost real-time SIS checks on wanted persons/vehicles/objects; UK-entered alerts were deleted from SIS at exit.
- Operational impact → Without SIS, UK alerts must be circulated via INTERPOL I-24/7 and other routes, which are not as directly integrated for frontline EU officers—leading to fewer/fewer-timely “hits”. UK police had run ~603 million SIS checks in 2019, underscoring the scale of the loss.
- What replaced it? → The EU-UK Trade & Cooperation Agreement (TCA) preserved cooperation in other areas (e.g., extradition-style warrants, Passenger Name Records) and retained/modernised Prüm-style exchanges (DNA, fingerprints, and vehicle-registration data), but did not restore SIS access.
- Prüm data still flows → the UK continues automated DNA/fingerprint/vehicle-registration data exchange on a Prüm basis (now being upgraded EU-side under Prüm II), which helps verify vehicles and identities, but this is not the same as SIS alerting.
- Efforts to rebuild alerting → The Home Office is developing I-LEAP to improve how the UK ingests and shares international alerts post-SIS; UK bodies and committees continue to flag the gap and push for stronger, faster data-sharing with the EU.
Recent politics (2025) → Reports indicate the EU has rejected UK requests to regain access to SIS/other Schengen-specific databases, citing legal constraints for non-Schengen third countries.