What asset forfeiture teaches us about providing restitution in fraud cases

Abstract

Purpose

In today's global economy, the public routinely engages in international financial transactions via the internet. This has created opportunities for online fraud. The paper aims to explain what policymakers who are serious about providing crime victims with an effective restitution remedy can learn from the US Government's experience with forfeiture.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper, by an Assistant US Attorrney, combines narrative with argument and analysis.

Findings

Existing restitution law is ineffective. Prosecutors have used forfeiture laws as an indirect mean of providing compensation for crime victims, but forfeiture law has its limits. The better approach would be for Congress to authorize the pretrial seizure and restraint of assets directly for restitution, utilizing standards comparable to those that exist in current forfeiture law. To address situations where a defendant places money overseas to avoid restitution, Congress should enact international restitution laws comparable to those that exist in forfeiture to facilitate the recovery of those assets. Without these kinds of reforms, the government will continue to struggle to collect restitution.

Originality/value

The paper provides information of value to all involved with international financial transactions and law enforcement activities.

Citation

Linn, C.J. (2007), "What asset forfeiture teaches us about providing restitution in fraud cases", Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 215-276. https://doi.org/10.1108/13685200710763452