Search results

This paper aims to answer three questions: Is the presumption of innocence principle in risk? How to balance it with the burden and standard of proof? Does the asset civil forfeiture procedure imply a criminal charge? These are the main constitutional issues that have hampered the processing of, and consensus regarding, the regulation of the asset civil forfeiture in Brazil, the subject of bill 5681/2013 of the Chamber of Deputies and bill 255/2015 of the Federal Senate. The hypothesis is that the property or the possession of illegal assets implies a violation of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which presumes good faith and non-abused use to be legitimated. This study intends to enrich this discussion with the current American debate, its main lessons and concerns to individual procedural safeguards.

There are some questions that should be addressed: Is the presumption of innocence principle in risk? How to balance it with the burden and standard of proof? Does the asset civil forfeiture procedure imply a criminal charge? Thus, this paper aims to discuss these questions, which are the main constitutional issues that have hampered the processing of, and consensus regarding, the regulation of the asset civil forfeiture in Brazil, the subject of bill 5681/2013 of the Chamber of Deputies and bill 255/2015 of the Federal Senate. The hypothesis is that the property or the possession of illegal assets implies a violation of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which presumes good faith and non-abused use to be legitimated. This study intends to enrich this analysis with the current American debate about asset civil forfeiture provisions, its main lessons and concerns to individual procedural safeguards.

This paper focused on answering three questions: Is the presumption of innocence principle in risk? How to balance it with the burden and standard of proof? Does the asset civil forfeiture procedure imply a criminal charge? The authors sustained the constitutionality of the asset civil forfeiture from a Brazilian perspective, based on three main arguments: First, asset civil forfeiture is based on the non-abused use of property rights constitutional provision. Second, asset civil forfeiture does not imply on or presume a criminal charge. Finally, asset civil forfeiture is not based on the same standard of proof as a criminal proceeding.

The value of this paper is based on its current debate, the regulation of the asset civil forfeiture in Brazil, which is subject of bill 5681/2013 of the Chamber of Deputies and bill 255/2015 of the Federal Senate. The hypothesis is that the property or the possession of illegal assets implies a violation of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which presumes good faith and non-abused use to be legitimated.

The argument is presented that, is contrast to expectations, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000 will not be responsible for significant change in the practice of civil asset forfeiture, that the Act is a sheep in wolf's clothing. While it has ushered in some important procedural changes, CAFRA does not address several of what critics perceive to be the most significant problems associated with civil asset forfeiture, among them are a questionable standard of proof, equitable sharing, and the so‐called “taint doctrine.” Thus, it is likely that civil asset forfeiture will continue to be a valuable law enforcement tool in the war on drugs.

In recent years an emerging global trend of introducing legislation to use civil procedures against criminal assets can be detected. However, these civil forfeiture models, which exist vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This paper seeks to identify issues which need to be considered when such a scheme is being designed and examines the options which have been adopted.

The paper examines the legislative provisions in a number of jurisdictions setting out the common issues which have arisen and the range of options which have attempted as potential solutions.

The paper concludes that jurisdictions which seek to introduce civil forfeiture legislations now have various examples from which to learn but that these models will likely evolve in the face of litigation and experience as legislatures and policymakers attempt to produce fair but effective procedures for the civil recovery of criminal proceeds.

As further jurisdictions respond to this emerging trend and draft their own legislation, there is much to be leant from the issues which others have considered necessary to address and the way in which these issues have been dealt with.

The paper is intended to illustrate the reasons why a legislature contemplating the enactment of a set of comprehensive asset forfeiture statutes to enhance the State's ability to recover the proceeds of crime should include provisions relating to in rem civil forfeiture.

The paper reviews the law‐enforcement situations in which civil forfeiture statutes are essential to the State's ability to recover the proceeds of crime.

The paper concludes that in personam criminal forfeiture statutes, which authorize a court to impose forfeiture as an element of the defendant's sentence in a criminal case, are inadequate, by themselves, to allow the State to recover criminal proceeds, and that in rem civil forfeiture provisions must be included in a legislative scheme for it to be fully effective.

The paper is intended to be of practical value and national legislatures in countries attempting to modernize the law‐enforcement tolls available to them to recover criminal proceeds both domestically and in the global economy.

The paper outlines the reasons why a purely in personam asset forfeiture system that relies on a criminal conviction for the recovery of criminal proceeds in inadequate, and why governments implementing asset forfeiture schemes should make civil in rem forfeiture part of the legislative program.

In November 1998, the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation, a group convened in 1990 to monitor the operation of confiscation and money‐laundering legislation, released its third report, a comprehensive examination of the confiscation and money‐laundering control regimes in England and Wales. The report recommends numerous changes, some of which fill gaps in the present framework and others that radically alter the methods deployed to ensure that criminal profits do not lie secure in the hands of their owners. Previous reports heavily influenced subsequent legislative developments so it is anticipated that this document foreshadows the legislative course to be pursued by the Labour Government in the near future.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the broad concept of forfeiture, its legal positions in the UK and Malaysia, and to highlight the implications of such forfeiture systems and legislations.

This paper uses a doctrinal legal analysis and secondary data, which analyses primary sources, the POCA (2002) and the AMLATFA 2001, and secondary sources including case law, articles in academic journals, books and online databases.

The authors contend that the civil forfeiture system and law have far-reaching implications, affecting not only law enforcement agencies, but also on property owners, the courts and bona fide third parties. Also, civil forfeiture law as contained in AMLATFA 2001 represents one of the most serious encroachments on private property rights. Not only that, such a legal rule has made property, and not the owner, guilty until proven innocent.

This paper could be a useful source of information for practitioners, academicians and students. It could also be a beneficial guide for policymakers for any possible future amendments to the law.

The purpose of the paper is to trace the historical foundations of forfeiture from antiquity to its migration into early criminal law statutes. From there the discussion turns to gaps in the law that gained recognition with the emergence of globalized economies and the development of technologies that allowed illicit wealth to be moved transnationally with ease and stealth. The balance of the paper will give an overview of the countermeasures taken in response to these gaps. The paper concludes with comment on the recent spread of non-conviction-based asset forfeiture laws and the practical use to which these laws can be put in relation to the tracing, seizing and forfeiture of illicitly acquired wealth.

The paper opted for a historical legal review of the development of forfeiture laws in common law jurisdictions.

The paper traces the development of the origins of forfeiture in the common law. It lays out the original compensatory objectives of forfeiture and its eventual migration into the criminal law. The paper describes how non-conviction-based asset forfeiture has evolved in modern times as a response to gaps in the criminal law that have been exposed by the pernicious aspects of globalized economies and the ease with which electronic intangible assets can be moved and beneficial ownership obscured.

This paper provides an overview of the origins of forfeiture law and traces the use and adaptation of that law as an emerging and effective response to transnational money laundering.

Civil forfeiture is an increasingly common way for governments to relieve criminal wrongdoers of the proceeds of their crimes and to restore the property to the victims of the offense. The question that is asked, however, is this: Is civil forfeiture an essential tool that is needed to fill a gap in the arsenal of weapons available to law enforcement or is it a prosecutorial shortcut that allows cases to be closed without obtaining the evidence needed to obtain a criminal conviction in cases that should be prosecuted criminally. The answer is that it is both. When properly used, civil forfeiture is an essential tool that provides a means of recovering property, but it is a tool that can also be used to save time and money even though the investment of those resources in bringing a criminal to justice would better serve the public interest. The aim of this paper is to show why this is so.

Analysis of the use of civil forfeiture in the USA.

Civil forfeiture is an essential law enforcement tool.

While undeniably an essential law enforcement tool, civil forfeiture is sometimes used as a shortcut to conserve resources.

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.

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

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.

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

When the physical and psychological wall separating East from West crumbled in 1989, the West preferred and encouraged the substitution of free enterprise. The wall's disappearance left a fertile playground for legitimate, as well as illegitimate, business.