Search results

The rise of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets has triggered concerns about regulation and security. Governments and regulatory bodies are challenged to create frameworks that protect consumers, combat money laundering and address risks linked to digital assets. Conventional approaches to confiscation and anti-money laundering are deemed insufficient in this evolving landscape. The absence of a central authority and the use of encryption hinder the identification of asset owners and the tracking of illicit activities. Moreover, the international and cross-border nature of digital assets complicates matters, demanding global coordination. The purpose of this study is to highlight that the effective combat of money laundering, legislative action, innovative investigative techniques and public–private partnerships are crucial.

The focal point of this paper is Australia’s approach to law enforcement in the realm of digital assets. It underscores the pivotal role of robust confiscation mechanisms in disrupting criminal networks operating through digital means. The paper firmly asserts that staying ahead of the curve and maintaining an agile stance is paramount. Criminals are quick to embrace emerging technologies, necessitating proactive measures from policymakers and law enforcement agencies.

It is argued that an agile and comprehensive approach is vital in countering money laundering, as criminals adapt to new technologies. Policymakers and law enforcement agencies must remain proactively ahead of these developments to efficiently identify, trace and seize digital assets involved in illicit activities, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the global financial system.

This paper provides a distinctive perspective by examining Australia’s legal anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing framework, along with its law enforcement strategies within the realm of the digital asset landscape. While there is a plethora of literature on both asset confiscation and digital assets, there is a noticeable absence of exploration into their interplay, especially within the Australian context.

The purpose of this paper is to paint a general picture of the asset confiscation regimes used in Europe and to outline potential challenges, practical and related to issues of principle, associated with the current development with regard to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime and criminals’ proceeds.

The paper endeavours to analyse the various steps of the confiscation process, and the various approaches to the confiscation of proceeds of crime and criminals’ proceeds from a holistic perspective. The findings of the paper are based on a literature review along with a legal analysis of the existent legal frameworks.

It is suggested that the efficiency of asset confiscation should be looked at from a holistic perspective involving the entire confiscation process, and not only focus on the confiscation powers awarded to the courts. Challenges relating to efficiency exist along the entire process, from the stage of financial investigations to the enforcement stage. Some of the methods used for confiscating criminal proceeds are becoming very far-reaching and raise concerns related to basic principles of criminal law and criminal procedural law.

This paper is not based on empirical research relating to, for example, the efficiency of confiscation. More empirical research would, however, be welcome in this field.

The paper suggests that the efficiency of asset confiscation is contingent on the entire confiscation chain functioning efficiently. Before new and more repressive measures are introduced, the existing legal framework should be fully deployed and the concrete needs for new tools clearly delineated.

The paper analyses confiscation with a view to the entire chain rather than merely looking at a particular confiscation scheme.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Vietnamese laws and practices concerning the confiscation of proceeds of crime, especially in view of Vietnam’s obligations to meet the international standards on money laundering and terrorist financing, set by the Financial Action Task Force and relevant international conventions that Vietnam ratified. To limit the scope of this paper, the analysis focuses on the confiscation of proceeds of domestic crimes that do not require international legal assistance. This paper concludes with recommendations for improving the legal framework on criminal asset recovery in Vietnam.

This is a doctrinal study that considers the applicable legal framework. This study is supported by brief case studies of major cases involving the confiscation of proceeds of crime.

Vietnam has a functioning asset confiscation regime but gaps in the law, lack of financial investigation expertise and lack of focused investigative attention on asset preservation and confiscation are hampering its effectiveness. The key gaps can easily be closed with appropriate amendments to the law. These reforms should be combined with a dedicated skills development program to produce sufficient number of financial investigation experts and criminal asset management experts to support the regime. The training should extend to judicial officers to ensure an appropriate understanding of the asset confiscation law. Reforms such as these should follow on a comprehensive review of Vietnam’s law and practices relating to the confiscation and forfeiture of criminal assets. This review should extend to assets linked to the financing of terrorism and proliferation to ensure that Vietnam has a comprehensive regime to deal with criminal assets.

This paper draws on publicly available information regarding the confiscation of proceeds of crime in Vietnam. Little data is available on asset confiscation and that prevents an in-depth assessment of the regime.

This paper highlights gaps in the current asset confiscation regime and proposes reforms and approaches that will ensure a more effective asset confiscation regime for Vietnam.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the strengths and weaknesses of a new European Union (EU) initiative attempting an interesting paradigm shift in the field of cross-border asset freezing and confiscation. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and lessons learned from the manifest failure of past EU initiatives (Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2006/783/JHA) have allowed for such a paradigm shift for the strengthening of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU.

This paper draws on reports, legal scholarship and other open source data to examine a legislative innovation for the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU.

The EU legislative initiative that will be examined is innovative in nature and goes beyond international norms on cross-border asset freezing and confiscation. The new initiative needs to be integrated into the broader EU framework that targets criminal proceeds, and at the same time, to be anchored to respect for human rights.

This study examines the strengths and weaknesses of an important new EU initiative, its compatibility with human rights standards and its relationship to international standards of cross-border asset freezing and confiscation.

Using Bulgarian legislation on civil confiscation and analysing the nature of the substantive authority to confiscate unexplained wealth, as well as evaluating research in common and continental law, this paper aims to seek historic parallels for non-punitive civil confiscation of unexplained wealth.

The design of this paper is centred on determining whether the substantive authority of the state to confiscate unexplained wealth has a Roman law equivalent. Conducting a review of key elements of the substantive authority for the action in Bulgaria, the research examines the validity of the hypothesis that the right to confiscate has a Roman law equivalent.

The research supports the position that the substantive authority to seek civil confiscation relief in Bulgaria has its origin in the overarching principle of unjustified enrichment in Roman law. Considering needed adjustments related to the developed demarcation between public and private law in contemporary law, the action to confiscate unexplained wealth in civil proceedings in the case study jurisdiction has its equivalent in the Roman condictio furtiva.

This paper sheds light on the theoretical basis for civil asset confiscation of unexplained wealth in one continental law jurisdiction, thus contributing to the on-going debate on the compatibility of civil confiscation of unexplained wealth with the continental law tradition.

This study aims to understand the member countries’ current asset recovery mechanism based on two elements, namely, confiscation policy and asset recovery management framework.

Content analysis was performed on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Mutual Evaluation Report (MER) of eight countries.

The result showed that only a few countries established a centralised asset recovery centre or special task force to manage recovered assets.

This study is limited to information mentioned in the FATF MER.

This study highlights the need to have a centralised asset recovery management centre as an initiative to improve the outcome of money laundering investigations. The study findings will benefit regulators to understand further the practical challenges of the asset recovery mechanism for future improvement.

FATF recommends that each country establish a centralised asset recovery centre and work closely with the investigating officers and prosecutors in deciding on assets confiscation. However, the implementation is contingent on their local environment and resources at the member countries’ discretion. Therefore, this study aimed to understand the member countries’ current asset recovery mechanism based on two elements, namely confiscation policy and asset recovery management framework.

Recent developments in the EU’s anti-corruption strategy have brought the EU closer to meeting the UNCAC’s objectives, i.e. the Proposal for a Directive on combating corruption (2023) and the Proposal for a Directive on Asset Recovery and Confiscation (2022). This paper aims to discuss these developments from the perspective of the UNCAC, to identify missing elements in the EU’s asset recovery mechanisms.

Critical approach towards EU anti-corruption policy (discussing the problems and solutions). Review of EU developments in asset recovery law.

There is a political will on the part of the EU to fight corruption through the rules enshrined in the UNCAC. However, improving EU law by introducing a new type of confiscation of unexplained wealth and criminalising illicit enrichment, without establishing convergent rules for the return of corrupt assets from EU territory to the countries of origin, cannot be seen as sufficient action to achieve the UNCAC’s objectives. In modelling mechanisms of the return of assets, the EU should search for solutions to overcome the difficulties resulting from the ordre public clause remaining a significant factor conditioning mutual legal assistance.

This paper discusses the possible input of the EU, as a non-State Party to the UNCAC, to advance implementing the UNCAC solutions on asset recovery by establishing convergent rules for the return of corrupt assets from EU territory to countries of origin.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how effective the four mechanisms of UK criminal asset recovery are – confiscation, cash forfeiture, civil recovery and taxation – and whether they, or their application, might be enhanced.

The paper draws on both the author's own practical experience of involvement in criminal asset recovery in the UK, and other published material in the field.

While an increasing amount is being recovered from criminals by the various agencies involved in the recovery of criminal assets, there is clearly more that can be achieved with the tools provided. In order to do so, there requires to be change at a number of levels, including legislative, structural and cultural.

The paper identifies a number of challenges, which need to be met if asset forfeiture is to fulfil its potential to reduce crime.

The paper combines a strategic overview as to whether the mechanisms of asset recovery are accomplishing what they are designed to do with a practitioner's grasp of what is occurring at a practical level.

This study aims at elaborating whether the criminalization of illicit enrichment has the potential to be an efficient and well-balanced measure against profiting from serious crime.

This study offers a normative analysis of the concept of the criminalization of illicit enrichment, particularly from the perspective of the presumption of innocence. This paper supplements theoretical considerations using Lithuania, where illicit enrichment was criminalized a decade ago, as a case study. It analyses data of all 28 known criminal cases on illicit enrichment that resulted in judgements in Lithuania in 2015–2019.

The author concludes that on neither a fundamental nor practical level can the assumption that the criminalization of illicit enrichment efficiently carries out the task for which it was created be supported. Moreover, efforts to implement this legal strategy might unbalance the system of illicit asset recovery measures and obstruct the implementation of other promising legal instruments.

As very few states with developed democracy and strong rule of law traditions have implemented criminalization of illicit enrichment, there are very few if any empirical data or analysis of practices on this issue that could contribute to the theoretical discussion. This paper aims at contributing to fulfillment of this gap by presenting relevant data and insights from the perspective of Lithuanian criminal justice system.

This paper aims to look at the case of Italy, which clearly stands out in its relationship with organised crime. The recognition that money is the “lifeblood” of OC has resulted in the implementation of what we can refer to as the anti-money laundering (AML) regime, which backs the systematic targeting of mafia assets and the application of severe obstacles to the concealment of dirty money through increased financial surveillance. This paper discusses the financialisation of counter-mafia strategies, with the purpose of questioning the extent to which this system has been delivering what it promised.

The paper is divided into three chapters. The first chapter looks at the relationship between Italian mafia and dirty money. The second chapter discusses the rationale and pillars of the AML regime. Finally, the last section examines and discusses recent evidence of the outcome of AML policies, by looking at figures as reported by relevant entities, such as the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), Europol, the Italian Ministry of Interior and the Direzione Investigativa Anti-Mafia (DIA).

Evidence suggests that financial surveillance, the first pillar of the AML regime, is much costlier than it is beneficial to society. Reporting of suspicions has rocketed in the past years, bringing very little change to yearly ML convictions, and being only marginally helpful in mafia-related investigations, confiscations and arrests. The confiscation of assets from mafia members, i.e. the second pillar of the AML regime, has proven to be effective in gaining control over large sums and goods. However, more research is needed around the question of confiscated asset-management and desirable re-investment opportunities.

As the AML regime gains in prominence internationally, it is of great value to assess its achievements so far. This is especially true of a country like Italy, which suffers from a long-standing mafia dominance. This paper represents a modest initial inquiry, which will hopefully be complemented by future research to come to an in-depth understanding of the value and limitations of an AML regime in fighting OC.