Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the benefits and challenges, on the national and international level, associated with the settlement of cases involving non-conviction civil confiscation of unexplained wealth.

This paper is centered on evaluation of key aspects of settlement of civil confiscation of unexplained wealth cases. Conducting a review of settlement of confiscation cases and of non-conviction-based unexplained wealth regimes, this research evaluates the validity of the lead thesis.

Settlement of civil asset confiscation of unexplained wealth cases presents several challenges that call for mitigation.

This paper emphasizes the theoretical and practical issues on the national and international level related to settlement of cases involving non-conviction-based civil asset confiscation of unexplained wealth, with recommendations for development of legal principles for non-conviction based civil asset 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.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the unexplained wealth inside the corporation and to initiate and apply unexplained wealth order in the Indonesian corporation based on the Indonesian legal system and prevailing laws. An effective tool needs to be implemented because of the facts that numerous corporate illegal activities lead to economic and financial crime. Meanwhile, there are difficulties to implement the corporate criminal liability. Non-conviction-based asset forfeiture will be a way out to deal with the current condition.

This paper explores and analyzes the Indonesian legal system, particularly a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture for corporate illegal activities. This paper is based on the research paper conducted with the legal normative approach.

Non-conviction-based asset forfeiture through unexplained wealth order will be an effective tool and a revolutionary pattern in the crime prevention perspective dealing with corporate crime. Corporate criminal liability in anti-corruption regime can be viewed from two perspectives by combining and integrating crime prevention approach as well as the repressive approach. The Indonesian Supreme Court Regulation number 13 of 2016 is a breakthrough in the criminal justice system to redesign case handling procedure toward corporate crime. It needs to be supported by precise asset forfeiture law. Furthermore it is necessity to strengthening and built corporations with moral and ethical business values.

This paper can be a source to explore the unexplained wealth that can occur in the corporation and the way to overcome it through unexplained wealth order and non-conviction-based asset forfeiture.

This paper contributes by initiating a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture, which is implementing the in rem proceeding, to make sure the crime does not pay and the victim and society suffer less because of the corporate crime.

This paper aims to focus on the use of unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) in South Africa as a civil method to act upon lifestyle audit results that have indicated wealth from unknown, possibly unlawful, sources.

This paper applied a comparative methodology. Legislation and the application of UWOs in Ireland, the UK and Australia were compared with the situation in South Africa.

It is proposed that South Africa includes UWO legislation within its Prevention of Organised Crime Act or be established as a separate piece of legislation. Also, South Africa should follow both the civil and criminal route to target the proceeds of crime.

Corruption in South Africa is rampant and, without the necessary legislation, impossible to fight. For these purposes, this paper proposes measures to be used from a civil forfeiture perspective.

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.

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.

‘It is incorrect to view the recovery of the profits of unlawful activity as a part of the criminal justice process and, as such, justifiable only on the basis of a prior finding of guilt according to the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.’

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 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.

This paper aims to explain the reasons for the introduction of unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) in Trinidad and Tobago and highlights potential obstacles to implementation.

The research is based on secondary sources. The Civil Asset Recovery and management and Unexplained Wealth Act (CARAMAUWA) (2019) and relevant reports were reviewed.

The CARAMAUWA provides two potentially powerful tools to confiscate the proceeds of crime. However, the UWOs have greater potential. Effective implementation will require adequate human and financial resources, as well as measures to reduce corruption.

The CARAMAUWA became operational on 14 June 2019 so it was not possible to assess actual implementation.

UWO is a useful tool for controlling money laundering.

Effective control of money laundering can reduce crime.

No other study has examined the reasons for the introduction of the UWO in Trinidad and Tobago and the potential challenges to implementation.