Search results

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.

This paper attempts to clarify and describe the general characteristics of civil forfeiture as a new national and international tool in the fight against organized crime.

The paper analyzes and compares the civil forfeiture legislations of five counties – the USA, Great Britain, Ireland, Bulgaria and Serbia and draws conclusions on the general characteristics of this legal phenomenon.

There are substantial differences between criminal and civil forfeiture which set the latter apart as an independent legal phenomenon. Unfortunately, few countries have effective legislations which regulate this tool for fighting organized crime. The importance of civil forfeiture lies in the fact that it shakes the economic foundations of organized crime using the methods and procedures of civil and administrative law even, in some countries, after the court has issued a verdict of “not guilty”.

The paper stresses the importance of international laws and regulations for the unification and development of national civil forfeiture legislations. The paper proposes that one way to develop civil forfeiture is to strengthen the imperative nature of EU legislation; to present annual reports at national and EU level before the EU Parliament and national parliaments proposing measures for the development and acceleration of the process; to turn CARIN into an EU institution. The paper also emphasizes the importance of the decisions of the Strasbourg court as standards for the application of civil forfeiture legislation.

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.

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 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 aim of this study is to investigate how Nigeria can seek legal assistance on recovery of its stolen assets to reduce corruption and to ensure no sheltered havens for incomes from corruption.

The research adopts a conceptual method by using existing literature with the application of doctrinal legal research technique. The research likewise uses primary and secondary sources of legislations such as legislative provisions, case laws and the provisions of Chapter V of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the process of asset recovery. The study compares the United Kingdom, USA, Hong Kong in China, South Africa and Nigeria proceeds of corruption recovery laws to gain basic legal features that would be beneficial to Nigeria in reforming its anti-corruption laws.

The principle of territorial sovereignty under the international law makes the offence of corruption not punishable outside the jurisdiction of the state where the offence was committed. As a result, some developed states boost their economy with these proceeds and the developing states are impoverished. There is also an allegation of discrepancies in the figures of funds recovered by the anti-corruption agencies. Thus, there is the need for transparency; law on civil forfeiture of proceeds of corruption; bilateral treaties; and mutual legal assistance on investigation, confiscation among countries for tracing and returning of proceeds of corruption.

The estimates of the volume of assets looted from Nigeria vary widely because of the complexity of collecting data on proceeds of corruption as official statistics on proceeds of corruption recovered do not exist as each anti-corruption agency occasionally makes pronouncements on the volume of assets recovered without any breakdown in terms of assets seized, nature of assets and their locations and its values. Such data would aid policymakers to measure the effectiveness of the present assets legislations and to enhance its effectiveness.

Considering the clandestine manners corruption is being committed, it is tasking to correctly evaluate the amount of money stolen so, their economic impacts on the nation’s economy.

Absence of accurate data would aid policymakers to measure the effectiveness of the present assets legislations and to enhance its effectiveness.

The study offers modules on management of proceeds of corruption by establishing “Assets Management Commission” and “Proceeds of Corruption Forfeiture Funds” for reparation of victims’ of corruption. The study suggests the necessity for civil forfeiture of proceeds of corruption, which is presently lacking, and creation of Proceeds of Corruption Recovery and Management Commission to manage such proceeds and advocate establishment of “Proceeds of Corruption Forfeiture Funds” for reparation of victims of corruption.

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 practice of civil in rem forfeiture has roots in ancient codes and commandments. It is found in the common law doctrine of deodand and in the laws of the nomadic agricultural Israelites. In the second section of the Torah or Book of the Law known as the Book of Exodus there are three groups of laws: (1) the Ten Commandments or Decalogue; (2) Ritual Decalogue; and (3) the Book of the Covenant or the Covenant Code. The Covenant Code is thought to be the earliest lengthy codification of primitive law among the Hebrews; it contains detailed laws for all phases of ancient Israelite life: religious, moral, commercial and humanitarian and crime and penalties. Chapter 21 includes the lex talionis or law of retaliation, a stipulated legal punishment appropriate to the injury, and the assignment of in rem.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the applicability and challenges of using asset forfeiture mechanisms in taking away the illicit gains of Somali piracy for ransoms.

The paper presents a desk research on the issue. It is based on analysis of the key principles in the area and relevant literature on the subject.

Asset forfeiture mechanisms can be used to facilitate the seizure of Somali piracy proceeds. It is applicable to those who directly or indirectly benefited from piracy: the foot soldiers, financiers and other beneficiaries. This would enable withdrawal of piracy re-investment capital and hence may act as a disincentive for current and prospective offenders.

For the initiative to work, various states and other actors need to cooperate. However, incentives such as corruption, the personal interests of individuals and states that have benefited from Somali piracy, may make them unwilling to collaborate. This would definitely hinder the implementation and effectiveness of using asset forfeiture.

Much of the literature on Somali piracy for ransoms has focussed on maritime solutions. Further, authors and organisations have advocated for following the money trail. As a result, consideration of the benefits and challenges of doing so needs to be done. This paper seeks to fill this gap.