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.

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.

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.

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 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.

This paper aims to analyse the Spanish confiscation regulation considering the specialised literature as well as the relevant case law.

The Spanish confiscation regulation and the practical application is discussed in this paper.

The paper shows the shortfalls in the regulation with regards to Spain's international obligations and the inconsistencies in the judicial application of the legislation, which limit the possibilities of putting a stop to criminal activity centring on obtaining huge profits.

The paper focuses exclusively on the general Spanish confiscation regulation, dispensing with compared analysis. Only Spanish literature is used.

The paper provides readers of other nationalities a complete overview of the matter.

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.

‘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 investigate how accounting is used to disguise and carry out money laundering activities in specific socio-economic and political contexts and whether discretionary accruals can provide evidence of such illicit practices performed through legally registered Mafia firms (LMFs).

The study is based on a sample of 224 Italian firms identified as LMFs, due to having been confiscated by judicial authorities because of their owners being accused of Mafia-type association. Using a multivariate regression model, specifically developed discretionary accrual proxies for LMFs are compared with those of a population of lawful firms (LWFs).

The results reveal that in the pre-confiscation years, LMFs manage aggregate, revenue and expense accruals more than LWFs do, in order to smooth earnings and disguise/carry out money laundering. In contrast, in the post-confiscation years, there is no significant difference in the level of accrual management between LMFs and LWFs, as a consequence of the effective intervention of legal administrators.

This study adopts discretionary revenue and expense accrual proxies that provide additional insight into the simultaneous manipulation of revenues and expenses, linked to money laundering, which may not be fully detected by traditional aggregate accrual models. Furthermore, it suggests that the incentive for LMFs to manage accruals may be fostered by the irrelevance of their financial statements to trades with stakeholders. Finally, this paper may provide regulators with financial accounting signals which could be included in risk assessment models aiming to detect money laundering activities within firms.

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.