Search results

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 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.

‘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.’

For just over a decade now, it has been a principle enshrined in UK legislation that a criminal should not be allowed to retain the proceeds of his offences. The main impetus was the theory that if crime genuinely did not pay, there would be no incentive to commit it and therefore that the confiscation of the proceeds would prove a greater deterrent than a mere sentence of imprisonment. There was also the view, strongly supported by the public, that those who commit serious crimes should not be able simply to sit out a given length of time in prison certain in the knowledge that when they came out, they could look forward to a comfortable existence on their ill‐gotten gains.

As a dynamic business and financial centre, the Republic of Cyprus is called upon to protect its economy and society from money laundering and criminal infiltration. To address these risks, the Republic of Cyprus has developed a comprehensive legal framework in compliance with the relevant international and EU standards. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the legislative tools for tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of crime in the Republic of Cyprus with special reference to their strengths, weaknesses and compatibility with the relevant international and EU norms.

This paper draws on legal scholarship, jurisprudence, reports and other open source data to analyse important legislative developments in Cyprus in the fields of tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of crime.

The legislative developments that will be examined are Law 188(I)/2007, and its recent amendments which effectively target the proceeds of crime in Cyprus. Despite some weaknesses, the legislative provisions in Cyprus are compatible with international and EU norms on tracing, freezing and confiscation, while they promote international and EU cooperation in these domains.

Since the amendments of Law 188(I)/2007 came into force, this has been, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first comprehensive study examining the strengths and weaknesses of the legislative framework on asset tracing, freezing and confiscation, as well as its compatibility with international and EU standards.

‘Q. Why the Caymans? You could have gone anywhere. You had a lot of money. You could have gone to Paris, the Bahamas?

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.

We conclude in Chapter One that an English criminal court is unlikely to have jurisdiction to try foreign public officials for grand corruption as their wrongful conduct would have taken place overseas.

Over the last two decades in particular, national legislatures have passed legislation aimed at ensuring that criminals do not profit from crime. This has been in response to the rise of organised crime and to the massive amounts of money being generated, in particular, by drug trafficking. It has been an attempt to destroy ‘the heart of the monster, its financial base’. This paper seeks to demonstrate that the proceeds of crime response by national governments can be perceived as evolving through a series of different models, thus allowing a comparative approach amongst different jurisdictions. Each model is composed of elements from three different strands: money‐laundering legislation, confiscation legislation and organisational structures and arrangements. These strands have each gone through their own evolution, which will now be examined.