Search results

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.

Some have argued that organised crime is a problem of the last quarter of the 20th century and in the case of most states is a new phenomenon. Of course, so much depends upon what is meant by organised crime. Groups of individuals formed and managed to perpetrate acts against the law are nothing new. Nor is it novel that the primary motivation of such enterprises is economic gain — spurred on by ‘plain old‐fashioned’ greed and corruption. Banditry, smuggling, racketeering and piracy were just as much a problem for the praetors and the vigils of ancient Rome as they are today for the Italian authorities. What has changed is the criminals' ability to operate beyond the reach of the domestic legal system and, therefore, be able to conduct an enterprise in crime that is not so amenable to the traditional criminal justice system and its agents. Of course, in truth, thinking criminals have always sought to place themselves beyond the reach of the law and it was not just a matter of having a faster horse. Corruption of officials and the patronage of powerful individuals whose interests, for whatever reason, might be at variance with those of the state are tried and tested tools. It has always been recognised that even if as a matter of theory jurisdiction was unfettered, the practicalities are such as to render enforcement parochial. Thus, when Henry II of England was asked towards the end of the 12th century how far his writ ran, he responded ‘as far as my arrows reach’. While developments in ballistic technology might render this a relatively useful approach to dealing with the international criminal, in the vast majority of cases the criminal law in its application, or at least administration, will be confined within domestic borders. Developments in technology, communication, travel and the liberalisation of movement, whether of persons, things or wealth, have all combined to give the criminal enterprise of today the same ability as any other business to move from one jurisdiction to another, or involve in a single act two or more different jurisdictions.

Organised crime groups, in particular drug traffickers, generate considerable amounts of money from their criminal activities. Over the last two decades jurisdictions around the world have therefore put in place confiscation and forfeiture legislation designed to remove such criminal gains. The Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office, in its report entitled ‘Recovering the Proceeds of Crime’, has now recommended that a national confiscation agency (NCA) for England and Wales be established, the functions of which will include the institution of civil forfeiture proceedings and the application of the taxation legislation to the proceeds of criminal activity. If enacted, this will essentially provide a threefold strategy designed to remove criminal gains. First, where the evidence permits, the individual may be prosecuted for criminal offences and, upon conviction, a confiscation order may be sought against him. Secondly, if the evidence is not sufficient for criminal prosecution, the individual may have civil forfeiture proceedings instituted against him to deprive him of the illgotten gains, seeking to prove on the balance of probabilities that the property in his possession is, directly or indirectly, the proceeds of crime. Thirdly, if an individual can be shown to have received income during a particular period which the authorities suspect, but have insufficient evidence to prove, is the proceeds of crime, then they may apply the tax legislation to that income and raise a tax assessment against him.

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.

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 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.

‘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.’

This paper aims to develop a utility maximising framework for criminal behaviour and to consider a Markowitz‐type utility function, centred at current wealth, for a representative criminal.

The paper takes the form of a conceptual discussion.

The Kahneman‐Tversky value function form seems to be consistent with the current empirical evidence, expressed mainly as the ratio of certain elasticities. The criminal's optimal level of crime is obtained and comparative statics derived to help suggest how crime might be controlled.

Empirical work is encouraged to elicit the utility function of a representative criminal in this analytical framework, to ascertain if crime is a favourable bet and if it could indeed be Giffen.

The solution shown in the paper involves an upper limit on the odds against detection of the criminal and it is shown that a distinct possibility is that crime is a Giffen commodity.

Law enforcement agencies as well as governments have made major efforts to deprive criminal organisations of their illegal gains, however, especially, if not exclusively when the gains result from drug trafficking. However, this seems be a very limited view and approach, neglecting other criminal gains of the same or even higher importance. Arguably, one of the greatest proportions of concealed wealth from the proceeds of crime is as a result of economic or financial crime, including duty and tax evasion.

The purpose of this paper is to focus upon organized criminals as an enterprising community and as enterprising people. Organized crime is a global phenomenon that concentrates upon the development of both sustainable personal prosperity and criminal culture as they define it. Such criminal businesses and the business of criminality go far beyond simple economic and capitalist criteria and entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ability play a significant part in creating criminal wealth. Indeed, it is part of committed criminality. Whilst acknowledging the crime‐entrepreneurship nexus the literature seldom seeks to understand entrepreneurial behaviour practiced in a criminal context. This paper therefore examines entrepreneurial behaviour in criminals looking for useful theoretical perspectives and distilling key practices by seeking to understand entrepreneurial behaviour in organized criminals.

The methodological approach is a qualitative one and relies on cross disciplinary readings of the literatures of crime and entrepreneurship which are developed into a conceptual model for understanding entrepreneurial behaviour in any context. The key behavioural areas which the work concentrates upon are those of modus essendi, modus operandi and modus vivendi.

That crime and entrepreneurship are interconnected areas of human endeavour which both transcend the legal and illegal economies.

The paper is limited by its tentative and theoretical nature and by the methodology of cross disciplinary reading. Future studies are planned to test the tripartite behavioural model on real cases.

Viewing entrepreneurship (like criminality) as being a learned method of operating has serious practical implications because it concentrates upon behaviours and actions in specific contexts.

Linking this understanding to the related elements of modus vivendi and modus essendi creates a useful model for understanding entrepreneurship in any context.