Search results

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.

This comparison has been prepared in an effort to assist practitioners when confronted with the main confiscation provisions of legislation as it applies to crime and also to drug trafficking.

‘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.’

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 title of this paper immediately raises a number of issues. Is there such an entity as ‘the proceeds of crime community’? If such an entity exists, can it be ‘managed’? What role does knowledge play in the community? This paper attempts to explore such issues, with particular reference to the field of financial investigation. It does so in the light of the report entitled ‘Recovering the Proceeds of Crime’, published by the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office, which was tasked with considering how effective the removal of criminal assets was in tackling crime and assessing whether more should be done, and which, it is submitted, largely represents the distilled knowledge of the proceeds of crime community.

In 1996 the Irish legislature (the Oireacthas) enacted radical legislation as part of a new initiative to deal with organised crime, and with it a specialist agency, called the Criminal Assets Bureau, to enforce the new provisions. In proposing the new measures the Minister for Finance said:

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.

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 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.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the background and significance of criminalization of self-money laundering in China and to analyze its application in judicial practice.

This paper introduces the international and domestic background of the criminalization of self-money laundering, demonstrates the theoretical basis and practical significance of the changes of Article 191 in the 11th amendment to the criminal law and puts forward solutions to some controversial issues in judicial practice.

The 11th amendment to the Criminal Law, which came into force in March 2021, criminalizes self-money laundering under Article 191 and has brought an impact on the traditional theory of criminal law. There are no similar amendments to the other two crimes, namely, Article 312 and Article 349, which lead to some confusion in the judicial practice, especially in the understanding of the number of crimes, and the meaning of proceeds of crime. This paper puts forward solutions to some controversial issues in judicial practice.

This paper introduces the criminalization of self-money laundering in the 11th amendment to the criminal law in China, presents a comprehensive description of and comments on the difference between the Article 191 and its similar articles, namely, Article 312 and Article 349, to make a well understanding in the application of law in judicial practice, which would be beneficial to theoretical researchers and judicial professionals.