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.

Supporting the international fight against drug trafficking and serious crime is hard to contest; it is like being in favour of family values. Likewise, therefore, the fight against money laundering, ie burying or disguising the financial proceeds of those activities, including helping someone else to do so. The real and potential long‐term damage to societies, honest government, the rule of law and sound economies is now well recognised. But, on closer inspection, the route mapped out by the international community to achieve the laudable goal of putting serious criminals (and those who assist them) out of business by attacking the financial jugular causes a number of political, economic and legal tensions.

The purpose of this paper is to reconsider, from a historical perspective, New Zealand’s reputation as a country largely without corruption, with particular reference to the colonial government’s confiscation of Māori land in the 19^th century and beyond.

This paper is based on published historical commentary.

The findings are that much of the Māori land confiscation was rendered legal for illegitimate purposes, and that the colonial and successive New Zealand governments abrogated the country’s foundational document, the Treaty of Waitangi, signed between the colonial government and many Māori chiefs in 1840. Adverse consequences for Māori have been felt to this day, despite the Treaty settlements process that began with the Māori renaissance in the mid-1970s.

The academic analysis of corruption in New Zealand has seldom if ever adopted this historical perspective.

Corporate foreign bribery can have devastating consequences on communities and states. Over the past decade, there have been several promising developments, both national and international, that might increase the chances of victim states to receive remediation for the harm they suffered from foreign bribery. In particular, awareness has risen that victim states must be considered and new innovative items have been added to the toolbox of prosecutors in the fight against corruption that is assumed to also improve victim states’ standing in these procedures. This study aims to assess whether indeed victim states receive compensation through these novel procedures.

This study uses the three case studies of Switzerland, France and England and Wales for a comprehensive empirical and normative analysis of settlement agreements between defendants and prosecution authorities and of court jurisprudence.

This study shows that although de jure, it seems warranted to order the payment of remedies to victim states within domestic criminal proceedings, in practice, this rarely happens. A number of legal and practical obstacles account for this situation. This study, therefore, calls for the formulation of international guidelines containing the obligation to inform victim states of ongoing criminal proceedings on corporate foreign bribery, and guidance on how to identify the victim of this crime, as well as the damage caused.

This is the first contribution to verify whether claims that settlement agreements, recently introduced in England and Wales and France (and similar procedures are available in Switzerland), are beneficial for victim states in their quest to receive compensation. As this study shows that this is – not yet – the case in practice, this study proposes solutions that could lead the way for remediation of the harm caused by corporate corruption – and thereby, ultimately, to a more just outcome.

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.

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 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.’

The purpose of this paper is to explore how effective the four mechanisms of UK criminal asset recovery are – confiscation, cash forfeiture, civil recovery and taxation – and whether they, or their application, might be enhanced.

The paper draws on both the author's own practical experience of involvement in criminal asset recovery in the UK, and other published material in the field.

While an increasing amount is being recovered from criminals by the various agencies involved in the recovery of criminal assets, there is clearly more that can be achieved with the tools provided. In order to do so, there requires to be change at a number of levels, including legislative, structural and cultural.

The paper identifies a number of challenges, which need to be met if asset forfeiture is to fulfil its potential to reduce crime.

The paper combines a strategic overview as to whether the mechanisms of asset recovery are accomplishing what they are designed to do with a practitioner's grasp of what is occurring at a practical level.