Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to present and analyse the issues with which Lithuania is faced through its introduction of a modern legal mechanism for a more efficient confiscation of the proceeds of crime – the criminalization of illicit enrichment.

The paper analyses issues raised in the Constitutional Court of Lithuania concerning the constitutionality of the country’s Criminal Code, as amended, by means of which illicit enrichment has been criminalized. Then, developments in and statistics for prosecutions and convictions for illicit enrichment are presented, and the legal issues that have been raised in the practice of the higher courts of Lithuania are analysed.

The concept of the criminalization of illicit enrichment proves to be less promising than that of civil forfeiture. First, it is contentious in the context of proportionality and ultima ratio. Second, it may infringe upon the prohibition of self-incrimination. Third, it appears that collecting sufficient evidence of illicit enrichment on the criminal standard of proof is an extremely difficult task for the prosecution.

Lithuania was the first European Union Member State to introduce general criminal liability for illicit enrichment. This analysis of the five years since the implementation of the enabling legislation should provide useful insights for the other countries considering introducing modern legal instruments to bring about a more effective control of illicit enrichment, as well as inspire additional, vital deliberation on the matter.