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.

Explore perspective from Sri Lanka on unexplained wealth and why it should be taken as a pivotal measure to fight corruption in the society.

Qualitative and referenced work to explain the viewpoint.

The prevailing political will in achieving goals to fight economic crime is questionable. The entire society has a role to play when fighting corruption, which is not only limited to regulators, bribery commissions and the state sector. Private sector and individual voices in the society, including whistle blowers, could play a leading role in combating cases of unexplained wealth.

This study highlights political corruption in Sri Lanka with a unique viewpoint connecting political lobbying and unexplained wealth.

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.

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 purpose of this paper is to examine the anti-corruption performance of the Philippine government, particularly under the leadership of President Benigno Aquino III.

The paper evaluates the anti-corruption measures as represented by pertinent laws as well as anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) under the Aquino administration.

The Aquino government has exercised remarkable political will in acting on high-profile cases involving former government officials, including former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. However, the government’s overall anti-corruption performance is hampered by outdated and conflicting laws, lack of compliance with anti-corruption laws and regulations by public officials and employees, poor ACA operational capacities, judicial inefficiency, deficient organizational systems and change-resistant government agencies, and selective and partial enforcement of anti-corruption laws. These problems are characteristic of Philippine political administrations and are arguably rooted in a system long characterized by fragile state institutions, strong oligarchic control, and weak citizenship.

The paper is intended to update scholars, policy makers, and anti-corruption practitioners interested in corruption, ACA performance, and political reform in the Philippines. It discusses corruption-related problems of public administration within the purview of political economy. Based on this perspective, it argues that the key to effective control of corruption is a change in the political system’s configuration rather than the mere change in leadership.

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 examine money laundering generally and the response of one jurisdiction, the Philippines, to international pressure for anti‐money laundering measures.

Money laundering is examined and described. The source of international consensus around the problem is considered. The multilateral response, including the pressure placed on the Philippines as a formerly non‐compliant jurisdiction is examined. The initial measures of the Philippines were rejected. Finally the Philippine solutions that ultimately met with international approval are discussed: the establishment of a financial intelligence unit, the regulation of financial intermediaries and the provision of criminal and remedial measures are considered. Civil or non‐conviction based forfeiture as a remedial device is given particular attention. Finally the limited jurisprudence on topic is examined.

The Republic of the Philippines has put forward anti‐money laundering provisions that hold the prospect for success. Implementation will be challenging.

Jurisprudence is still developing. This type of litigation takes time. As the financial investigation unit, the intermediaries and the courts respond to cases, there will be developments worthy of further research.

This paper looks at an international problem, money laundering, the multi‐lateral response (only Nigeria and Myanmar are non‐compliant) and the impact on the Philippines, their financial institutions and laws.

There is no comprehensive overview of the Philippine anti‐money laundering law currently available. There is a book published out of Manila (quoted in the paper) but it is out of date and has not caught up to recent developments.

Using Bulgarian legislation on civil confiscation and analysing the nature of the substantive authority to confiscate unexplained wealth, as well as evaluating research in common and continental law, this paper aims to seek historic parallels for non-punitive civil confiscation of unexplained wealth.

The design of this paper is centred on determining whether the substantive authority of the state to confiscate unexplained wealth has a Roman law equivalent. Conducting a review of key elements of the substantive authority for the action in Bulgaria, the research examines the validity of the hypothesis that the right to confiscate has a Roman law equivalent.

The research supports the position that the substantive authority to seek civil confiscation relief in Bulgaria has its origin in the overarching principle of unjustified enrichment in Roman law. Considering needed adjustments related to the developed demarcation between public and private law in contemporary law, the action to confiscate unexplained wealth in civil proceedings in the case study jurisdiction has its equivalent in the Roman condictio furtiva.

This paper sheds light on the theoretical basis for civil asset confiscation of unexplained wealth in one continental law jurisdiction, thus contributing to the on-going debate on the compatibility of civil confiscation of unexplained wealth with the continental law tradition.

Using harmonized wealth data and a novel decomposition approach in this literature, we show that cohort effects exist in the income profiles of asset and debt portfolios for a sample of European countries, the United States, and Canada. We find that the association between household wealth portfolios at the intensive margin (the level of assets) and household characteristics is different from that found at the extensive margin (the decision to own). Characteristics explain most of the cross-country differences in asset and debt levels, except for housing wealth, which displays large unexplained differences for both the under-50 and over-50 populations. However, there are cohort differences in the drivers of wealth levels. We observe that younger households’ levels of wealth, given participation, may be more responsive to the institutional setting than mature households. Our findings have important implications, indicating a scope for policies which can promote or redirect investment in housing for both cohorts and which promote optimal portfolio allocation for mature households.

This paper aims to answer three questions: Is the presumption of innocence principle in risk? How to balance it with the burden and standard of proof? Does the asset civil forfeiture procedure imply a criminal charge? These are the main constitutional issues that have hampered the processing of, and consensus regarding, the regulation of the asset civil forfeiture in Brazil, the subject of bill 5681/2013 of the Chamber of Deputies and bill 255/2015 of the Federal Senate. The hypothesis is that the property or the possession of illegal assets implies a violation of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which presumes good faith and non-abused use to be legitimated. This study intends to enrich this discussion with the current American debate, its main lessons and concerns to individual procedural safeguards.

There are some questions that should be addressed: Is the presumption of innocence principle in risk? How to balance it with the burden and standard of proof? Does the asset civil forfeiture procedure imply a criminal charge? Thus, this paper aims to discuss these questions, which are the main constitutional issues that have hampered the processing of, and consensus regarding, the regulation of the asset civil forfeiture in Brazil, the subject of bill 5681/2013 of the Chamber of Deputies and bill 255/2015 of the Federal Senate. The hypothesis is that the property or the possession of illegal assets implies a violation of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which presumes good faith and non-abused use to be legitimated. This study intends to enrich this analysis with the current American debate about asset civil forfeiture provisions, its main lessons and concerns to individual procedural safeguards.

This paper focused on answering three questions: Is the presumption of innocence principle in risk? How to balance it with the burden and standard of proof? Does the asset civil forfeiture procedure imply a criminal charge? The authors sustained the constitutionality of the asset civil forfeiture from a Brazilian perspective, based on three main arguments: First, asset civil forfeiture is based on the non-abused use of property rights constitutional provision. Second, asset civil forfeiture does not imply on or presume a criminal charge. Finally, asset civil forfeiture is not based on the same standard of proof as a criminal proceeding.

The value of this paper is based on its current debate, the regulation of the asset civil forfeiture in Brazil, which is subject of bill 5681/2013 of the Chamber of Deputies and bill 255/2015 of the Federal Senate. The hypothesis is that the property or the possession of illegal assets implies a violation of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which presumes good faith and non-abused use to be legitimated.