Explore the vast range of titles available.

The paper discusses the problem of non-recognition of civil confiscation orders in Europe. Despite the breakthrough in international cooperation in the freezing and confiscation of crime proceeds in the criminal law domain, the formal approach in some European states destroys the potential of one of the most advanced instruments against crime proceeds—civil confiscation orders. The study offers a comparative analysis of the concepts of the confiscation of crime proceeds within and outside the frameworks of criminal proceedings. The analysis serves as the basis for the discussion of whether there is reasonable ground for the formal distinction between these concepts. The author concludes that the formal elimination of the civil confiscation orders has no substantial background. The analysis of both extended powers of confiscation in the criminal law domain in Europe and the Lithuanian Law on Civil Confiscation in the light of principles of proportionality and fair proceedings shows that civil confiscation regimes outside the framework of criminal proceedings may provide adequate safeguards to those provided in the confiscation regimes within criminal proceedings. The paper contributes to the discussion that is relevant to any European state that considers enacting or amending the civil confiscation legal framework or the legal regulation on recognising and executing crime proceeds confiscation orders. The paper elaborates on the approach that could enhance cooperation among European states in the prevention of organised crime.

The policy and practice of confiscating criminal assets to control crime and recover illicit wealth has come to occupy a central position in national and international policing and security agendas. However, this practice has raised many questions about agencies’ abilities to measure success and also the social impacts of asset confiscation. This article contributes to the crime control debates by exploring contemporary literature and drawing upon a subset of data from the Joint Asset Recovery Database (JARD). The first part of the article briefly outlines the key legislative provisions of asset recovery in the UK. The second part explores what the JARD data tells us about the performance of the confiscation of proceeds of crime approach and it will argue that seizing illicit wealth has not been the main priority for government. It will argue instead that the proceeds of crime approach, originally designed to target the most serious and organised crime, has effectively become a disciplining and symbolic tool against relatively lower level acquisitive crimes. It concludes that while technical measures of impact remain inconclusive, it is more important to subject the ideological underpinnings of the proceeds of crime law to critical scrutiny.

More than 100 Maryland soccer players met at Bullis Park, Silver Spring in late July to participate in the First Annual Soccer for Palestine tournament. Organized by MD2Palestine, a local grassroots organization, the playing fees and other donations from the tournament were to benefit the West Bank village of Wadi Foquin. According to Yasmeen Abdelkarim, an MD2Palestine organizer of the fundraising event, soccer represents both the resistance and hope of the youth in Wadi Foquin so it became a natural choice for us to use that as an organizing fundraiser to help the village. Abdelkarim was referring to the difficulties facing Wadi Foquin, not only in the construction of their own soccer field but in keeping their community's land. Located in the Bethlehem district of Palestine, the village is surrounded by the illegal settlements of Betar Illit and Hadar Betar. In addition to ongoing land confiscation orders, the village has seen acres of farmland destroyed and has endured sewage intentionally dumped from the settlements onto their crops and groundwater.

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Originality/value 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.

The appellant (O'Flaherty) (O) was appealing against two confiscation orders. In short, this case demonstrates that a judge can increase the value of a confiscation order made pursuant to s. 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) where adequate evidence is presented. The increase resulted from the fact that the Crown had discovered a further asset (property) that could be realized. O contended that a third party had an interest in the property and the value of the confiscation orders should not be increased. After questioning O and the third party the judge concluded that O's claim was not made out and the judge had not erred.

Purpose – This article aims to discuss the problems that the USA encountered when it first attempted to enact and apply legislation designed to facilitate the enforcement of foreign asset-preservation orders, the remedial legislation enacted to address those problems, and the recent success the US Government has had under that new legislation in restraining assets at the request of foreign courts so that they may be forfeited under foreign law. Design/methodology/approach – The article reviews the legislative history of the statute enacted to permit the enforcement of foreign restraining orders and analyzes the cases applying that statute before and after its amendment in 2010. Findings – Legislation in the USA now permits the federal courts to register and enforce orders issued by foreign courts for the purpose of preserving assets that are subject to forfeiture under foreign law. Originality/value – This is a cutting edge topic in which there has been a great deal of new law in the past three years.

Corruption and thefts of public assets harm a diffuse set of victims, weakens confidence in public institutions, damages the private investment climate, and threatens the foundations of the society as a whole. In developing countries with scarce public resources, the cost of corruption is an impediment to development: developing countries lose between US$20 to US$40 billion each year through bribery, misappropriation of funds, and other corrupt practices. Corruption is by no means a \"victimless crime.\" This study aims to explore the standing of States and Government entities as victims and the possible recourse to private actions to redress public wrongs. States and Government entities may act as private litigants and bring civil suits to recover assets lost to corruption. The goal of this work is to promote knowledge and understanding as well as to increase the use of civil remedies and private lawsuits to recover stolen assets in the context of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) offences. The UNCAC, the global standard for the fight against corruption, does not contain a legal definition of corruption itself but lists an array of offences, including public and private sector bribery and the embezzlement of public and private sector funds. The study will mainly focus on these two types of corruption, namely bribery and embezzlement of funds. This study is not intended in any way to minimize the importance of criminal proceedings and confiscation in addressing acts of corruption. Rather, it will show that civil law remedies can effectively complement criminal penalties by attacking the economic base of corrupt activities both in the public and the private sectors. In fact, given the magnitude of the challenges, all avenues of asset recovery, be they criminal or civil, should be explored simultaneously in order to tackle corruption from each and every angle and achieve the goals of deterrence and enforcement. Hence, while criminal law expresses society's disapproval of the corrupt acts and aims at dissuasion, punishment, and confiscation of illicit proceeds, civil law focuses on victims' interests and aims at compensation and restitution. These procedures may occur sometimes in parallel, sometimes sequentially. An effective response to corruption very often requires concomitant use of both criminal and civil law remedies to achieve the desired result.

Theft of public assets from developing countries is an immense problem with a staggering development impact. These thefts diverts valuable public resources from addressing the abject poverty and fragile infrastructure often present in such countries. Although the exact magnitude of the proceeds of corruption circulating in the global economy is impossible to ascertain, estimates demonstrate the severity and scale of the problem at $20 to $40 billion lost to developing countries each year. What this estimate does not capture are the societal costs of corruption and the devastating impact of such crimes on victim countries. Theft of assets by corrupt officials, often at the highest levels of government, weakens confidence in public institutions, damages the private investment climate, and divests needed funding available for core investment in such poverty alleviation measures as public health, education, and infrastructure. This study's key objective is to mobilize policy makers on the existing difficulties in stolen asset recovery actions and convince them to take action on the featured recommendations. Such action will enhance the capacity of practitioners to successfully recover stolen assets. Los países en desarrollo pierden aproximadamente $ 20-40 mil millones cada año por causa de sobornos, malversación de fondos y otras prácticas corruptas. Sólo una mínima parte se recupera. Esta enorme brecha en la recuperación real de los activos robados apunta a la presencia de importantes barreras que impiden su recuperación. Con el fin de llenar este vacío, la Iniciativa para la Recuperación de Activos Robados (StAR) ha lanzado Barreras para la recuperación de Activos, un análisis exhaustivo de estos impedimentos y su impacto negativo. La cooperación internacional es fundamental. La Convención de las Naciones Unidas contra la Corrupción es una plataforma clave para fomentar este tipo de acción colectiva, como lo demuestran los compromisos asumidos por los gobiernos, la sociedad civil y el sector privado aun así, varias de las barreras identificadas no pueden superarse a través de la convención. Basándose en la experiencia de profesionales con experiencia práctica, este estudio tiene por objeto orientar a los responsables de formulación de políticas y promover recomendaciones prácticas destinadas a ayudar a las jurisdicciones en la elaboración de políticas efectivas para recuperar energéticamente los activos robados. El G-20, las organizaciones internacionales, instituciones financieras, agencias de desarrollo y la sociedad civil tienen un papel clave que desempeñar en asegurar un progreso concreto en la implementación de estas recomendaciones. Le détournement des fonds publics représente un obstacle de plus en plus significatif au développement économique des pays émergents. En effet, la disparition de ces ressources publiques essentielles empêche de réduire la pauvreté et pérennise la fragilité des infrastructures de ces pays. S’il est impossible d’évaluer le montant exact des produits de la corruption dans le monde, les estimations témoignent de la gravité et de l’ampleur du problème. Chaque année, on considère que la corruption prive les pays en voie de développement de 20 à 40 milliards de dollars. Ces chiffres ne reflètent pas l’ensemble des coûts de la corruption, ni l’impact dévastateur de ces infractions sur les pays qui en sont victimes. Les détournements de fonds publics perpétrés par des agents publics corrompus, occupant souvent les plus hautes fonctions de l’Etat, sapent la confiance dans les institutions publiques, met à mal le climat nécessaire aux investissements privés, et empêche la mise en œuvre de mesures contre la pauvreté, notamment dans les domaines de la santé publique, de l’éducation et des infrastructures. Réalisée dans le cadre de l’initiative StAR (Stolen Asset Recovery), cette étude s’appuie sur l’expérience de praticiens du monde entier rompus au processus de recouvrement des avoirs, et sur des études effectuées indépendamment par des collaborateurs. Ainsi, une cinquantaine de praticiens originaires à la fois des Etats requérants et requis, traitant quotidiennement des dossiers de recouvrement d’avoirs, ont été consultés afin de passer en revue les conclusions de cette étude avant sa publication. Les obstacles sont classés en trois catégories distinctes qui feront chacune l’objet d’une section : les obstacles d’ordre général et les problèmes institutionnels ; les obstacles juridiques et exigences qui retardent l’entraide judiciaire et enfin, les obstacles opérationnels et les problèmes de communication.

Strickert discusses plans by Israel to demolish homes in Beit Sahour. The confiscation orders include a Greek Orthodox Church housing project and church-owned land with a 99-year lease.

The Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 [POCA] embodies a serious attempt by the South African government to effectively police and curb organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities in South Africa. The Act provides inter alia for a range of crippling fines and for orders such as confiscation and forfeiture. Asset forfeiture and confiscation orders can affect the rights of third parties directly and indirectly in a number of ways. Young persons and children can be affected indirectly because asset forfeiture and confiscation orders may violate the right to parental care of the dependent young persons and children of the person who is subject to the order. This brief article will investigate aspects of the protection afforded to the rights of children when such orders are made in terms of the provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.