Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
9,940
result(s) for
"Forfeiture."
Sort by:
Fines, forfeitures, and federalism
Fines are ubiquitous in modern society, and they are imposed for both serious crimes and minor civil wrongs. The U.S. Supreme Court recently recognized that the Constitution's Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states, but that decision raises previously unexplored questions as to how to enforce the Clause's protections in the states. A key question is what role, if any, federalism should play in crafting doctrinal rules that apply the Clause's protections to state and local fines and related property forfeitures. This Article is the first to accord in-depth treatment to that important question.
The extent to which federalism principles should apply does not have an immediate and obvious answer. On the one hand, federalism plays a significant role in the Court's jurisprudence on the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The Court therefore generally takes a highly deferential approach in reviewing sentences of imprisonment. Lower courts have applied that same deferential review in the context of the Excessive Fines Clause. On the other hand, fines and forfeitures are unlike other forms of punishment-such as prison-because they are often used as a revenue source for state and local governments, creating a conflict of interest for state and local decision-making bodies.
To address this conundrum, this Article makes the novel argument that the Court should look to the exactions doctrine under the Takings Clause, which often implicates similar concerns of government self-interest and overreaching. Exactions and excessive fines are conceptually similar, but scholars thus far have overlooked the close relationship between them. The exactions doctrine gives minimal weight to federalism concerns, and it applies a heightened-scrutiny standard that is well suited to the excessive fines context. Indeed, differences between federal practice and state and local practices as to fines suggest that state and local discretionary fines should be subject to closer constitutional scrutiny than federal fines. As a recent example illustrates, such heightened scrutiny would ensure that the Excessive Fines Clause is not merely a parchment barrier, while still accounting for variations between states and localities in terms of their communities' values and needs.
Journal Article
Barriers to Asset Recovery
It is estimated that the proceeds of crime, corruption and tax evasion represent between $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion per year, with half coming from developing countries. Proceeds are typically transferred abroad and hidden in foreign jurisdictions, thus requiring international cooperation. Various international conventions and agreements require international cooperation on this issue, in particular the United Nations Convention against Corruption; however, only $5 billion in stolen assets have been repatriated over the last 15 years. This enormous gap reveals that significant barriers continue to impede asset recovery despite the commitments taken by governments, civil society and the private sector. Drawing on the experience of practitioners with hands-on experience, the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative launched this study to identify the barriers to stolen asset recovery internationally, provide brief analysis of the impact of these barriers, and propose recommendations for overcoming these obstacles. This volume is intended to guide policy makers in their efforts to ensure necessary resources and the development of a plan, policy or strategy aimed at eradicating the barriers to asset recovery. In addition, this study proposes actions to be taken by the G20, international organizations, financial institutions, developmental agencies and civil society.
eBook
THE IMPACT OF THE DURATION OF THE MARRIAGE IN FORFEITURE OF PATRIMONIAL BENEFITS: PP V JP 2020 ZAGPJHC 281 (2 NOVEMBER 2020)
When deliberating whether to issue a forfeiture order for patrimonial benefits, section 9 of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 mandates the court to take into account the marriage's duration, the reasons behind the marriage's breakdown, and any significant misconduct. These factors aid the court in determining if any financial benefits granted to a party are unwarranted. The presence of any of these factors might provide grounds for justifying a forfeiture order. This analysis examines how the duration of a marriage impacts a court's decision regarding forfeiture, as well as how the duration of the marriage affects the extent of the forfeiture, as explored in the case of PP v JP [2020] ZAGPJHC 281 (2 November 2020). It illustrates that while forfeiture provisions retain a residual influence from the fault-based divorce system, the duration of the marriage remains distinctively impartial to fault.
Journal Article