Modeling the Patterns of Civil Confiscation: Balancing Effectiveness, Proportionality and the Right to Be Presumed Innocent

Bikelis, Skirmantas

doi:10.2478/bjlp-2020-0010

References

1. Bikelis, Skirmantas. “Chasing Criminal Wealth: Broken Expectations for the Criminalization of Illicit Enrichment in Lithuania.” Journal of Money Laundering Control [accepted for publication on 2020-12-16, pending for EarlyCite] // DOI:10.1108/JMLC-12-2020-0135.10.1108/JMLC-12-2020-0135
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Bikelis, Skirmantas. “Prosecution for Illicit Enrichment: The Lithuanian Perspective.” Journal of Money Laundering Control 20(2) (2017): 203–214.10.1108/JMLC-07-2016-0029
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Boucht, Johan. “Asset confiscation in Europe – past, present and future challenges.” Journal of Financial Crime 26(2) (2019): 526–548.10.1108/JFC-04-2018-0043
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Boucht, Johan. The Limits of Asset Confiscation. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2017.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Chistyakova, Yulia, David S. Wall, and Stefano Bonino. “The Back-Door Governance of Crime: Confiscating Criminal Assets in the UK.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research (2019): 1–21 // https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09423-5.10.1007/s10610-019-09423-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Galabov, Antoniy, Chiara Putaturo, Claudia Marà, Diana Kovatcheva, Giorgio Fraschini, Kapka Milcheva, Katia Hristova-Valtcheva, Krum Zarkov, Miruna Maier, Petia Ivanova, Ruxandra Soare, and Savina Mihailova-Goleminova. Legislation meets practice: national and European perspectives in confiscation and forfeiture of assets. Comparative report. Sofia: Transparency International, 2015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Jurisconsult at the European Court of Human Rights. “Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Right to a fair trial (criminal limb).” Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2019.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Kennedy, Anthony. “Civil recovery proceedings under Proceeds of Crime Act 200.” Journal of Money Laundering Control 9 (3) (2006): 245–264.10.1108/13685200610681779
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Lasky, Mathew R. “Imposing Indigence: Reclaiming the Qualified Right to Counsel of Choice in Criminal Asset Forfeiture Cases.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 104(1) (2014): 165–194.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Mazzacuva, Francesco. “The Problematic Nature of Asset Recovery Measures: Recent Developments of the Italian Preventive Confiscation”: 101–115. In: Katalin Ligeti and Michele Simonato, eds. Chasing Criminal Money. Challenges and Perspectives On Asset Recovery in the EU. Hart Publishing, 2019.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Panzavolta, Michele. “Confiscation and the Concept of Punishment: Can There be a Confiscation Without a Conviction?”: 25–52. In: Katalin Ligeti and Michele Simonato, eds. Chasing Criminal Money. Challenges and Perspectives on Asset Recovery in the EU. Hart Publishing, 2019.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Simonato, Michele. “Directive 2014/42/EU and Non-Conviction Based Confiscation: A Step Forward on Asset Recovery?” New Journal of European Criminal Law 6(2) (2015): 213–229 // doi:10.1177/203228441500600205.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
1. Arcuri v. Italy. European Court of Human Rights, App. No. 52024/99 (2001) // http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-22586.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Butler v. the United Kingdom. European Court of Human Rights, App. No. 41661/98 (2002) // http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-22577.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Civil Procedure Code of Georgia. N 1106, OG (1997, 47-48) // https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/29962?publication=134.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Codice Antimafia (Anti-mafia Code of Italy). Decreto legislativo, 06.09.2011 n° 159 // https://www.altalex.com/documents/codici-altalex/2014/07/24/codiceantimafia-edizione-giugno-2014
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Proceeds of Organised Crime, Ensuring that “Crime Does Not Pay”. European Commission Brussels (20 November 2008) COM (2008) 766 final.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 On Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property. OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 49–51.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Criminal Finances Act 2017. UK Public General Acts, 2017 c. 22 // https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/22/part/1/chapter/1/crossheading/unexplained-wealth-orders-england-and-wales-and-northern-ireland/enacted.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Decision in the Case No. 2K-P-93/2014. Supreme Court of Lithuania, Teismų praktika (2014, Nr. 41).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Decision in the Case No. KT4-N3/2017. Constitutional Court of Lithuania, OG (2017, No. 4356).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria. European Court of Human Rights, App. No. 12655/09 (2016) // http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-164956.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 On the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union. OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 39–50.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Draft Law on Civil Confiscation of the Republic of Lithuania No. XIII-2780. Adopted on 14.01.2020 [vetoed by the President of the Republic].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 1, supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 16. Council of Europe, ETS (1950, 5) // https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Gogitidze and others v. Georgia. European Court of Human Rights, App. No. 36862/05 (2015) // http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-154398.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Law of the Republic Ukraine On Amendments to Some Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning the Seizure of Illegal Assets of Persons Authorized to Perform State or Local Government Functions and Punishment for Acquiring Such Assets. Official Gazette (2020, No 2 (5)) // https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/main/263-IX#Text.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Law on Amendment and Supplement of the Law on Tax Administration of the Republic of Lithuania. OG (TAR) (2018, Nr. 10972).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Law on Civil Confiscation of the Republic of Lithuania. OG (2020, No. 6992).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Law on Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Assets on Behalf of the State of the Republic of Bulgaria. Official Gazette (2012, No. 38) // https://www.lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2135793015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Paulet v. the United Kingdom. European Court of Human Rights, App. No. 6219/08 (2014) // http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-142961.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Penal Code of the Republic of France // https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Penal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. OG (2000, No. 89-2741).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Penal Code of the Republic of Ukraine. OG (2001, No. 25-26:131).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. UK Public General Acts 2002 c. 29 // https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/contents.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Proceeds of Crime Act of the Republic of Ireland (1996:30) // http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1996/act/30/enacted/en/html.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Strategic Action Plans of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania for 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 [inaccessible publicly since 2018].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations // http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/fatf-recommendations.html.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. The Law of the Republic of Slovakia No. 101/2010 on Proof of Origin of Property (2010:50) // https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2010/101/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. The Law on Citizens Property of the Republic of Bulgaria. OG (1973-26) [repealed: OG, 2015-39] // https://www.ciela.net/svobodna-zona-darjavenvestnik/document/2127836161/issue/469/zakon-za-sobstvenostta-nagrazhdanite.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. The Law on the Corruption Prevention and Recovery of the Illegally Gained Property of the Republic of Bulgaria. OG (2018, No. 7) // https://www.mi.government.bg/files/useruploads/files/antikorupzia/zpkonpi.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. United Nations Convention Against Corruption (2005) // https://www.unodc.org/documents/brussels/UN_Convention_Against_Corruption.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (1988) // https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/conventions.html.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (2000) // https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/UNTOC.html.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Working paper for the hearing at the Parliamentary Committee on Law and Legal Order on the draft law No. XIP-2344. 28.10.2010 [Unpublished].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. Zákon č. 101/2010 Z. z. o preukazovaní pôvodu majetku (Act no. 101/2010. On proof of origin of property). Slovak Government Office on Corruption Prevention // https://www.bojprotikorupcii.gov.sk/zakon-c-1012010-z-z-o-preukazovanipovodu-majetku/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. Zakon o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora (ZOPNI) (The Law on Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property of the Republic of Slovenia). OG (2011, 3911-11817) // https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/105868.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Modeling the Patterns of Civil Confiscation: Balancing Effectiveness, Proportionality and the Right to Be Presumed Innocent

References

Paradigm

My account