Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The impact of Lower Standard of Proof in Proceedings Regarding Criminally Acquired Property Cover

The impact of Lower Standard of Proof in Proceedings Regarding Criminally Acquired Property

Open Access
|Oct 2023

References

  1. Ā.Meikališa, K.Strada-Rozenberga (2010). Research. Mantas konfiskācijas tiesiskais regulējums Latvijā un Eiropas Savienībā, tās izpildes mehānisma efektivitātes nodrošināšana. 2010. (https://www.tm.gov.lv/sites/tm/files/2020-01/Documents/lv_ministrija_imateriali_mantkonf.pdf) [rev. 20.06.2023]
  2. Colin King. (2015). How Far Is Too Far? Theorising Non-Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture. International Journal of Law in Context.
  3. Commission staff working document. Analysis of non-conviction-based confiscation measures in the European Union. European Commission. 2019 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/package-organised-crime/file-common-rules-for-non-conviction-based-confiscation) [rev. 20.06.2023]
  4. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. 2020. Case-law of the Constitutional Court. Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia: the right to a fair trial.
  5. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. Case No 2003-08-01, paragraph 2.
  6. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. Case No 2011-11-01, paragraph 11.1.
  7. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. Case No 2011-21-01, paragraph 7.
  8. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. Case No 2015-06-01.
  9. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. Case No 2016-06-01 paragraph 30.
  10. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. Case No 2016-13-01. Paragraph 11, 14.2.
  11. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. Case No 2017-23-01, paragraph 12.3.
  12. 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 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2014/42) [rev. 20.06.2023];
  13. Economic Crime and Cooperation Division Action against Crime Department Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe (2020) The Use of Non-Conviction Based Seizure and Confiscation. (https://rm.coe.int/the-use-of-non-conviction-based-seizure-and-confiscation-2020/1680a0b9d3). [rev. 20.06.2023];
  14. FATF recommendations. International standards on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism & proliferation. (https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/recommendations/FATF%20Recommendations%202012.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf) [rev. 20.06.2023]
  15. Fernandez-Bertier, M. The confiscation and recovery of criminal property: a European Union state of the art. ERA Forum 17, 323–342 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-016-0436-1
  16. George N. Aylesworth (1991) Forfeiture of Real Property: An Overview. US Department of Justice, p. 3;
  17. Gunārs Kūtris (2020) Possibilities and grounds for confiscation of the proceeds of crime. (Noziedzīgi iegūtā konfiskācijas iespējas un pamats). (https://doi.org/10.22364/juzk.78.22) [rev. 20.06.2023];
  18. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber). Fintan Duff and Others v. Minister for Agriculture and Food, Ireland, and the Attorney General, C-63/93, 1996. ECR I-00569, 20.punkts (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=36A8114F0C4BDD63F15EF10A7D419745?text=&docid=98935&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10456) [rev. 20.06.2023]
  19. Juridisko terminu vārdnīca (2002) Kamene. Rīga.;
  20. Law of the Republic of Latvia: Criminal Law. Latvijas Vēstnesis, 199/200, 08.07.1998.
  21. Law of the Republic of Latvia: Criminal Procedure Law. Latvijas Vēstnesis, 74, 11.05.2005.
  22. Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Latvia. 2019. Handbook for the Handling of Property in Criminal Proceedings (Rokasgrāmata rīcībai ar mantu kriminālprocesā. Latvijas Republikas Tieslietu ministrija) (https://www.tm.gov.lv/lv/media/4207/download) [rev. 20.06.2023]
  23. Prof. K.Torgans. Prepared by a team of authors (2016) Commentaries to the Civil Procedure Law. Part I (Chapters 1–28). Second supplemented edition. Riga. Tiesu namu aģentūra;
  24. Riga Regional Court Criminal Division. (2021) Case No. 11270001820.
  25. Saema of Republic of Latvia. Annotation to amendment of Criminal Procedure Law. 2017; https://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS12/SaeimaLIVS12.nsf/0/AB2871419A747C7FC2258011002DD2FA?OpenDocument#b [rev. 20.06.2023]
  26. Saema of Republic of Latvia. Annotation to amendment of Criminal Procedure Law. 2019; https://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS13/SaeimaLIVS13.nsf/0/975546D70032A290C22583FB00490334?OpenDocument [rev. 20.06.2023]
  27. Stepaniuk O.S. (2007) K voprosu o formulirovke opredelenija ocenochnogo ponjatija ugolovnogo zakona. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universitet;
  28. Stukāns J. (2020) Prezumētā noziedzīgi iegūtā manta un procesa par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu piemērošana. Jurista Vārds, 02.06.2020, No. 22 (1132).
  29. Supreme Court Senate, Criminal Cases Department. Case No SKK-2/2009.
  30. The Court of Economic Affairs (2021) Case No. 11903012020.
  31. Theodore S. Greenberg, Linda M. Samuel, Wingate Grant, Larissa Gray. (2009) Stolen Asset Recovery. A Good Practices Guide for Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture. STAR, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
  32. Zemgale district court. (2021) Case No. 11310046418.
Language: English
Page range: 43 - 50
Published on: Oct 31, 2023
Published by: Riga Stradins University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 3 issues per year

© 2023 Andrejs Ņikiforovs, Larisa Saukāne, published by Riga Stradins University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.