A comparative study of extended criminal confiscation from the ‎perspective of the Financial Action Task Force, EU, UK and Iran

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh ‎Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran‎

2 ‎Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran‎

Abstract

As organized crime increasingly spread through drug crime in the 1980s and became an international problem; the ineffectiveness of existing legal tools to deal with it emerged; because the conviction of several organized criminals behind bars and the exploitation of the benefits of their crime after their release could not have had a tangible effect on defeating organized crime. In this respect, the system of confiscation of property to fight international organized crime was recognized as a fundamental principle in international and national legal systems and grew and expanded significantly in terms of type and scope; One of its modern and progressive forms is "extended criminal confiscation" Among the international organizations, the Financial Action Task Force and the European Union, and among the European countries, the United Kingdom has the leading systems of extensive criminal confiscation. Therefore, in this study, with the aim of pathology and optimization of the legal system governing the confiscation of property related to crime in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with a comparative view, the components of the extended criminal confiscation system in the leading legal systems are described and based on the legal system approach. Iran is assessed and pathologically evaluated In order to provide effective suggestions for reforming the laws governing property related to crime; Extensive confiscation in leading legal systems has four components: criminal offenses, legal presumptions, reduction of the value of proof and litigation revolution. In Iran's legal system, although extensive criminal confiscation is provided for in the Anti-Money Laundering Amendment Law approved in 2017; But it lacks the first and second components, and regarding the third component, although suspicion is close to science, it has been legislated; But it lacks objective and quantitative criteria; Therefore, it is suggested that the legislator, like other leading legal systems, formulates the component of predicate crimes and legal assumptions in the legal system governing extended criminal confiscation and, like the English legal system, establish objective criteria such as "criminal lifestyle" and "period of criminal activity" to study suspicion. Legislate with science.it should be noted that this research has been done by descriptive-analytical method and in the collection of resources, the library method has been used.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Books & Articles

    1. Ryder, N. (2013). To Confiscate or not to Confiscate? A Comparative Analysis of the Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Legislation in the United States and the United Kingdom, 8Journal of Business Law ,
    2. . Vettori, B. )2006(. Tough on Criminal Wealth: Exploring the Practice of Proceeds from Crime Confiscation in the EU. Springer.
    3. Kennedy, (2004). Justifying the Civil Recovery of Criminal Proceeds. 12 Journal of Financial Crime.
    4. Boucht, J. (2017). Curtain: Assessing the Feasibility of Extended Appropriation.. The Limits of Asset Confiscation: On the Legitimacy of Extended Appropriation of Criminal Proceeds. Oxford: Hart Publishing, Bloomsbury Collections.
    5. Bought, J. (2017). Extended Criminal Confiscation. The Limits of Asset Confiscation: On the Legitimacy of Extended Appropriation of Criminal Proceeds. Oxford: Hart
    6. ,Brussels,R. (20.7.2012). Center for the Study of Democracy. Disposal of Confiscated Assets in the EU Member States, Laws and Practices.
    7. Cassella , ( 2008 ). The Case for Civil Forfeiture, Why in Rem Proceedings are an Essential Tool for Recovering the Proceeds of Crime. 11Journal of Money Laundering Control.
    8. Euro just (2012-.2013). Report on Non-Conviction-based Confiscation, General Case 751/NMSK. For an interesting discussion of the justify cations for civil recovery of criminal proceeds.
    9. Alagna. (2015). Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity. 21European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research.
    10. FATF (2012-2018). International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France.
    11. FATF (2018). FATF President's paper: Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing for judges and prosecutors, FATF, Paris, France, www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/methodandtrends /documents/AML-CFT-judges-prosecutors.html.
    12. FATF (2012). BEST PRACTICES ON CONFISCATION(RECOMMENDATIONS 4 AND 38) AND A FRAMEWORK FOR ONGOING WORK ON ASSET RECOVERY;
    13. Stessens, (2000). Money Laundering: A New International Law Enforcement Model (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    14. Lawrence, I. (2008) “Draconian and Manifestly Unjust: How the Confiscation Regime has Developed” 76Amicus Curiae.
    15. Burn, J.P. ;Gray, L.; Scott, C.; Stephenson, K.M. (2021) .Asset Recovery Handbook A Guide for Practitioners The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / T e World Bank.
    16. Bullock, K“Criminal . (2014) Benefit, the Confiscation Order and the Post- conviction Confiscation Regime” 62Crime, Law and Social Change.
    17. Schunke, M.T (2017). Extended confiscation in criminal law; national, European and international perspective, Publisher: Intersentia.
    18. Maugeri, (2012). The Criminal Sanctions against the Illicit Proceeds of Criminal Organizations. 3New Journal of European Criminal Law.
    19. Naylor,T. (1999). Wash-out: A Critique of Follow-the Money Methods in Crime Control Policy. 32Crime, Law and Social Change.
    20. Nikolov, N. (2011). General Characteristics of Civil Forfeiture. 14Journal of Money Laundering Control.
    21. Report from the Hodgson Committee, Hodgson, D. (1984). Profits of Crime and Their Recovery, Heinemann, London.
    22. Milne, S. (2017).On the borders of criminal law. A tentative assessment of Italian, non-conviction based extended confiscation New Journal of European Criminal Law, 8, (2).
    23. Stefan D. Cassella, S.D. (2013). Asset Recovery: The American Experience. that appeared in eucrim: The European Criminal Law Associations’ Forum 3.
    24. Stessens, G. (2002). Money Laundering: A New International Law Enforcement Model. 3rd ed.
    25. François,J. (2005). Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: An Overview. Current Developments in Monetary and Financial Law, Vol. 3.
    26. Vittorio, M. (2015). L’ultimo imperativo della politica criminale: nullum crimen sine confiscatione’ Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale.

     

    -     Laws & Documents

    1. “Confiscation Orders, Human Rights and Penal Measures”)Ul ph, J.( 126Law Quarterly Review (2010).
    2. Nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, Judgment of 23 September 2008.
    3. Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Freezing and Confiscation of Instrumentalities and Proceeds of Crime in the European Union
    4. Directive2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Freezing and Confiscation of Instrumentalities and Proceeds of Crime in the European Union
    5. Explanatory Notes to POCA 2002, 25 – 26.
    6. Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA of 29 May 2000
    7. Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001
    8. Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA of 19 July 2002
    9. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism1999
    10. Joint Action of 3 December on Money Laundering, the Identification, Tracing, Freezing, Seizing and Confiscation of Instrumentalities and the Proceeds from Crime1998.
    11. Justice and Home Affairs Council configuration) OJ L (OJ L 68, 15.3.2005,.
    12. Recital (6) FD 2005/212/JHA: Report from the Commission pursuant to Article 6 of the Council Framework Decision of 24 February 2005 on confiscation of crime related proceeds, instrumentalities and property (2005/212/JHA) /* COM/2007/0805 final */
    13. Recovering the Proceeds of Crime , A Performance and Innovation Unit Report, June 2000
    14. the Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property
    15. United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,1988
    16. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime2000
Comparative Law Review
Volume 14, Issue 2
Autumn $ Winter 2023-2024
January 2024
Pages 831-857

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics