Abstract
Confiscation – especially of the proceeds of crime – has turned into a key instrument in international, European and German efforts to curb serious crime (e.g. organized, but also economic crime). Central to the controversies about the legitimacy of confiscation is its disputed legal nature: Is it criminal law (or what)? By drawing on a major 2017 reform of the German confiscation regime as a case study, this article illustrates that the discussions about the but punitive or but non-punitive (e.g. preventive) rationales of confiscation are ill-advised as they do not account for the normative openness of confiscation. These discussions – as they are prompted especially by constitutional criminal law and its doctrines – obfuscate the unsettling political questions that are foundational to modern developments. E.g. if a commonwealth can still and indeed must afford unrestrictable fundamental rights (like the presumption of innocence) in order to pre-empt the rise of an authoritarian regime, even if this means that serious crime goes widely unchecked and can hence possibly undermine the democratic state. This article will not answer such questions. But it will bring them to the fore so that we have a frank debate about the very policy, polity and politics framework of the administration of “criminal” (or what?) justice in the age of confiscation.
Highlights
Resumen El decomiso –especialmente del producto de los delitos– se ha convertido en un instrumento clave en los esfuerzos europeos y alemanes para combatir delitos graves
Para efectos de cooperación internacional en materia de decomisos penales, Alemania continuará haciendo uso de instrumentos de la UE más antiguos mientras no entre en vigor el referido reglamento
Ello predetermina los tests constitucionales que esta medida tiene que pasar para poder cumplir con las exigencias de la Convención Europea de Derechos Humanos (CEDH)
Summary
Cuando se estudian los debates en Alemania y Europa sobre la legitimidad del decomiso, la controversial naturaleza jurídica de esta medida concentra la atención. (Lo anterior, por ejemplo, porque consideramos al Estado y su sistema de justicia penal no como un peligro para los derechos y libertades individuales, sino que como garantes de la paz y del orden social; véase infra C). Porque “simplemente” promoveré –nada más y nada menos– que tengamos un debate acerca del marco socio-político de la administración de justicia penal en la era del decomiso (véase infra B II). Procederé de esta manera porque dicha reforma contiene todo lo que hoy se debate (y en muchos casos, acaloradamente) acerca del decomiso a nivel nacional, europeo e internacional (véase infra A). Finalmente, ofreceré mis propias reflexiones acerca de cómo se debiera discutir el tema sobre la legitimidad del decomiso (infra C)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
