Abstract

main motive for cross-border organised crime, including mafia-type criminal organisations, is financial gain. As a consequence, competent authorities should be given the means to trace, freeze, manage and confiscate the proceeds of such crime. However, the effective prevention of and fight against organised crime should be achieved by neutralising the proceeds of crime and should be extended, in certain cases, to any property derived from activities of a criminal nature. Organised criminal groups operate without borders and increasingly acquire assets in Member States other than those in which they are based. There is an increasing need for effective international cooperation on asset recovery and mutual legal assistance. Among the most effective means of combating organised crime is providing for severe legal consequences for committing such crime, as well as the effective detection and the confiscation of the instrumentalities and proceeds of crime. Although existing statistics are limited, the amounts recovered from proceeds of crime in the Unionseem insufficient compared to the estimated proceeds. Studies have shown that, although regulated by Unionand national law, confiscation procedures remain underused. The adoption of minimum rules will approximate the Member States' freezing and confiscation regimes, thus facilitating mutual trust and effective cross-border cooperation. The Stockholm Programme and the Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions on confiscation and asset recovery, adopted in June 2010, emphasise the importance of a more effective identification, confiscation and re-use of criminal assets. In this article, we will focus on the recent Directive of the EU Parliament and of the Council on freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the EU (3 April 2014).

Highlights

  • The main engine for cross-border organized crime, including mafiatype criminal organizations, is financial gain

  • The effective prevention of and fight against organized crime should be achieved by neutralizing the proceeds of crime and should be extended, in certain cases, to any property deriving from activities of a criminal nature

  • On 25 February 20141, the European Parliament, called under the ordinary legislative procedure of examination and approval of the European Commission's proposal, passed a directive2 in which, essentially, the confiscation is related to criminal conviction, even if rendered in absentia, envisaging the confiscation in case of disproportion between their property and income, the confiscation of property registered to nominees, asset management by specialized national offices and the destination to social use of goods, subject to the procedures set by individual states

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The main engine for cross-border organized crime, including mafiatype criminal organizations, is financial gain. In proceedings under Article 5, the concerned person has the effective possibility of contesting the circumstances of the case, including the specific facts and the available evidences, based on which the assets in question are considered as derivatives from criminal conducts" In species it is worthy of note, for the foreseeable difficulties of an internal application, the rule dictated by the last paragraph of Article 8, providing that: "If, as a result of a crime, there subsist rights to the compensation of the victims against the person subject to an order of forfeiture under this Directive, the Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the confiscation procedure does not prevent to such victims to assert their rights.". With respect to the transposition, the Member States shall bring into force the legislative, regulatory and administrative necessary provisions, in order to comply with the present Directive by October 4, 2015 (Article 12)

Conclusion
List of References
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call