Legal Framework of the Extended Confi scation of Assets in the Criminal Law of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany
| العنوان: | Legal Framework of the Extended Confi scation of Assets in the Criminal Law of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Darko Datzer, Eldan Mujanović, Irma Deljkić |
| المصدر: | Hrvatski ljetopis za kaznene znanosti i praksu Volume 27 Issue 2 |
| بيانات النشر: | Croatian Association of Criminal Law and Practice, 2020. |
| سنة النشر: | 2020 |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | proceeds of crime, criminal offences, extended confiscation in criminal law, procedural safeguards, burden of proof, imovinska korist, kaznena djela, prošireno oduzimanje imovinske koristi, postupovne garancije, teret dokazivanja |
| الوصف: | koristi ostvarene kaznenim djelom nisu uspješni u zahvatu u imovinu počinitelja kaznenih djela te tako ugrožavaju učinkovitost cijeloga sustava kaznenoga pravosuđa i legitimiranje pravnoga poretka. Prošireno oduzimanje imovinske koristi pribavljene kaznenim djelom, kao poseban modalitet oduzimanja nezakonito stečene imovinske koristi, načelno ima svojih prednosti, poput oslobađanja države od dokazivanja konkretnih kaznenih djela i prebacivanja tereta dokazivanja, barem djelomice, na počinitelja. U radu su analizirane odredbe dva europska zakonodavstva koja imaju različite pristupe u pravnom uređenju proširenoga oduzimanja imovinske koristi, a ujedno su među prvima uzakonila prošireno oduzimanje. Tri su elementa konstrukta proširenoga oduzimanja kroz koja je smisleno diskutirati o relevantnom pravnom okviru: a) za koja se kaznena djela može primijeniti taj režim oduzimanja, b) koje okolnosti upućuju na deliktno podrijetlo imovine, odnosno u kojoj je mjeri opravdan zahvat u imovinu, te c) koja prava ima držatelj stvari ili prava u objašnjavanju podrijetla imovine za koju se sumnja da je nezakonito stečena. Načelno se čini da je rizik zahvata u imovinu koja je zapravo zakonito stečena i time nepravednosti sustava oduzimanja veći ondje gdje se primjenjuju pravne pretpostavke o deliktnome podrijetlu imovine, dakle ondje gdje je na snazi potpuni obrat dokazivanja zakonitosti podrijetla imovine. Snažne postupovne garancije i fokus na vrjedniju, odnosno imovinu koja je u nerazmjeru sa zakonitim prihodima počinitelja značajno reduciraju takve rizike. Oba su pristupa (potpuni i podijeljeni obrat dokazivanja) načelno izdržala test pravičnosti, razmjernosti i racionalnosti u postupcima pred najvišim sudbenim instancama. Ostaje otvoreno kriminalnopolitičko pitanje učinkovitosti u suprotstavljanju kriminalitetu, pogotovo teškim oblicima. For many reasons, traditional mechanisms of criminal confiscation are of limited success, diminishing the efficacy of the entire criminal justice system and the legitimisation of the social order. Extended confiscation in criminal law, a special form of confiscation of assets, conceptually holds the high ground, since it relieves the state from proving concrete crimes and reverses the burden of proof, at least partially, onto the defendant. This paper examines the norms in two European jurisdictions which use different approaches in the regulation of extended confiscation in criminal law and which were also the first to introduce stipulations on extended confiscation. Three elements of extended confiscation of criminal assets are particularly worth reviewing in detail: a) for which crimes is this form of confiscation applicable; b) which circumstances typically indicate the criminal provenance of the property, including the question of the extent of the targeted property; and, c) what rights does the owner or holder of the property have in explaining the lawful origin of the property? It is reasonable to principally ascribe the greater risk of targeting property which indeed is lawfully obtained and therefore the greater unfairness of the confiscation regime to the framework utilising legal presumptions on the illicit origin of the property, ergo where there is full reversal of the burden of proof. Strong procedural safeguards and a focus on more valuable property, i.e. property that is disproportionate to the legitimate income of the perpetrator, considerably reduce such risks. Both the fully reversed and the balanced onus of proof approaches have conceptually undergone tests of fairness, proportionality and reasonableness before the highest judicial instances. It remains to be answered at the criminal policy level to what extent precisely this form of confiscation contributes to the effective fight against crime, particularly serious crime. |
| وصف الملف: | application/pdf |
| اللغة: | Croatian |
| تدمد: | 2670-9996 2459-6531 |
| URL الوصول: | https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=od_______951::3a8a2e37d92245f949d251ec5088b7ff https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/368151 |
| حقوق: | OPEN |
| رقم الأكسشن: | edsair.od.......951..3a8a2e37d92245f949d251ec5088b7ff |
| قاعدة البيانات: | OpenAIRE |
| تدمد: | 26709996 24596531 |
|---|