Extended Confiscation in Criminal Law

Malin Thunberg Schunke is an Associate Professor in Criminal Law at the University of Uppsala. She holds an LLD in Criminal Law (Uppsala University) and an LLM in Criminology and Criminal Justice (King`s College, London). Her research interests lie in national and international criminal law particularly EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters and human rights. She has been an Apprentice Judge at Stockholm City Court and has been working several years as an Assistant Prosecutor at the Prosecuting Office Stockholm.

• Preface - v Table of Cases - xiii List of Abbreviations - xixPART I. INTRODUCTIONChapter 1. Background and Scope of the Study - 3 1.1. Go for the Money!: The Development and Expansion of a New Law Enforcement Strategy - 3 1.2. International and National Legislative Action - 6 1.3. On the Subject Matter - 9 1.3.1. The Overriding Purpose of the Study - 9 1.3.2. The Different Stages of Confiscation - 10 1.3.3. A Note on Terminology - 12 1.4. The Perspectives of the Study and Delimitations - 15 1.4.1. National and International Perspectives - 15 1.4.2. Delimitations - 16 1.5. An Outline of the Different Parts and Chapters - 17PART II. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS ON EXTENDED CONFISCATIONChapter 2. Legislative Action by the EU - 25 2.1. FD 2005/212/JHA - 25 2.1.1. Introduction - 25 2.1.2. Extended Confiscation - 26 2.1.3. Third Party Confiscation and Rules on Procedural Rights - 28 2.2. Reviews of the European Confiscation Powers - 29 2.3. Directive 2014/42/EU - 33 2.3.1. The General Framework of the Directive - 33 2.3.2. The Provision on Ordinary Confiscation - 35 2.3.3. The Provision on Extended Confiscation - 37 2.3.4. Third Party Confiscation - 39 2.3.5. Procedural Safeguards - 39Chapter 3. Legislation in England and Wales - 43 3.1. The Development of the Legislation on Extended Confiscation in England and Wales - 43 3.2. Overview of POCA 2002 - 45 3.3. Confiscation Orders Pursuant to Part 2 of POCA 2002 - 49 3.3.1. Introduction - 49 3.3.2. A Twin Track Confiscation System - 51 3.4. Criminal Lifestyle Confiscation - 53 3.4.1. Basic Requirements - 53 3.4.2. The Determination of Benefit in Criminal Lifestyle Cases - 54 3.4.2.1. The Statutory Assumptions - 54 3.4.2.2. The Burden and Standard of Proof - 57 3.4.2.3. Benefit and the Available Amount - 58 3.5. Some Special Features of the English Confiscation Procedure - 65 3.6. A Commentary on the English Confiscation Regime on Lifestyle Confiscation - 67 3.6.1. A Draconian but Efficient Confiscation Regime? - 67 3.6.2. The Classification of Defendants as Lifestyle Offenders - 70 3.6.3. The Assessment of Benefit on the Basis of the `Criminal Lifestyle’ Assumptions - 71 3.6.4. Lack of Judicial Discretion - 74 3.6.5. The Burden of Proof on a Defendant - 76 3.6.6. Confiscation Orders and the ECHR - 78 3.6.6.1. Case-law from the ECtHR - 78 3.6.6.2. Confiscation Orders and the Human Rights Act 1998 - 85 3.6.6.3. Remarks on the Compatibility of the Regime with the ECHR - 86 3.6.7. Difficulties Regarding the Enforcement of Confiscation Orders - 87Chapter 4. Legislation in Germany - 91 4.1. The Development of the Measure of Extended Confiscation in German Law - 91 4.2. Generally on the Confiscation Regime - 97 4.3. Extended Confiscation in German Law - 99 4.3.1. Basic Substantive Rules and the Procedural Framework - 99 4.3.2. The Triggering Offences and the Scope for Extended Confiscation - 102 4.3.3. The Evidentiary Standard for Extended Confiscation - 104 4.3.3.1. Legal Provision and the Legislative Works - 104 4.3.3.2. Decision by the Bundesgerichtshof in 1994 – 1064.3.3.3. Decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht in 2004 - 108 4.3.3.4. The Application of the Evidentiary Standard in Case-law - 110 4.4. A Commentary on the German Regime of Extended Confiscation - 113 4.4.1. A Complex and Partly Controversial Asset Recovery Regime - 113 4.4.2. The Interpretation and Application of the Evidentiary Standard - 114 4.4.3. The Present Scope of the Legislation - 117 4.4.4. The Proposal for a New German Provision on Extended Confiscation - 118 4.4.5. The Proposal for a New Form of Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation - 122 4.4.6. The Practice of Administrative “Präventive Gewinnabschöpfung” - 126Chapter 5. Legislation in Sweden - 129 5.1. The Development of the Measure of Extended Confiscation in Swedish Law - 129 5.2. Generally on the Regime for Confiscation in Sweden - 131 5.3. The Provision on Extended Confiscation in Swedish Law - 134 5.3.1. Basic Substantive Rules and the Procedural Framework - 134 5.3.2. The Triggering Offences and the Scope for Extended Confiscation - 137 5.3.3. Special Criteria for Extended Confiscation - 138 5.3.4. The Burden and Standard of Proof - 140 5.3.5. Third Party Confiscation - 144 5.4. Swedish Case-Law on Extended Confiscation -145 5.4.1. Introduction - 145 5.4.2. Assets Found under “Suspicious” Circumstances - 147 5.4.3. The Financial Situation of the Defendant - 150 5.4.4. NJA 2010 p. 374 - 154 5.5. An Analysis of the Swedish Confiscation Regime - 157 5.5.1. The Issue of Confiscation of Relatively Low Amounts of Cash - 157 5.5.2. The Scope of Confiscation and the Triggering Offences - 162 5.5.3. The Swedish Hardship Rule - 170 5.5.4. A Lowered Standard or a Reversed Burden of Proof? - 171 5.5.5. The Procedural Framework for a Motion on Extended Confiscation - 173 5.5.6. The Efficiency of the Regulation - 175Chapter 6. Brief Overview of the Legislation in Norway, Denmark and Finland - 179 6.1. Norway - 179 6.1.1. The Provision on Extended Confiscation - 179 6.1.2. The Burden of Proof - 181 6.1.3. The Procedural Framework - 182 6.2. Denmark - 183 6.2.1. The Provision on Extended Confiscation - 183 6.2.2. The Burden of Proof - 184 6.2.3. Danish Legislation and Directive 2014/42/EU - 184 6.3. Finland - 185 6.3.1. The Provision on Extended Confiscation - 185 6.3.2. The Burden of Proof - 187Chapter 7. Directive 2014/42/EU: A Reform with Significant Legal Changes? - 189 7.1. The Necessity of a New EU Instrument on Confiscation - 189 7.2. The Challenges to a More Harmonised EU Regime - 193 7.3. Triggering Offences and the Scope of Directive 2014/42/EU - 197 7.4. The Establishment of Illegal Origin - 202 7.4.1. Some Special Supportive Legislative Criteria - 202 7.4.2. The Evidentiary Standard and Burden of Proof - 204 7.5. Exceptions to Extended Confiscation - 210 7.6. The Absence of a Hardship Clause - 212 7.7. Procedural Safeguards for the Individual - 214 7.8. The Relationship Between Confiscation and Compensation for Victims - 216 7.9. Third Party Confiscation - 217 7.10. Concluding Remarks: What Has Been Achieved and What Still Needs to be Done? - 218PART III. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIONChapter 8. International Cooperation in the Area of Confiscation - 225 8.1. Introduction - 225 8.2. International Instruments on MLA - 226 8.3. EU Instruments on Mutual Recognition - 228 8.4. The Directive on EIO - 230 8.5. An Outline of the Following Chapters - 233Chapter 9. Cross-Border Asset Tracing and Exchange of Information - 237 9.1. The Legal Framework - 237 9.1.1. Requests within the Framework of International Police Cooperation - 237 9.1.2. Requests within the Framework of International Cooperation between Judicial Authorities - 241 9.1.3. The FD on Asset Recovery Offices - 248 9.2. Commentaries to the Regime of International Cooperation Regarding the Tracing of Assets - 250 9.2.1. The Scope and Practical Application of the Legal Framework - 250 9.2.2. The Setting up of Efficient AROs - 256 9.2.3. The German Asset Recovery Offices - 260Chapter 10. International Cooperation in Order to Seize or Freeze Assets - 263 10.1. The Legal Framework - 263 10.1.1. Requests for MLA - 263 10.1.2. Orders for Seizure or Freezing Based on Mutual Recognition - 265 10.1.2.1. The FD on Freezing Orders - 265 10.1.2.2. The Directive on EIO - 268 10.2. A Commentary to the EU Regime on Cross-Border Seizure of Assets - 269 10.2.1. The FD on Freezing Orders: A Lack of Application in Legal Practice - 269 10.2.2. An Abolition of Double Criminality: The Example of Sweden - 274 10.2.3. The Need for Urgent Measures: Is the Present Legal Framework Sufficient? - 276Chapter 11. International Cooperation in Order to Execute Final Confiscation Orders - 281 11.1. The Legal Framework - 281 11.1.1. Requests for MLA - 281 11.1.2. The FD on Confiscation Orders - 282 11.1.2.1. General Provisions - 282 11.1.2.2. Mutual Recognition of Orders on Extended Confiscation - 286 11.2. A Commentary on the EU Regime on Cross-Border Execution of Final Confiscation Orders - 287 11.2.1. Generally on the Legal Construction of the FD on Confiscation Orders - 28711.2.2. The Execution of Final Orders Based on the Powers of Extended Confiscation - 288 11.2.2.1. Mutual Recognition and the FD on Confiscation Orders - 288 11.2.2.2. The Example of Sweden: Execution of Foreign Orders Regarding Extended Confiscation - 292 11.2.3. Special Difficulties for the UK: Recognition and Execution of NCB Confiscation Orders - 296Chapter 12. The Proposal for a Regulation on Mutual Recognition - 303 12.1. The Background to the Proposal - 303 12.2. The Motives for EU Action - 304 12.3. The Legal Basis, Choice of Instrument and General Structure - 305 12.4. The Scope of Application - 307 12.5. Grounds for Non-Recognition and Non-Execution - 311 12.6. Time Limits for Recognition and Execution of Orders - 312 12.7. General Provisions on Procedure - 313 12.8. Some Special Provisions Regarding Freezing Orders - 314 12.9. The Priority of the Rights of Victims - 316 12.10. Mutual Recognition and the Respect for Fundamental Rights - 317Chapter 13. Final Remarks: “To Go for the Money” – But How? - 323Bibliography - 329 Index - 351 About the Author - 353