Advertisement

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 447–461 | Cite as

Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity

  • Federico Alagna
Article

Abstract

Moving from the spread of organized crime within the European Union and the need for a common response by Member States, in this article the author addresses the use of non-conviction based confiscation in the European Union as a tool to fight crime. In particular, after defining and understanding the peculiarities of this provision, its dissemination among national legislations is considered, as well as the attempts at harmonising them at a European level. Following on from this, numerous other issues are taken into consideration and discussed: the legitimacy of non-conviction based confiscation, its usefulness and the problems arising from the legislative divergences within the European Union among others. With this preliminary background, the author finally considers the Directive 2014/42/EU of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime. Not only is the final text analysed, but also the previous legislative steps, including the original proposal of the European Commission, launched in March, 2012, the amendments suggested by the European Parliament and the Compromise Text agreed upon, at the end of the discussions (the ‘trilogues’) between Parliament, Council and Commission.

Keywords

Asset recovery Directive European Union Non-conviction based confiscation Organized crime 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Daniela Piana, Professor of Political Science at the University of Bologna; Paolo Campana, Research Fellow at the Extra Legal Governance Institute – University of Oxford; Carlo Caponcello, Italian Deputy National Anti-Mafia Prosecutor.

References

  1. Balsamo, A. (2012). Il “codice antimafia” e la proposta di direttiva europea sulla confisca: quali prospettive per le misure patrimoniali nel contesto europeo?. Diritto penale contemporaneo. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/1342707610Articolo%20Balsamo%20confisca.pdf. Accessed 3 December 2013.
  2. Calderoni, F. (2010). Organized Crime Legislation in the European Union. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campana, P. (2011). Eavesdropping on the Mob: the functional diversification of mafia activities across territories. Eur J Criminol, 8(3), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campana, P. (2013). Understanding then responding to italian organized crime operations across territories. Polic. doi: 10.1093/police/pat012.Google Scholar
  5. Charpenel, Y. (2012). L’appréhension française de la confiscation des avoirs criminels. 4th IAACA Seminar. http://www.iaaca.org/documents/Presentation/TheFourthIAACASeminar/201207/P020120713487472959442.doc. Accessed 28 April 2014
  6. Commission of the European Communities (2008). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Proceeds of Organised Crime – Ensuring that “Crime does not pay”, COM (2008) 706.Google Scholar
  7. Council of Europe (1990). Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  8. Council of the European Union (2013a). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union [first reading] - Approval of the final compromise text, Note and Annex. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%2016861%202013%20INIT&r=http%3A%2F%2Fregister.consilium.europa.eu%2Fpd%2Fen%2F13%2Fst16%2Fst16861.en13.pdf. Accessed 23 January 2014
  9. Council of the European Union (2013b). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union [first reading] - Approval of the final compromise text, Addendum to Note. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%2016861%202013%20ADD%201&r=http%3A%2F%2Fregister.consilium.europa.eu%2Fpd%2Fen%2F13%2Fst16%2Fst16861-ad01.en13.pdf. Accessed 23 January 2014
  10. Edwards, A., & Gill, P. (Eds.). (2006). Transnational Organized Crime: Perspectives on Global Security. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Eurojust (2012b). Opinion on the Proposal of the European Commission for a Directive on the Freezing and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime in the European Union. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2012/nov/eu-eurojust-opinion-confiscation.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2013
  12. European Commission (2012a). Confiscation and Asset Recovery: Better Tools to Fight Crime. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-179_en.htm. Accessed 25 November 2013
  13. European Commission (2012b). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  14. European Parliament – Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (2013). I Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  15. European Parliament – Directorate-General for Internal Policies (2012). The Need for a New EU Legislation Allowing the Assets Confiscated From Criminal Organisations to Be Used for Civil Society and in Particular for Social PurposesGoogle Scholar
  16. EUROPOL (2013). SOCTA – EU Serious and Organized Crime Threat Assessment. https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/socta2013.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2014
  17. French Court of Cassation (2003). Arrêt n° 5848 du 13 novembre 2003. http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_criminelle_578/arret_n_1226.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2013.
  18. Greenberg, T. S., Samuel, L., Grant, W., & Gray, L. (2009). Stolen Asset Recovery. Washington DC: Star, The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levi, M., & Maguire, M. (2005). Reducing and preventing organized crime: an evidence-based critique. Crime, Law Soc Chang, 41(5), 397–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maugeri, A. M. (2012). Proposta di direttiva in materia di congelamento e confisca dei proventi di reato: prime riflessioni, Diritto Penale Contemporaneo. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/1339995828Confisca%20Maugeri.pdf. Accessed 7 December 2013
  21. Melillo, G. (2004). L’esecuzione all’estero delle misure di prevenzione patrimoniali (Una interessante sentenza della Corte di cassazione francese. Quest Giust, 23(4), 771–782.Google Scholar
  22. Menditto, F. (2011). Verso il Testo Unico delle misure di prevenzione: le prospettive di riforma del sistema. http://www.udai.it/articoli/allegato/dott._menditto__relazione_5_maggio_2011.pdf. Accessed 12 September 2011
  23. Rui, J. P. (2012). Non-conviction based confiscation in the European Union—an assessment of Art. 5 of the proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union. ERA Forum, 13(3), 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Savona, E. U., & Williams, P. (2000). United Nations and Transnational Organized Crime. London: Cass.Google Scholar
  25. Tribunale di Milano – Sezione Autonoma Misure di Prevenzione (1999). Decreto n. 40/98 M.P.Google Scholar
  26. Tribunale di Trapani – Sezione Misure di Prevenzione (2011). Demande d'entraide judiciaire selon la procédure du code penal.Google Scholar
  27. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2004). United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols thereto. New York: United NationsGoogle Scholar
  28. UNODC. (2011). Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resulting from Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Organized Crimes. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Project Officer, Osservatorio sulla NdranghetaReggio CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations