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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this respect, Campana (2011) suggests the interesting perspective of ‘diversification’: organized crime carries on different activities in different territories.
In other contexts, the expression ‘asset recovery’ is referred exclusively to the recovery of proceeds of corruption or embezzlement.
They are the informal tripartite meetings attended by representatives of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission within the ordinary legislative procedure. They are aimed at getting an agreement on a package of amendments acceptable to the Council and the European Parliament.
Campana (2013) suggests that such approach should be integrated with: (a) cross-border arrest and surrender procedures; (b) gathering and sharing of evidence across member states.
We shall also remind some references of some very relevant international conventions: the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2004), Article 12: «States Parties shall adopt, to the greatest extent possible within their domestic legal systems, such measures as may be necessary to enable confiscation of: (a) Proceeds of crime derived from offences covered by this Convention or property the value of which corresponds to that of such proceeds; (b) Property, equipment or other instrumentalities used in or destined for use in offences covered by this Convention»; the V Chapter of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (2003), dealing specifically with asset recovery; the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (1990), Article 2: «Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable it to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds or property the value of which corresponds to such proceeds».
The greater usefulness of NCB asset recovery can be inferred by some figures on its application, e.g. in the states Annual Report and Accounts 2011/2012, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) showed that in the year of reference £14.1 million were confiscated in the UK through civil recovery. Cfr. SOCA Annual Report and Accounts 2011/2012, p. 15.
The authors do not unexplainably take into consideration the case of Italy. Due to this lack, they do not consider, among the critical legitimacy issues, the publicity of the trial, which was not guaranteed in Italy until 2008. After some judgments of the ECtHR, insisting on this point (see ECtHR, Bocellari and Rizza v Italy, n. 399, 2002; Perre et al. v Italy, n. 1905, 2005; Bongiorno v Italy, n. 4514, 2007), Italy adapted its law to the requested standards.
Beyond the above-cited judgments, see: ECtHR, Raimondo v Italy, appl. 12954/87, 1994; EctHR, Prisco v Italy, appl. 38662/97, 1999; EctHR, Riela v Italy, n. appl. 52439/99, 2001; ECtHR, Phillips v the United Kingdom, n. 280, 2001; EWHC, ARA v He & Chen, n. 3021, 2005; Corte Costituzionale, Judgement n. 93, 2010; UKSC, Gale & Onor v Serious Organised Crime Agency, 49, 2011.
The result of the questionnaire and the consequent Analytical Report are shortly discussed in the Eurojust Annual Report (2010: 30). The full text of the Analytical Report, on the contrary, has not been published so far. Consultation should be possible by addressing the Head of the Legal Service of Eurojust.
In the 2006 Framework Decision, a confiscation order is defined as a «final penalty or measure imposed by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence or offences, resulting in the definitive deprivation of property», Article 2 (c) of the 2006 Framework Decision, emphasis added.
Translation of the author from the Italian text: «Precisamente, possono avvalersi dei meccanismi e strumenti di collaborazione apprestati dalla Convenzione di Strasburgo quei provvedimenti di sequestro e di confisca che, pur essendo adottati nel corso di un procedimento di prevenzione, si fondino su un parallelo accertamento di responsabilità operato nel corso di un giudizio penale, ed abbiano ad oggetto beni costituenti il provento o lo strumento dei reati cui attiene la condanna inflitta al medesimo soggetto. Al contrario, restano al di fuori dell’ambito di applicazione della Convenzione di Strasburgo le misure di prevenzione patrimoniali adottate nei confronti di soggetti per i quali non sia intervenuto alcun giudizio di colpevolezza in sede penale, ovvero incidenti su beni che non possano essere considerati come il vantaggio economico derivato da reati o come gli strumenti utilizzati per la realizzazione di attività criminali».
See footnote 9.
This principle has been settled by the then European Court of Justice (today Court of Justice of the European Union). See, in particular, Judgement of 4 December 1974, Van Duyn and Judgement of 5 April 1979, Ratti.
Emphasis added.
References
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.
Calderoni, F. (2010). Organized Crime Legislation in the European Union. Heidelberg: Springer.
Campana, P. (2011). Eavesdropping on the Mob: the functional diversification of mafia activities across territories. Eur J Criminol, 8(3), 213–228.
Campana, P. (2013). Understanding then responding to italian organized crime operations across territories. Polic. doi:10.1093/police/pat012.
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
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.
Council of Europe (1990). Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime. Strasbourg.
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
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
Edwards, A., & Gill, P. (Eds.). (2006). Transnational Organized Crime: Perspectives on Global Security. London: Routledge.
Eurojust (2010). Annual Report. http://eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/corporate/eurojust%20Annual%20Reports/Annual%20Report%202010/Annual-Report-2010-EN.pdf Accessed 7 November 2013
Eurojust (2012a). Annual Report. http://eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/corporate/eurojust%20Annual%20Reports/Annual%20Report%202012/Annual-Report-2012-EN.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2013
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
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
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 Union
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 Union
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 Purposes
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
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.
Greenberg, T. S., Samuel, L., Grant, W., & Gray, L. (2009). Stolen Asset Recovery. Washington DC: Star, The World Bank.
Levi, M., & Maguire, M. (2005). Reducing and preventing organized crime: an evidence-based critique. Crime, Law Soc Chang, 41(5), 397–469.
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
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.
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
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.
Savona, E. U., & Williams, P. (2000). United Nations and Transnational Organized Crime. London: Cass.
Tribunale di Milano – Sezione Autonoma Misure di Prevenzione (1999). Decreto n. 40/98 M.P.
Tribunale di Trapani – Sezione Misure di Prevenzione (2011). Demande d'entraide judiciaire selon la procédure du code penal.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2004). United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols thereto. New York: United Nations
UNODC. (2011). Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resulting from Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Organized Crimes. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alagna, F. Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity. Eur J Crim Policy Res 21, 447–461 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-014-9252-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-014-9252-8