Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Difficulties of Belief Evidence and Anonymity in Practice: Challenges for Asset Recovery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Criminal and Terrorism Financing Law

  • 2253 Accesses

Abstract

There is an extensive literature on civil forfeiture powers to target proceeds of crime, with particular emphasis on, for example, the civil/criminal dichotomy and the constitutionality of such powers. Despite the increasing prevalence of such powers, there remains, however, limited empirical analysis. This chapter draws upon qualitative interviews with leading stakeholders to consider the operation of such powers under the Irish Proceeds of Crime Acts. More specifically, the chapter examines two controversial evidential provisions—the use of belief evidence and anonymity.

I would like to thank Jo Bridgeman, Jimmy Gurulé, Saskia Hufnagel, Hannah Quirk, Lindsay Stirton, Clive Walker and Dermot Walsh for their very helpful comments on previous drafts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The leading judgment is Murphy v GM, PB, PC Ltd., GH; and Gilligan v CAB [2001] 4 IR 113. This case was an appeal from separate High Court decisions in Gilligan v CAB [1998] 3 IR 185 and Murphy v GM, PB, PC Ltd. [1999] IEHC 5.

  2. 2.

    I thank Ben O’Floinn BL for this description of ‘waves’ of legal challenge, when discussing POCA at the conference ‘Confiscation and Recovery of Criminal Assets’ (Dublin, 12 April 2013).

  3. 3.

    See Greg Martin, Rebecca Scott Bray, and Miiko Kumar (eds), Secrecy, Law and Society (Routledge 2015); JUSTICE, ‘Secret Evidence: A JUSTICE Report’ (2009) <https://2bquk8cdew6192tsu41lay8t-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Secret-Evidence-10-June-2009.pdf> accessed 10 April 2017.

  4. 4.

    The terms ‘open justice’ and ‘natural justice’ are often used interchangeably by some authors; however, there are distinctions between them. These distinctions are teased out in Joseph Jaconelli, Open Justice: A Critique of the Public Trial (OUP 2002) 29ff. For further consideration of the value of open justice, see Matthew Simpson, Open Justice and the English Criminal Process Unpublished PhD Thesis (University of Nottingham 2008).

  5. 5.

    See Adam Tomkins, ‘Justice and Security in the United Kingdom’ (2014) 47(3) Israel Law Review 305.

  6. 6.

    Gus Van Harten, ‘Weaknesses of Adjudication in the Face of Secret Evidence’ (2009) 13(1) International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1, 10.

  7. 7.

    Anthony Kennedy, ‘Designing a Civil Forfeiture System: An Issues List for Policymakers and Legislators’ (2006) 13(2) Journal of Financial Crime 132.

  8. 8.

    Notable examples include Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

  9. 9.

    Notable examples include Bulgaria, Italy and Romania.

  10. 10.

    See Chap. 17 (Maugeri) in this collection.

  11. 11.

    Christopher Kutz, ‘Secret Law and the Value of Publicity’ (2009) 22(2) Ratio Juris 197, 199.

  12. 12.

    See Francis Cassidy, ‘Targeting the Proceeds of Crime: An Irish Perspective’ in Theodore Greenberg and others, Stolen Asset Recovery: A Good Practices Guide for Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture (World Bank 2009); Shane Murphy, ‘Tracing the Proceeds of Crime: Legal and Constitutional Implications’ (1999) 9(2) Irish Criminal Law Journal 160.

  13. 13.

    See Colin King, ‘Civil Forfeiture in Ireland—Two Decades of the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Criminal Assets Bureau’ in Katalin Ligeti and Michele Simonato, Chasing Criminal Money: Challenges and Perspectives on Asset Recovery in the EU (Hart Publishing 2017); Liz Campbell, ‘Theorising Asset Forfeiture in Ireland’ (2007) 71(5) Journal of Criminal Law 441.

  14. 14.

    See Brittany Brooks, ‘Misunderstanding Civil Forfeiture: Addressing Misconceptions About Civil Forfeiture with a Focus on the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act’ (2014) 69(1) University of Miami Law Review 321 (United States); Alan Bacarese and Gavin Sellar, ‘Civil Asset Forfeiture in Practice’ in Jon Petter Rui and Ulrich Sieber (eds), Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation in Europe (Duncker & Humblot 2015) 211 (UK). In this collection, see Chap. 18 (Cassella).

  15. 15.

    See Zaiton Hamin and others, ‘When Property is the Criminal: Confiscating Proceeds of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in Malaysia’ (2015) 31 Procedia Economics and Finance 789 (Malaysia); Annemarie Bridy, ‘Carpe Omnia: Civil Forfeiture in the War on Drugs and the War on Piracy’ (2014) 46(3) Arizona State Law Journal 683 (United States). In this collection, see Chap. 22 (Aldridge).

  16. 16.

    See Dick Carpenter and others, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture (2nd edn, Institute for Justice 2015). In this collection, see Chap. 23 (Gallant).

  17. 17.

    Mary Cheh, ‘Civil Remedies to Control Crime: Legal Issues and Constitutional Challenges’ in Lorraine Green Mazerolle and Jan Roehl (eds), Civil Remedies and Crime Prevention (Criminal Justice Press 1998) 45.

  18. 18.

    See, for example, Stuart Hoffman, and Simon MacDonald, ‘Should ASBOs be Civilised?’ [2010] Criminal Law Review 457; Simon Bronitt and Susan Donkin, ‘Australian Responses to 9/11: New World Legal Hybrids?’ in Aniceto Masferrer (ed), Post 9/11 and the State of Permanent Legal Emergency (Springer 2012) 223.

  19. 19.

    Kenneth Mann, ‘Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middleground between Criminal and Civil Law’ (1992) 101(8) Yale Law Journal 1795.

  20. 20.

    Colin King, ‘Using Civil Processes in Pursuit of Criminal Law Objectives: A Case Study of Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture’ (2012) 16(4) International Journal of Evidence and Proof 337.

  21. 21.

    Colin King, ‘Civil Forfeiture and Article 6 of the ECHR: Due Process Implications for England and Wales and Ireland’ (2014) 34(3) Legal Studies 371.

  22. 22.

    Jennifer Hendry and Colin King, ‘Expediency, Legitimacy, and the Rule of Law: A Systems Perspective on Civil/Criminal Procedural Hybrids’ (2016) 9 Criminal Law and Philosophy 1.

  23. 23.

    Liz Campbell, ‘The Recovery of “Criminal” Assets in New Zealand, Ireland and England: Fighting Organised and Serious Crime in the Civil Realm’ (2010) 41(1) Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 15.

  24. 24.

    Anthony Davidson Gray, ‘Forfeiture Provisions and the Criminal/Civil Divide’ (2012) 15(1) New Criminal Law Review 32.

  25. 25.

    Robert Mikecz, ‘Interviewing Elites: Addressing Methodological Issues’ (2012) 18(6) Qualitative Inquiry 482; William Harvey, ‘Strategies for Conducting Elite Interviews’ (2011) 11(4) Qualitative Research 431.

  26. 26.

    Throughout this article the pronoun ‘she’ is used when referring to interviewees, to preserve anonymity.

  27. 27.

    Mikecz (n 25) 485.

  28. 28.

    Kate Fitz-Gibbon, ‘Overcoming Barriers in the Criminal Court System: Examining the Challenges Faced When Interviewing Legal Stakeholders’ in Karen Lumsden and Aaron Winter (eds), Reflexivity in Criminological Research: Experiences with the Powerless and the Powerful (Palgrave Macmillan 2014).

  29. 29.

    For discussion of whether civil forfeiture under POCA ought to be regarded as a civil or a criminal matter, see the contrasting views expressed in Cassidy (n 12) and King (n 13).

  30. 30.

    Liz Heffernan, Evidence in Criminal Trials (Bloomsbury 2014) 27.

  31. 31.

    Other notable statutory exceptions, also relating to belief evidence, are s 3(2) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1972 and s 71(B) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. See Dermot Walsh, Walsh on Criminal Procedure (Roundhall 2016) Chapter 21; Kevin Sweeney, ‘The Power of Silence: Using Adverse Inferences to Investigate Terrorism in Ireland’ (2016) 26 Irish Criminal Law Journal 38.

  32. 32.

    The Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2016 reduced the monetary threshold from €13,000 to €5000.

  33. 33.

    FJMcK v GWD [2004] 2 IR 470, 491–492; [2004] IESC 31, para 70.

  34. 34.

    POCA, s 1 defines ‘member’ as ‘a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Chief Superintendent’ and ‘authorised officer’ as ‘an officer of the Revenue Commissioners authorised in writing by the Revenue Commissioners to perform the functions conferred by this Act on authorised officers’.

  35. 35.

    Gilligan v CAB [1998] 3 IR 185, 243.

  36. 36.

    POCA, s 3(1) as amended. See also CAB v Murphy and Murphy [2016] IECA 40, para 65.

  37. 37.

    FMcK v TH and JH [2007] 4 IR 186, 196.

  38. 38.

    Similarly, see McK v F, unreported, High Court, Finnegan J (24 February 2003).

  39. 39.

    Murphy v GM, PB, PC Ltd., GH; and Gilligan v CAB [2001] 4 IR 113, 155; FJMcK v GWD [2004] 2 IR 470. A long line of authority, in relation to similar evidence under the Offences Against the State legislation, was influential in interpreting s 8 of POCA. See, for example, Maher v Attorney General [1973] IR 140; State (McEldowney) v Kelleher [1983] IR 289; O’Leary v Attorney General [1993] 1 IR 102; The People (DPP) v Gannon, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal (2 April 2003).

  40. 40.

    See the decision of Finnegan J in McK v D [2002] IEHC 115 (HC), appealed in FJMcK v GWD [2004] 2 IR 470.

  41. 41.

    FMcK v TH and JH [2007] 4 IR 186, 195.

  42. 42.

    Commenting on belief evidence under s 3(2) of the Offences Against the State Act 1972, a majority of the Offences Against the State Committee expressed concern ‘that the Oireachtas has given evidential status to an expression of opinion which may not merit that status’: Report of the Committee to Review the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939–1998 and Related Matters (Stationery Office 2002) para 6.90.

  43. 43.

    For further discussion, see Michael Seigel, ‘Rationalizing Hearsay: A Proposal for a Best Evidence Hearsay Rule’ (1992) 72(5) Boston University Law Review 893; HL Ho, ‘A Theory of Hearsay’ (1999) 19(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 403.

  44. 44.

    FJMcK v GWD [2004] 2 IR 470, 481 (Fennelly J).

  45. 45.

    Murphy v GM, PB, PC Ltd. [1999] IEHC 5, para 176. In FJMcK v SMcD [2005] IEHC 205 Finnegan P opted to exclude hearsay from his mind when considering whether or not the applicant had established the necessary belief, based on reasonable grounds, under s 8. Too much emphasis should not be placed on this however. The President, applying the best evidence rule, merely preferred to rely on other evidence tendered by the applicant.

  46. 46.

    Byrne v Farrell and Farrell [2012] IEHC 428, para 3.6.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    CAB v Murphy and Murphy [2016] IECA 40, para 65.

  49. 49.

    Ibid. Whether there were reasonable grounds for the belief in that instance was considered by the court at paras 67ff.

  50. 50.

    CAB v Murphy and Murphy [2016] IECA 40, para 66.

  51. 51.

    For consideration of informer privilege and its effects on belief evidence, see Walsh (n 31) Chapter 15. See also Liz Heffernan, ‘Evidence and National Security: “Belief Evidence” in the Irish Special Criminal Court’ (2009) 15(1) European Public Law 65.

  52. 52.

    See, for instance, Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade v Sugar Distributors Ltd [1991] 1 IR 225; Breathnach v Ireland (no.3) [1993] 2 IR 458; DPP v Special Criminal Court [1999] 1 IR 60. For in-depth consideration of informer privilege, see Henry Mares, ‘Balancing Public Interest and A Fair Trial in Police Informer Privilege: A Critical Australian Perspective’ (2002) 6(2) International Journal of Evidence and Proof 94.

  53. 53.

    Michael Farrell, ‘The Challenge of the ECHR’ (2007) 2 Judicial Studies Institute Journal 76, 84.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Byrne v Farrell and Farrell [2012] IEHC 428.

  56. 56.

    Ibid. para 7.1.

  57. 57.

    The use of belief evidence has also been upheld in criminal proceedings: The People (DPP) v Kelly [2006] 3 IR 115 (Irish Supreme Court) and Donohoe v Ireland, App No 19165/08 (ECtHR, 12 December 2013).

  58. 58.

    Murphy v GM, PB, PC Ltd., GH; and Gilligan v CAB [2001] 4 IR 113, 155, as approved in FMcK v TH and JH [2007] 4 IR 186, 194; [2006] IESC 63, para 23.

  59. 59.

    FMcK v TH and JH [2007] 4 IR 186, 194.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Van Harten (n 6) 3.

  62. 62.

    Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, s 7.

  63. 63.

    The legislation provides that a ‘member’ or ‘authorised officer’ can tender such evidence—thus, any Chief Superintendent (or higher) or any authorised revenue official.

  64. 64.

    Farrell (n 53) 84.

  65. 65.

    Interviewees gave examples of what would be used to support belief evidence, including bank statements, bank details, social welfare records for comparison, absence of any visible means of income, level of expenditure, purchases of items, personal and real property, previous criminal convictions, criminal associations and testimony from investigating officials.

  66. 66.

    See The People (DPP) v Kelly [2006] 3 IR 115.

  67. 67.

    Other interviewees also referred to the influence of the anti-terrorism framework: as INT3 stated, ‘we had the history and considerable experience in the use of [the anti-terrorism legislation on belief evidence]’.

  68. 68.

    FJMcK v GWD [2004] 2 IR 470.

  69. 69.

    INT5 stated that there are cases where they would rather lose the case rather than give up the name of a confidential informant.

  70. 70.

    See Didier Bigo and others, National Security and Secret Evidence in Legislation and Before the Courts: Exploring the Challenges (European Parliament 2014) 26.

  71. 71.

    See Greg Martin, ‘Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs and Secret Evidence: Reflections on the Use of Criminal Intelligence in the Control of Serious Organised Crime in Australia’ (2014) 36(3) Sydney Law Review 501.

  72. 72.

    Anon, ‘Secret Evidence in the War on Terror’ (2005) 118(6) Harvard Law Review 1962, 1980, referring to Jay v Boyd, 351 US 345, 365.

  73. 73.

    Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, s 10. In addition, there are further provisions providing that it is a criminal offence to identify (current or former) non-Garda bureau personnel, to publish the names or addresses of such persons or to identify members of family of current or former bureau officers or members of staff or the address of any such person (s 11). It is also an offence to threaten, intimidate, menace, assault or attempt to assault a bureau officer of a member of staff of the bureau or any member of the family of such a person (ss 13 and 15).

  74. 74.

    Compare Offences Against the State Act 1939, s 41.

  75. 75.

    CAB v PS [2009] 3 IR 9; [2004] IEHC 351.

  76. 76.

    Ibid. 32.

  77. 77.

    Ibid. 33.

  78. 78.

    Ibid.

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    Ibid. The court had regard to Quinns Supermarket v Attorney General [1972] IR 1.

  81. 81.

    CAB v PMcS [2001] IEHC 162.

  82. 82.

    Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, ss 10(4)–(6).

  83. 83.

    CAB v PMcS [2001] IEHC 162 para 14.

  84. 84.

    Ibid. para 80.

  85. 85.

    Ibid.

  86. 86.

    CAB v Craft and McWatt [2001] 1 IR 121.

  87. 87.

    Ibid. 124.

  88. 88.

    Dáil Éireann, Criminal Assets Bureau Bill 1996, Second Stage (25 July 1996) vol 468, col 1054.

  89. 89.

    Seanad Éireann, Criminal Assets Bureau Bill 1996, Second Stage (09 October 1996) vol 148, col 1567.

  90. 90.

    David Lusty, ‘Anonymous Accusers: An Historical and Comparative Analysis of Secret Witnesses in Criminal Trials’ (2002) 24(3) Sydney Law Review 361, 423.

  91. 91.

    See Gilbert Marcus, ‘Secret Witnesses’ [1990] Public Law 207.

  92. 92.

    Concerns as to anonymity and secrecy are aptly described in Kafka’s The Trial, where Josef K proclaimed, ‘There is no doubt that behind all the utterances of this court, and therefore behind my arrest and today’s examination, there stands a great organization. An organization which not only employs corrupt warders and fatuous supervisors and examining magistrates, of whom the best that can be said is that they are humble officials, but also supports a judiciary of the highest rank with its inevitable vast retinue of servants, secretaries, police officers and other assistants, perhaps even executioners—I don’t shrink from the word. And the purpose of this great organization, gentlemen? To arrest innocent persons and start proceedings against them which are pointless and mostly, as in my case, inconclusive. When the whole organization is as pointless as this, how can gross corruption among the officials be avoided? That’s impossible, not even the highest judge could manage that’: Franz Kafka, The Trial (Penguin Books 1994) 36.

  93. 93.

    Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, s 10(7).

  94. 94.

    See John Meade, ‘Organised Crime, Moral Panic and Law Reform: The Irish Adoption of Civil Forfeiture’ (2000) 10(1) Irish Criminal Law Journal 11; Colin King, ‘Hitting Back at Organised Crime: The Adoption of Civil Forfeiture in Ireland’ in Colin King and Clive Walker (eds), Dirty Assets: Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets (Ashgate 2014).

  95. 95.

    See Tom Brady, ‘CAB Uses New Powers to Target Lower-Ranking Gang Members’ Irish Independent (Dublin, 17 September 2016).

  96. 96.

    Ruth Costigan and Philip Thomas, ‘Anonymous Witnesses’ (2000) 51(2) Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 326, 335.

  97. 97.

    For consideration of the CAB, see Colin King, ‘Follow The Money Trail: ‘Civil’ Forfeiture of ‘Criminal’ Assets in Ireland’ in Petrus van Duyne and others (eds), Human Dimensions in Organised Crime, Money Laundering, and Corruption (Wolf Legal 2013).

  98. 98.

    CAB v PS [2009] 3 IR 9, 32.

  99. 99.

    See Van Mechelen v Netherlands [1998] 25 EHRR 647, para 61. But, see Doorson v Netherlands [1996] 22 EHRR 330, para 71.

  100. 100.

    John Peter Andersen, ‘The Anonymity of Witnesses—A Danish Development’ [1985] Criminal Law Review 363, 366. See also Stefano Maffei, The European Right to Confrontation in Criminal Proceedings: Absent, Anonymous and Vulnerable Witnesses (Europa Law Publishing 2006) 48.

  101. 101.

    Costigan and Thomas (n 96) 342.

  102. 102.

    Van Mechelen v Netherlands [1998] 25 EHRR 647, para 56. But see the dissenting opinion of Judge Van Dijk, which is receptive to anonymous testimony by State officials.

  103. 103.

    Steven Churches, ‘Is There a Requirement for Fair Hearings in British and Australian Courts?’ in Greg Martin, Rebecca Scott Bray, and Miiko Kumar (eds), Secrecy, Law and Society (Routledge 2015) 102.

  104. 104.

    There are many references to abuse of power in secret trials, most notably the Star Chamber, though there has also been criticism about ‘myths’ attached to that court. For further discussions, see, for example, Daniel Vande Zande, ‘Coercive Power and the Demise of the Star Chamber’ (2008) 50(3) American Journal of Legal History 326; Thomas Barnes, ‘Star Chamber Mythology’ (1961) 5(1) American Journal of Legal History 1.

  105. 105.

    Of course, each of these reasons can also be criticised. For an excellent discussion of such reasons see, for example, Judith Resnik, ‘Due Process: A Public Dimension’ (1987) 39 University of Florida Law Review 405; Antony Duff and others, The Trial on Trial, vol.3: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial (OUP 2007); Claire Baylis, ‘Justice Done and Justice Seen to Be Done—The Public Administration of Justice’ (1991) 21(2) Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 177.

  106. 106.

    Duff and others (n 105) 260.

  107. 107.

    John Jackson, ‘Justice, Security and the Right to a Fair Trial: Is the Use of Secret Evidence Ever Fair?’ [2013] Public Law 720.

  108. 108.

    Miiko Kumar, ‘Secret Witnesses, Secret Information and Secret Evidence: Australia’s Response to Terrorism’ (2011) 80(4) Mississippi Law Journal 1371.

  109. 109.

    David Ormerod, Andrew Choo and Rachel Easter, ‘Coroners and Justice Act 2009: The “Witness Anonymity” and “Investigation Anonymity” Provisions’ [2010] Criminal Law Review 368.

  110. 110.

    Kevin S Bankston, ‘Only the DOJ Knows: The Secret Law of Electronic Surveillance’ (2007) 41(4) University of San Francisco Law Review 589.

  111. 111.

    John Ip, ‘The Rise and Spread of the Special Advocate’ [2008] Public Law 717.

  112. 112.

    Gabrielle Appleby, ‘Protecting Procedural Fairness and Criminal Intelligence: Is There a Balance to Be Struck?’ in Greg Martin, Rebecca Scott Bray, and Miiko Kumar (eds), Secrecy, Law and Society (Routledge 2015) 94.

  113. 113.

    See Heffernan (n 51).

  114. 114.

    For further discussion, see Colin King, ‘Using Civil Processes in Pursuit of Criminal Law Objectives: A Case Study of Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture’ (2012) 16(4) International Journal of Evidence and Proof 337, 358ff.

  115. 115.

    Quicunque aliquid statuerit, parte inaudita altera, aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuerit—where natural justice is violated, it is no justification that the decision is, in fact, correct. Cited in Christopher Forsyth, Administrative Law (11th edn, OUP 2014) 406. See also Boswell’s case (1605) 6 Co Rep 48b.

  116. 116.

    Kennedy (n 7).

  117. 117.

    Criminal Assets Bureau, Annual Report 2015 (2016) Chapter 8.

  118. 118.

    Van Harten (n 6) 16. See also David Cole, ‘Enemy Aliens’ (2002) 54(5) Stanford Law Review 953, 1002.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

    Colin King

Authors
  1. Colin King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom

    Colin King

  2. University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

    Clive Walker

  3. Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, IN, USA

    Jimmy Gurulé

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

King, C. (2018). The Difficulties of Belief Evidence and Anonymity in Practice: Challenges for Asset Recovery. In: King, C., Walker, C., Gurulé, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Criminal and Terrorism Financing Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64498-1_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64498-1_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64497-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64498-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation