Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mutual Recognition and Confiscation of Assets: An EU Perspective

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

Abstract

The confiscation of assets derived from criminal activities represents an essential tool of the European strategy in the fight against organised crimes. In particular, the European legislator is trying to improve judicial cooperation in this sector through the mutual recognition of confiscation with the Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA. This principle has to be built on harmonisation of confiscation models (Framework Decision 2005/212 and Directive 42/2014) and on mutual trust, which demands respect of the safeguards of the rule of law. This chapter analyses these two connected aspects, with specific emphasis on extended confiscation and non-conviction based confiscation. Even though Directive 42/2014 does not adopt substantially the latter model of confiscation, in approving it the European Parliament and the Council issued a Statement which urged the Commission towards further effort of analysis in order to identify a model of actio in rem confiscation in respect of shared common traditions.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Tampere European Council, Presidency Conclusions (1999) para 5.

  2. 2.

    Ibid. para 6.

  3. 3.

    Ibid. para 36.

  4. 4.

    In particular, to implement extended confiscations under Article 3 of the Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property [2005] OJ L68/49, replaced by Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union [2014] OJ L127/39.

  5. 5.

    See Valsamis Mitsilegas, ‘The Constitutional Implications of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters in the EU’ (2006) 43(5) Common Market Law Review 1277; Matthias Borgers, ‘Mutual Recognition and the European Court of Justice: The Meaning of Consistent Interpretation and Autonomous and Uniform Interpretation of Union Law for the Development of the Principle of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters’ (2010) 18(2) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 99.

  6. 6.

    Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA (n 4) para 10.

  7. 7.

    Ibid. art 3(2).

  8. 8.

    Ibid. art 3(2)(b).

  9. 9.

    Ibid. art 3(2)(c). See Anna Maria Maugeri, ‘The Criminal Sanctions Against the Illicit Proceeds of Criminal Organisations’ (2012) 3(3–4) New Journal of European Criminal Law 257, 280ff.

  10. 10.

    Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA (n 4) art 3(3)–(4).

  11. 11.

    In civil law systems, that standard would be the full belief of the judge, whilst in common law systems, that standard would be ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’.

  12. 12.

    Addington v Texas 441 US 423 (1979); US Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (West 1993) 1; Anna Maria Maugeri, Le Moderne Sanzioni Tra Funzionalità e Garantismo (Giuffrè 2001) 876ff.

  13. 13.

    Matthias Borgers, ‘Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime: The European Union Framework’ in Colin King and Clive Walker (eds), Dirty Assets: Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets (Ashgate Publishing 2014) 48.

  14. 14.

    Directive 2014/42/EU (n 4).

  15. 15.

    See about the Directive, Anna Maria Maugeri, ‘La Direttiva 2014/42/UE Relativa alla Confisca degli Strumenti e dei Proventi da Reato nell’Unione Europea tra Garanzie ed Efficienza: Un “Work in Progress”’ (2015) 1 Diritto Penale Contemporaneo 300; Nicola Selvaggi, ‘On Instruments Adopted in the Area of Freezing and Confiscation’ (2015) 7 Diritto Penale Contemporaneo 1.

  16. 16.

    (i) A non-legislative option, (ii) a minimal legislative option (correcting deficiencies in the existing EU legal framework which inhibit it from functioning as intended) and (iii) a maximal legislative option (going beyond the aims of the existing EU legal framework).

  17. 17.

    James Forsaith and others, ‘Study for an Impact Assessment on a Proposal for a New Legal Framework on the Confiscation and Recovery of Criminal Assets’ (2012) <https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/docs/external_study_used_as_a_basis_for_the_commission_ia_october_2012_en.pdf> accessed 20 March 2017.

  18. 18.

    Recital 5.

  19. 19.

    Based on art 82, s 2 and art 83, s 1 (Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 5). See Carmela Salazar, ‘Commento Art 82’ in Carlo Curti Gialdino (ed), Codice dell’Unione Europea (Jovene 2012) 896ff; Carmela Salazar, ‘Commento art 83’ in Carlo Curti Gialdino (ed), Codice dell’Unione Europea (Jovene 2012) 914ff.

  20. 20.

    European Criminal Bar Association, ‘Statement 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’ <www.ecba.org/extdocserv/201210_assetseizureECBA_statement.pdf> accessed 12 July 2016.

  21. 21.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) art 14.

  22. 22.

    Ibid. para 38.

  23. 23.

    ‘Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to enable the confiscation, either in whole or in part, of property belonging to a person convicted of a criminal offence which is liable to give rise, directly or indirectly, to economic benefit, where a court, on the basis of the circumstances of the case, including the specific facts and available evidence, such as that the value of the property is disproportionate to the lawful income of the convicted person, is satisfied that the property in question is derived from criminal conduct’: ibid. art 5 (emphasis added).

  24. 24.

    As defined in Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime [2008] OJ L300/42.

  25. 25.

    As amended by LIBE Committee (amendment n 28).

  26. 26.

    Art 83, para 2 TFUE. See Valsamis Mitsilegas, ‘European Criminal Law and Resistance to Communautarisation After Lisbon’ (2010) 1(4) New Journal of European Criminal Law 463; Johan Boucht, ‘Extended Confiscation and the Proposed Directive on Freezing and Confiscation of Criminal Proceeds in the EU’ (2013) 21(2) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 141.

  27. 27.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 19.

  28. 28.

    Ibid. art 3.

  29. 29.

    Ibid. para 20. See also Boucht (n 26) 144: ‘habitual criminality at national level’.

  30. 30.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) art 5.

  31. 31.

    Ibid. para 21.

  32. 32.

    Addington (n 12) 423; US Sentencing Commission (n 12); Maugeri (n 12) 876 ss.

  33. 33.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 21.

  34. 34.

    Montella Cass SSUU pen (17 December 2003) n 920; Luigi Fornari, Criminalità del Profitto e Tecniche Sanzionatorie. Confisca e Sanzioni Pecuniarie nel Diritto Penale Moderno (Cedam 1997) 222; Antonio Gialanella, ‘Funzionalità e Limiti Garantisti dell’Ordinamento Penale alla Difficile “Prova” delle Misure di Prevenzione Patrimoniale’ (1999) Critica del Diritto 538, 548.

  35. 35.

    Derouach Cass SSUU pen (30 May 2001) n 37140. Art 12 sexies law decree 306/1992—extended confiscation—does not ‘presume’ the guilt of the accused but only the unlawful source of the assets, Montella (n 34).

  36. 36.

    See Fornari (n 34) 222; Gialanella (n 34) 548; Montella (n 34).

  37. 37.

    Raimondo v Italy App no 12954/87 (ECtHR, 22 February 1994); Prisco v Italy App no 38662/97 (ECtHR, 15 June 1999); Madonia v Italy App no 55927/00 (ECtHR, 25 March 2003); Andersson v Italy App no 55504/00 (ECtHR, 20 June 2002); Arcuri v Italy App no 52024/99 (ECtHR, 5 July 2001); Riela v Italy App no 52439/99 (ECtHR, 4 September 2001); Bocellari and Rizza v Italy App no 399/02 (ECtHR, 13 November 2007); Butler v UK App no 41661/98 (ECtHR, 26 June 2002).

  38. 38.

    See, for instance, Phillips v UK App no 41087/98 (ECtHR, 12 December 2001), para 40; Salabiaku v France App no 10519/83 (ECtHR, 7 October 1988), para 28; Peter Alldridge ‘Smuggling, Confiscation and Forfeiture’ (2002) 65(5) Modern Law Review 781, 791.

  39. 39.

    Montella (n 34); Cass pen sez I (30 May 2007) n 21250 para 4; Domenico Potetti, ‘Riflessioni in Tema di Confisca di cui alla Legge 501/1994’ (1995) Cassazione Penale 1690; Luigi Ferrajoli, La Normativa Antiriciclaggio (Giuffrè 1994) 33; Giovanni Fiandaca and Enzo Musco, Diritto penale—Parte generale (6th edn, Zanichelli 2010) 848; Gaetano Nanula, ‘Le Nuove Norme sul Possesso Ingiustificato di Valori’ (1995) Il Fisco 10137.

  40. 40.

    See further Maugeri (n 9) 284ff.

  41. 41.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 21.

  42. 42.

    Basco Corte Costituzionale (1996) n 18. Also, for the confiscation preventive measure, the Italian Supreme Court requires the demonstration of this element for each acquisition at the moment of the purchase Spinelli Cass SSUU pen (26 June 2014) n 4880; TG and others Cass pen sez VI (31 May 2011) n 29926.

  43. 43.

    Montella (n 34); Cass pen sez I (13 May 2008) n 21357; Cass pen sez II (30 October 2008) n 44940.

  44. 44.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 21.

  45. 45.

    Cass (2008) n 21357 (n 43); Cass pen sez I (4 July 2007) n 33479.

  46. 46.

    Spinelli (n 42).

  47. 47.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 11.

  48. 48.

    Art 12 sexies law decree 306/92.

  49. 49.

    Art 2 ter l 575/65—art 24 preventive measures code.

  50. 50.

    Anna Maria Maugeri, ‘Dalla Riforma delle Misure di Prevenzione Patrimoniali alla Confisca Generale dei Beni Contro il Terrorismo’ in Oliviero Mazza and Francesco Viganò (eds), Il “Pacchetto sicurezza” 2009 (Giappichelli 2009) 425; Anna Maria Maugeri, ‘Dall’ Actio In Rem alla Responsabilità da Reato delle Persone Giuridiche’ in Costantino Visconti and Giovanni Fiandaca (eds), Scenari Attuali di Mafia (Giappichelli 2010) 297ff.

  51. 51.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 17.

  52. 52.

    Ibid. specifies that this exceptional circumstance should only be permitted ‘in cases where it would put the person concerned in a situation in which it would be very difficult for him to survive’.

  53. 53.

    Thomas Fischer and others, Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze (58th edn, Verlag CH Beck 2011) s 73c; Karl Lackner and Kristian Kühl, Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (27th edn, Beck 2011) s 73c, ss 1–3; Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, and Albin Eser, Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar (Verlag CH Beck 2010) s 73 c, s 2, 1130. See Bundesgerichtshof, 17 giugno 2010–2014 StR 126/10; Bundesgerichtshof 10 June 2009, 2 StR 76/09 (2009) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2755; Bundesgerichtshof 28 June 2000—2 StR 213/00 (2000) Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 590; Bundesgerichtshof 5 April 2000—2 StR 500/99 (2000) Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 480.

  54. 54.

    Alloum Cass pen sez fer (28 July 2009) n 33409; Cass pen sez II (13 May 2010) n 21027; R v Ahmad and another [2014] UKSC 36, [46]ff; contra Cour de cassation (2e ch E) (11 September 2013) P. 13.0505.F, in (2014) Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie 131.

  55. 55.

    See Fisia Italimpianti Cass SSUU pen (2 July 2008) n 26654; Cass pen sez II (16 November 2012) n 8740; Cass pen sez II (20 September 2012) n 35999; Ahmad (n 54) [54].

  56. 56.

    R v del Basso [2011] 1 Cr App R (S); Waya [2012] UKSC 51. For further discussion, see Chap. 19 (Hopmeier and Mills) and Chap. 20 (Young) in this collection.

  57. 57.

    See Christopher Badger, ‘R v Waya—Proportionality in Confiscation Proceedings’ (2013) 28(1) Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 47; Peter Alldridge, ‘Proceeds of Crime Law Since 2003: Two Key Areas’ [2014] Criminal Law Review 174; Janet Ulph, ‘Confiscation Orders, Human Rights, and Penal Measures’ (2010) 126(2) Law Quarterly Review 251.

  58. 58.

    Waya (n 56); Ahmad (n 54); Peter Alldridge, Money Laundering Law: Forfeiture, Confiscation, Civil Recovery, Criminal Laundering & Taxation of the Proceeds of Crime (Hart Publishing 2003) 176; Boucht (n 26) 158ff; Maugeri (n 15) 308ff.

  59. 59.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 30 and art 9.

  60. 60.

    See, for example, R v Padda (Gurpreet Singh) [2013] EWCA Crim 2330. For discussion, see Gavin Doig, ‘Revisiting the Available Amount—Confiscation of Post-Acquired Legitimate Assets’ (2014) 78(2) Journal of Criminal Law 110.

  61. 61.

    Such criteria are already used within some legal systems and in the USA have been introduced by CAFRA 2000. See Maugeri (n 12) 554ff and 308ff.

  62. 62.

    In the proposal for the Directive, this was set out in the then Article 5.

  63. 63.

    See Jon Petter Rui, ‘The Civil Asset Forfeiture Approach to Organised Crime: Exploring the Possibilities for an EU Model’ (2011) 4 European Criminal Law Associations’ Forum 153.

  64. 64.

    See for France, Chantal Cutajar, ‘Compte Rendu du Colloque: «Identification, Saisie et Confiscation des Avoirs Criminels»’ (2010) 11 Caiers de la Securite 211ff.

  65. 65.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 22.

  66. 66.

    For consideration of the UK civil recovery regime, see Chap. 22 (Alldridge) in this collection.

  67. 67.

    Directive 2014/42 (n 4) para 13.

  68. 68.

    Ibid. para 10.

  69. 69.

    See Maugeri (n 9) 287ff.

  70. 70.

    Article 49(6).

  71. 71.

    See Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (1990) ETS 141 paras 19 and 20, 5–6 <https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016800cb5de> accessed 20 March 2017; Alastair Brown, Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering, Confiscation & Forfeiture (Sweet and Maxwell 1996) 93; Maugeri (n 12) 603–604.

  72. 72.

    Explanatory Report (n 71) art 13, para 43, 13.

  73. 73.

    Giovanni Fiandaca and Costantino Visconti ‘Il “Codice delle Leggi Antimafia”: Risultati, Omissioni, Prospettive’ (2012) Legislazione Penale 181; Maugeri (n 12) 602–603.

  74. 74.

    Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, Crisafulli—Friolo (13 November 2003).

  75. 75.

    See also Senate Judiciary Commission, Rapport n° 328 (2009–2010) de M François Zocchetto (24.02.2010) <www.senat.fr/dossier-legislatif/ppl08-454.html> accessed 20 March 2017.

  76. 76.

    See Maugeri (n 9) 282ff. Case C-123/08 Dominic Wolzenburg (2009) ECR I-09621.

  77. 77.

    Todor Kolarov, ‘Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions on Confiscation: The Way Forward’ Contribution to the Seminar on Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions and Confiscation 15 Years after Tampere (Siracusa, 22–23 September 2014).

  78. 78.

    Home Office, Confiscation and Money Laundering: Law and Practise. A Guide for Enforcement Authorities (Stationery Office 1997) 61.

  79. 79.

    See Engel v the Netherlands App no 5101/71, 5354/72, 5102/71, 5370/72, 5100/71, (1976) 1 EHRR 647 (ECtHR, 8 June 1976); Öztürk v Germany App no 8544/79 (ECtHR, 21 February 1984) Series A no 73.

  80. 80.

    Butler (n 37). See Alldridge (n 58) 223–246; 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.

  81. 81.

    Each MS may deposit a declaration that its competent authorities will not recognise confiscation orders based on the extended powers of confiscation referred to in Article 2(d)(iv), that is, extended powers of confiscation under the law of the issuing State. The declaration may be withdrawn at any time (art 7, n 5 Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders [2006] OJ L328/59).

  82. 82.

    Engel (n 79); Öztürk (n 79).

  83. 83.

    Gogitidze v Georgia App no 36862/05 (ECtHR, 12 May 2015).

  84. 84.

    Ibid. para 126.

  85. 85.

    Air Canada v UK App no 18465/91 (ECtHR, 5 May 1995), para 34; Riela and Others v Italy App no 52439/99 (ECtHR, 4 September 2001); Veits v Estonia App no 12951/11 (ECtHR, 15 January 2015), para 70; Sun v Russia App no 31004/02 (ECtHR, 5 February 2009), para 25; Immobiliare Saffi v Italy [GC] App no 22774/93 (ECtHR, 28 July 1999), para 44.

  86. 86.

    Agosi v UK App no 9118/80 (ECtHR, 24 October 1986).

  87. 87.

    Ibid. para 51ff; Handyside v UK App no 5493/72 (ECtHR, 7 December 1976), paras 62–63.

  88. 88.

    Gogitidze (n 83) para 99. See also Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. v Italy App no 48357-52677-52687-52701/07 (ECtHR, 24 June 2014), para 104; Arras and Others v Italy App no 17972/07 (ECtHR, 14 February 2012), para 81; Huitson v UK App no 50131/12 (ECtHR, 13 January 2015), paras 31–35.

  89. 89.

    See Raimondo (n 37) para 30; Marandino v Italy App no 12386/86 (ECtHR, 15 April 1991) EHRR 70, 78.

  90. 90.

    Gogitidze (n 83) para 97.

  91. 91.

    Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi (n 88) paras 76 and 103.

  92. 92.

    See Anna Maria Maugeri, ‘La Responsabilità da Reato degli Enti’ (2014) Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Penale dell’Economia 708ff.

  93. 93.

    Gogitidze (n 83) para 102.

  94. 94.

    Ibid. para 103. The court referred to Phillips (n 38) para 52.

  95. 95.

    Gogitidze (n 83) para 102; Raimondo (n 37) para 30; Veits (n 85) para 71; Silickienė v Lithuania App no 20496/02 (ECtHR, 10 April 2012), para 65.

  96. 96.

    Gogitidze (n 83) para 122. The court referred to Phillips (n 38) para 52.

  97. 97.

    Gogitidze (n 83) para 112.

  98. 98.

    Ibid. para 107.

  99. 99.

    Ibid. para 111.

  100. 100.

    Ibid. para 111.

  101. 101.

    Ibid. para 103; Butler (n 37) para 8.

  102. 102.

    Gogitidze (n 83) para 105.

  103. 103.

    See Colin King, ‘Using Civil Processes in Pursuit of Criminal Law Objectives’ (2012) 16(4) International Journal of Evidence and Proof 337, about the use of civil processes as a crime control strategy.

  104. 104.

    Even if judgments are not always consistent.

  105. 105.

    See Maugeri (n 9) 294 and authors quoted; Anthony Gray, ‘The Compatibility of Unexplained Wealth Provisions and “Civil” Forfeiture Regimes With Kable’ (2012) 12(2) QUT Law and Justice Journal 11; Colin King, ‘“Hitting back” at Organized 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 Publishing 2014) para 168; Susan R Klein ‘Civil In Rem Forfeiture and Double Jeopardy’ (1996) 82(1) Iowa Law Review 183.

  106. 106.

    Varvara v Italy App no 17475/09 (ECtHR, 29 March 2014).

  107. 107.

    Art 17 Charter and I Prot ECHR.

  108. 108.

    Art 49 Charter.

  109. 109.

    Art 6 ECHR and arts. 47 and 48 Charter.

  110. 110.

    Art 7 ECHR and art 49 Charter.

  111. 111.

    Art 4 Prot 7 ECHR.

  112. 112.

    See, for example, paras 17–18.

  113. 113.

    For instance, Härtevorschrift s 73 c StGB.

  114. 114.

    Recital n 18: ‘When implementing this Directive, Member States may provide that, in exceptional circumstances, confiscation should not be ordered, insofar as it would, in accordance with national law, represent undue hardship for the affected person, on the basis of the circumstances of the respective individual case which should be decisive. Member States should make a very restricted use of this possibility, and should only be allowed to provide that confiscation is not to be ordered in cases where it would put the person concerned in a situation in which it would be very difficult for him to survive.’

  115. 115.

    Art 4.

  116. 116.

    Maurice Kempen, ‘The Mutual Recognition and Execution of Freezing and Confiscation Orders’, presented at the Seminar Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions and Confiscation 15 Years after Tampere (Siracusa, 22–23 September 2014) 12.

  117. 117.

    Council, (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2012/0036 (COD) 7329/1/14 REV 1 ADD 1 CODEC 657 DROIPEN 39 COPEN 83, Statement by the European Parliament and the Council on an analysis to be carried out by the Commission (31 March 2014) <http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%207329%202014%20REV%201%20ADD%201> accessed 20 March 2017.

  118. 118.

    Eighth Meeting of the Consultative Forumof Prosecutors General and Directors of Public Prosecutionsof the MSs of the EU (The Hague, 12 December 2014) <www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/Eurojustframework/consultativeforum/IT%20Presidency%20-%20Conclusions%20of%20CF%20meeting%20of%2012-122014%20(Council%2 0document%208552-15)/CF-2014-12-12_ST08552-15_EN.pdf> accessed 20 March 2017.

  119. 119.

    For example, in Spain, the Ley Orgánica 1/2015, 30 Marz, has introduced the ‘decomiso sin sentencia’ in art 127, s 4 Código Penal.

  120. 120.

    On 21 December 2016, a ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders’ was presented, in order to impose the mutual recognition of all types of orders covered by Directive 2014/42/EU (confiscation of the value ex art 4, direct confiscation ex art 4 and extended confiscation ex art 5, and confiscation of assets in the possession of third parties ex art 6), as well as other types of orders issued without final conviction within the framework of criminal proceedings; this regulation should not apply to freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of civil or administrative proceedings. The choice of a regulation based on art 288 TFEU on the basis of art 82(1) TFUE is worthwhile in terms of effectiveness, but it is also problematic because of the uncertain boundary between cooperation and harmonisation which falls under art 82(2). Some concern also arises regarding the concept of criminal proceedings mentioned in the regulation; see Anna Maria Maugeri, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Mutual Recognition of Freezing and Confiscation Orders: Prime Osservazioni’ (2017) Diritto Penale Contemporaneo 1.

  121. 121.

    Framework Decision 212/2005 (n 4) art 3; Directive 42/2014 (n 4) artt 4 and 5.

  122. 122.

    European Parliament Resolution of 25 October 2011 on organised crime in the European Union 2010/2309(INI).

  123. 123.

    Financial Action Task Force, ‘Recommendations’ (2012) <www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/FATF_Recommendations.pdf> accessed 20 March 2017.

  124. 124.

    European Criminal Bar Association, ‘Statement 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’ (2012) <www.ecba.org/extdocserv/201210_assetseizureEC BA_statement.pdf> accessed 20 March 2017.

  125. 125.

    See Maugeri (n 12) 269ff.

  126. 126.

    Directive 2014/42/EU (n 4) art 8 para 4.

  127. 127.

    Gogitidze (n 83) para 111.

  128. 128.

    For further discussion, see Chap. 29 (Vettori) in this collection.

  129. 129.

    Center for the Study of Democracy, Disposal of Confiscated Assets in the EU Member States Laws and Practices (2014). See Commission Staff, Working paper accompanying document to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union impact assessment <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/it/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012SC0031> accessed 20 March 2017.

  130. 130.

    Recital 35: ‘for law enforcement and crime prevention projects, as well as for other projects of public interest and social utility’. In the proposal, amended by LIBE Committee, the improvement of this scope, the social reuse of the confiscated property, was mandatory.

  131. 131.

    Alessandro Bernardi, ‘Politiche di Armonizzazione e Sistema Sanzionatorio Penale’ in Tommaso Rafaraci (ed), L’Area di Libertà, Sicurezza e Giustizia (Giuffrè 2007) 277.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Anna Maria Maugeri

Authors
  1. Anna Maria Maugeri
    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

Maugeri, A.M. (2018). Mutual Recognition and Confiscation of Assets: An EU Perspective. 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_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64498-1_17

  • 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