A critique of the official discourse on drug and sex trafficking by organised crime using data on asset recovery

Abstract

A critique of the official discourse on drug and sex trafficking by organised crime using data on asset recovery Peter Sproat Article information:To cite this document: Peter Sproat, (2012),"A critique of the official discourse on drug and sex trafficking by organised crime using data on asset recovery"Abstract Purpose -The article aims to describe the role of asset recovery in combating drug and people trafficking within the UK and the different means by which the proceeds of crime can be taken away from such organised criminals. Design/methodology/approach -The author uses official data on asset recovery to critically analyse both the policing of drug trafficking in the UK and the official discourse on the extent, value and costs to the country of the trafficking of women for sex by organised crime. Findings -The article raises important questions about the credibility of the official estimates of the scale of drug trafficking by organised crime and/or the management and funding of those tasked with policing it within the UK. Originality/value -The work provides either a more accurate guide on the extent, value and costs to the country of the trafficking of women for sex or a much needed antithesis to the official discourse on the topic.

The Financial Investigation of Human Trafficking in the UK: Legal and Practical Perspectives

“…Sproat has analysed British Ministry of Justice figures on Confiscation Orders placed on sentenced human traffickers for the period 2004-2009. 69 These figures show that nearly 90% of the traffickers were not even issued a Confiscation Order, which made Sproat offer a plausible explanation: human traffickers 'had so few assets [and] the Police/CPS did not even bother trying!'. 70 This is echoed in one of the interviewee's accounts suggesting that when it comes to organised crime, human traffickers in the UK are not financially interesting compared to other organised criminals, who are the priority of financial investigation, such as drug smugglers:…”

Reaching the parts other investigations cannot reach

“…Indeed, a number of Home Office strategy documents have highlighted the importance of this role (Home Office, 2007, 2009, 2011. Evaluations of aspects of the 2002 Act have focused on the extent to which law enforcement agencies have been successful in recovering assets (Kennedy, 2007;Sproat, 2007Sproat, , 2012Sproat, , 2012. These have largely been critical of the amounts recovered by law enforcement agencies, which have partly resulted from significant levels of attrition in the system between the amounts identified for recovery and the amounts actually recovered (Bullock et al, 2009;Bullock, 2010).…”

The Back-Door Governance of Crime: Confiscating Criminal Assets in the UK

“…Naylor, Levi and Reuter, and Sproat question the very definition of the scope and nature of the problem being addressed. Not only is the amount of criminal money in circulation and therefore available for confiscation unknown, we also wonder whether the problem for society that 'proceeds of crime' constitutes has been adequately conceptualised (Naylor 2001: 147;Levi and Reuter 2006;Sproat 2012). Other critics have questioned the basic assumption that the asset recovery automatically leads to crime reduction and disruption (Innes and Sheptycki 2004;King and Walker 2014;Bullock and Lister 2014).…”

“…Furthermore, implementation of the seizure of proceeds of crime policy has been subject to criticism. In particular, it is argued that targeting offenders and offences by confiscation proceedings is often driven by its social visibility, rather than crime control considerations alone (Bullock 2010;Sproat 2012). Critics also point out the danger of the unanticipated damage that can be caused by the policies (Naylor 2001).…”