Borderless enforcement of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU: the first regulation on mutual recognition in criminal matters

Mirandola, Sofia

doi:10.1007/s12027-019-00581-x

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This situation arises from the significant variations in legislation across countries regarding the recovery of stolen funds, particularly when compared to other areas of criminal law. (Mirandola, 2020) Consequently, there is an immediate requirement to undertake a comprehensive analysis of both national and international judicial systems and legal provisions. This analysis aims to streamline the processes involved in the recovery of stolen assets and to enhance the existing procedures for mutual legal assistance.…”

Section: Two-track Mechanism For Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperation Mechanism between China and the UK in Anti-Corruption Asset Recovery

Zuo

2023

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cooperation mechanism between China and the UK in the field of anticorruption asset recovery has attracted much attention, along with the challenges it faces. China's corruption problem has compelled the government to make significant efforts in apprehending fugitives who have fled abroad and in addressing the recovery of suspected criminal funds. Within the legal framework of mutual criminal legal assistance between China and the UK, the recovery of corrupt funds must be carried out based on police cooperation. At the same time, the differences between the two countries in terms of asset freezing, confiscation, production orders, and special confiscation procedures may pose challenges for the British judicial system when dealing with China's requests for judicial assistance. There is still room for improvement in China-UK cooperation on anti-corruption reform, including strengthening law enforcement cooperation and establishing an efficient communication mechanism.

show abstract

Section: Two-track Mechanism For Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperation Mechanism between China and the UK in Anti-Corruption Asset Recovery

Zuo

2023

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ten eerste was het Unierechtelijk kader voorheen niet ingesteld op de wederzijdse erkenning van dergelijke confiscatiebevelen. Hoewel er geen eensgezindheid bestaat over de vraag of Kaderbesluit 2006/783/JBZ sommige van deze confiscatiemaatregelen per definitie uitsloot 22 , zorgden de relevante weigeringsgronden ervoor dat de tenuitvoerlegging van een dergelijke confiscatie in een andere EU-lidstaat hoe dan ook vaak werd verhinderd. Ten tweede gaat de samenwerking in het kader van Verordening (EU) 2018/1805 veel verder dan andere internationale instrumenten waarin een grensoverschrijdende tenuitvoerlegging van een NCBC is voorzien.…”

Section: De Confiscatiebevelen: Een Ruim Scalaunclassified

“…De verordening voorziet daarentegen in een uitgebreide regeling, waardoor de positie van het slachtoffer aanzienlijk wordt verbeterd. 66 Zo wordt van de normale regels in verband met het beheer en beschikking over de geconfisqueerde goederen afgeweken indien de rechten van het slachtoffer dit vereisen. Dit is het geval wanneer de uitvaardigende autoriteitof een andere bevoegde autoriteit van de uitvaardigende staatbesluit dat de geconfisqueerde voorwerpen moeten worden teruggegeven aan het slachtoffer, dan wel worden aangewend voor de compensatie van het slachtoffer.…”

Section: De Teruggave Aan Of Compensatie Van Het Slachtofferunclassified

De wederzijdse erkenning van confiscatiebevelen: de innovatieve aspecten van Verordening (EU) 2018/1805

Bollens¹,

Daele²

2022

Boom Strafblad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confiscation of assets in the EU – legal or (just) effective?

Hryniewicz-Lach

2023

Archives of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Union is empowered to legislate in criminal matters; the European Parliament and the Council may establish minimum rules, in certain areas, concerning the definitions of criminal offences and sanctions or facilitating cross-border cooperation. However, in the field of asset confiscation, the EU authorities seem to go beyond these competences in their legislative activity. In this paper the author refers to this and other problems of EU legislation in criminal matters: covering up the insufficient competence to legislate with the argument of needing harmonisation, the lack of reliable data that would justify EU legislative activity and the problematic concept of effectiveness in EU legislation.

show abstract

Borderless enforcement of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU: the first regulation on mutual recognition in criminal matters

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Cooperation Mechanism between China and the UK in Anti-Corruption Asset Recovery

Cooperation Mechanism between China and the UK in Anti-Corruption Asset Recovery

De wederzijdse erkenning van confiscatiebevelen: de innovatieve aspecten van Verordening (EU) 2018/1805

Confiscation of assets in the EU – legal or (just) effective?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About