Stripping a Criminal of the Profits of Crime

Jones, Gareth

doi:10.2202/1565-3404.1002

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence in legal systems of forfeiture provisions encourages third parties to be extremely cautious when dealing with suspected criminals (Goldsmith & Linderman, 1989, 1256. Forfeiture law also allows for restitution to the victim (Bowles et al, 2005, 280; see also in this context: Jones, 2001).…”

Section: Justification Of Forfeiturementioning

confidence: 99%

Should gains from criminal knowledge be forfeited?

Mamak

Barczak-Oplustil

Kwiatkowski

et al. 2021

Crime Law Soc Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nobody should profit from crime; this fundamental moral principle is uncontroversial. At the level of public declaration, few people are likely to disagree with this statement; however, controversies arise when the implementation of this principle is under discussion. Numerous provisions exist that aim to strip criminals of the proceeds from their crimes, but not all aspects of this issue are immediately apparent. For example, a significant question is how to treat profits that a criminal makes from activities including recounting stories about their criminal activities, publishing books describing their actions, or creating YouTube videos presenting details about their crimes. Such profits are either treated as legitimate or are targeted by complicated legal methods of deprivation. The view presented in this paper could facilitate the ability to strip criminals from these forms of profit. This article argues that revenue accruing from knowledge gained from association with crime should be treated as indirect proceeds of crime and, as such, should be forfeited.

show abstract

Section: Justification Of Forfeiturementioning

confidence: 99%

Should gains from criminal knowledge be forfeited?

Mamak

Barczak-Oplustil

Kwiatkowski

et al. 2021

Crime Law Soc Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The requirement for conviction guarantees security and reliance, 50 but it raises difficulties: Should we allow a person who was criminally acquitted to inherit the testator, even though in the civil proceeding it was decided that that person had intentionally committed the act? 51 Is a slayer who committed suicide after the slaying entitled to inherit? What would be the case with one that cannot stand trial because of insanity 52 or infancy?…”

Section: Text: Over-and Under-inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Slayer Rule

Cohen

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stripping a Criminal of the Profits of Crime

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Should gains from criminal knowledge be forfeited?

Should gains from criminal knowledge be forfeited?

The Slayer Rule

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About