Upload
emily-schroeder
View
225
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Proceeds of Crime and Asset Recovery
21 February 2007
A Proceeds of Crime Legislative History
1978
Operation Julie R v Cuthbertson Conspiracy to produce LSD Forfeiture Order - s 27 Misuse of Drugs Act
1971 Cash, cars, paintings, bank accounts in
Switzerland and France, a debt owed to a defendant
Forfeiture order upheld by Court of Appeal
1981
R v Cutherbertson House of Lords : Conspiracy not an offence under 1971 Act S 27 - No extraterritorial effect S 27 - No enforcement machinery S 27 - No Parliamentary intention for orders
against drug trafficking profits Allowed appeal against forfeiture order
1984
Hodgson Committee recommendationsConfiscation powersPrescribed minimum but no maximumAvailable in Crown Courts onlyMagistrates to have power to commit for
confiscation
1985
Home Affairs Select Committee“Misuse of Hard Drugs – Interim
Report”Approved US policy of giving courts
“draconian powers” to remove proceeds of drug trafficking
1986
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986First E&W confiscation legislationLimited to drug trafficking casesDiscretionary statutory assumptions
1988
UN Vienna Convention Criminal Justice Act 1988
Extended confiscation to non-drugs cases
No statutory assumptions in non-drugs cases
1989
Creation of Financial Action Task Force by G7Purpose : the development and
promotion of national and international policies to combat money laundering
40 RecommendationsMutual evaluationsBlacklist – NCCT’s
1990
Criminal Justice International Co-operation Act 1990 Introduction of cash forfeiture system Amendments to DTOA 1986 Allowed UK to ratify Vienna Convention
Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (NI) Order 1990 First NI confiscation legislation Discretionary statutory assumptions in drugs cases No statutory assumptions in non-drugs cases
Strasbourg Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation
1991
Home Office Working Group on ConfiscationFirst reportRecommended amendments to DTOA
1986
1993
Criminal Justice Act 1993Created drug money laundering
offencesAmended DTOA 1986 and CJCNIO
1990Most amendments not brought into
force
1994
Drug Trafficking Act 1994Consolidation of drugs related
confiscation and forfeiture provisionsMandatory statutory assumptions for
drugs cases
1995
Proceeds of Crime Act 1995More strengthening amendmentsDiscretionary statutory assumptions in
non-drugs cases
1996
Proceeds of Crime (NI) Order 1996Replaced the 1990 OrderIntroduced mandatory statutory
assumptions for drugs casesIntroduced discretionary statutory
assumptions for non-drugs cases
1997
Home Office Working Group on Confiscation – Third ReportRecommended “full” civil forfeitureRecommended National Confiscation
AgencyRecommended further amendments
to DTA 1994 and POCO 1996
2000
PIU Report “Recovering the Proceeds of Crime”
2002
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Creation of Assets Recovery Agency Civil recovery proceedings in High Court Taxation of suspected criminal gains Extended cash forfeiture scheme Prosecution appeals on confiscation issues Mandatory statutory assumptions if “criminal
lifestyle” Strengthened money laundering offences
2005
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005Significant amendments to civil
recovery schemeMinor amendments to confiscation
scheme
2006
“Criminal Memoirs” consultation by Home OfficePossible new offence for payment to
criminals for publications about crimesPossible enlargement of civil recovery
scheme to cover publishers’ royalties
2007
Government introduces Serious Crime Bill proposing :Merger of Assets Recovery Agency
into Serious Organised Crime AgencyCivil Recovery proceedings to be
brought by prosecutorsAdditional investigation powers for
cash forfeiture investigations
Trends 1986 - 2007
Increasing international pressure to comply with norms
Less divergence between provisions in drugs and non-drugs cases
Increasing use of civil alternatives Broadening definitions of criminal proceeds Reduction in judicial discretion in
confiscation hearings
Perception
Perception
“Clean” or “Dirty” Money ?
Confiscation proceedings Civil recovery proceedings Cash forfeiture proceedings Taxation proceedings Money laundering offences
Evidence often offered to prove criminal origin of property (1)
Previous criminal convictions Criminal associates Contamination of cash Accomplice evidence Audit Trails Unlikelihood of legitimate origin Absence of commercial or domestic logic
Evidence often offered to prove criminal origin of property (2)
Expert evidence Packaging of proceeds Denomination of banknotes Lies by the defendant Inferences from silence Admissions