Academic literature on the topic 'Forfeiture'

The billions of dollars in assets seized by law enforcement each year represent a crucial source of revenue for these organizations, but also raise important constitutional questions and can create significant tensions within the jurisdictions they administer. Research on asset forfeiture to date has focused heavily on municipal police, largely neglecting forfeiture activities by sheriffs. Thus, it has missed an important opportunity to build theory about the differences between appointed and elected administrators and neglected an important source of institutional variation that may help to explain this particular administrative activity. To develop expectations about the relative levels of asset forfeiture and the response to intergovernmental incentives related to forfeiture, we draw on and extend scholarship comparing the behavior of elected versus appointed administrators in other settings. We test those expectations in analyses of more than 1,200 sheriff’s offices and over 2,200 municipal police departments between 1993 and 2007. Results suggest that sheriffs receive less forfeiture revenue than municipal police and are less responsive to state-level policies that change the financial rewards of asset forfeiture for agencies. These results hold whether we examine forfeitures made through the federal Equitable Sharing Program, where civil and criminal forfeiture cases can be distinguished, or jurisdictional level data on forfeiture, where civil and criminal forfeitures are combined. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both the research on asset forfeiture and on elected versus appointed public administrators more generally.

The Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 [AMLAFTA] empowers the Malaysian Courts to forfeit any property that is the subject of a money-laundering offence via sections 55 and 56 of the AMLAFTA. The rationale of this empowerment is to ensure that all property used in the commission of a money laundering offence is forfeited. Hence, the criminals do not gain any benefits from their crimes. However, it is observed that the provision related to civil forfeiture, specifically under section 56 of the AMLAFTA appears problematic in many instances due to the requirement attached and the civil standard of proof. As such, this article intends to detail the civil forfeiture mechanisms under the AMLAFTA. This article used the qualitative method in doctrinal legal research to collect and analyse all the information related to the topic from various primary and secondary data such as legal provisions, case laws and secondary sources, namely journals and articles on civil forfeiture, especially when applying the standard of proof. The article analyses the substantive law and procedural requirements for civil forfeitures based on Malaysia’s relevant legal provisions and cases. This article also examines the Malaysian Courts’ trends in deciding civil forfeiture cases and analyses the standard of proof for civil forfeiture. This article suggests amendments to section 56 of the AMLAFTA to introduce a provision on the rebuttable presumption to ensure that the objective of creating the civil forfeiture provision can be achieved.

Improving the method of asset confiscation to recover state losses is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. The current approach, which relies on in-person procedures, presents numerous ongoing obstacles. Therefore, a breakthrough in asset confiscation is required, namely implementing in rem asset forfeiture. This paper explores the feasibility of adopting in-rem asset forfeiture in Indonesia while addressing the associated challenges. It is both descriptive and prescriptive, providing an analysis of how to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to optimize asset confiscation. The research employs a normative juridical research method, focusing on the concept and legal policies on asset confiscation. The findings suggest the need to revamp the legal system governing asset confiscation in Indonesia by officially incorporating in rem asset forfeitures into positive law and achieving vertical and horizontal legal harmonization.

Fofeiture of property is the most severe of all penalties affecting property that have ever been imposed in hisiory. It consists in the convicted offender’s property being taken over – wholly or in part – by the treasury. The paper deals with the history of this particular penalty in the criminal policy of Polish People’s Republic in the years 1944–1990. The penalty of forfeiture of property was not provided for in the 1932 penal code (which remained in force till December 31, 1969). It appeared in the legislation shortly before World War II, in the act of June 23, 1939 on special criminal responsibility for desertion to the enemy or abroad. Before the passing of the 1932 penal code, the codes of the partitioning powers had been in force in the Polish territories (as until the regaining of independence in 1918, Poland was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Germany). Also those codes did not provide for forfeiture of property. It was only the legislator of People’s Poland who introduced forfeiture of property as an additionar penalty and provided for its broad adjudication. The history of forfeiture of property in postwar Poland is analyzed divided into four stages which differ from one another due to significant changes in the legislation. The changes reflected re-orientation of criminal policy in connection with a succession of political crises. The first such stage in the history of forfeiture of property were the years 1944–1958. The data discussed in the paper that concern this period are statistics of civilians convicted by military courts from the spring of l944 till April 30, 1955 (till which date in special cases provided for in statutes, civilians fell under the jurisdiction of military courts), and statistics of convictions by common courts till 1949. The second stage began with the passing of the act of June 18, 1959 on protection of social property. Stage three was initiated by the entering into force, on January 1, 1970, of the new penal code of April 19, 1969. The fourth and last stage began with the passing of the act of May 10, 1985 on special criminal responsability and ended with the act of February 23, 1990 which derogated the penalty of forfeiture of property. The introduction of forfeiture of property as an additional penalty is characteristic of the earliest legislative acts of the new authorities of People’s Poland, imposed from without. Its broad application and obligatory character demonstrate the importance attached by those authorities to forfeiture as an element of political game against society. The first legal acts of the Polish Committee for National Liberaltion provided for that penalty: the decree of August 31, 1944 on statutory penalties for the Nazi was criminals, the decree of September 23, 1944 – Penal Code of the Polish Army, and the decree of October 30, 1944 on protection of State. One year later, the decree of November 11,1945 was passed on offences of particular danger in the period of reconstruction of State (which quashed the former wartime decree on protection of State). It was in turn replaced with a new one under the same title, passed on June 13, 1946. The Council of Ministers justified the new decree with the need for aggravation of penalties for all activities that disturbed internal peace, order, and safety, and impaired Poland’s international position. The decree piovided for particularly severe penalties for perpetration of, incitement to, and approval of fratricide; for membership of illegal organizations and terrorist groups; for distribution of illegal literature; for illegal possession of firearms; for helping the members of terrorist groups; and in some cases of failure to inform on an offence. (The decree was generally known as the small penal code – s.p.c.). As provided for in the decree, the additional penalty of forfeiture of property was obfigatory in two cases: sentence to death or to life imprisonment, and conviction for attempt with violence or membership of an armed union. It was optional in the case of sentence to a prison term (Art. 49 para 1 and 2 of the decree). The provisions of s.p.c. extended the application of forfeiture: the court could at ail times adjudicate forfeiture of the property not only of the convicted person himself but also of his spouse or familly members (this did not concern, though, the property such persons attained themselves, inherited, or acquired gift not donated by the convicted persons). Thus forfeiture could affect a very large group of actually innocent persons. Here the decree introduced group responsability for crime. In 1953, four decrees were passed; according to the people’s legislator, they aimed at protecting social property and the interests of buyers in commercial trade. Two of them, the decree of March 4, 1953 on protection of buyers in commercial trade and another one passed on that same date on increased protection of social property, provided for the possibility of forfeiture of the offender’s property wholly or in part. In that case, forfeiture was optional. Statistical data concerning the adjudication of forfeiture were gathered since 1949. Beginning from August 15, 1944, though, forfeiture of property was also adjudicated in cases of civilians convicted by military courts which had civilians in their jurisdiction by force of the decree of October 30, 1944 on protection of State. Military courts were competent to decide in cases of persons accused of offences specified in Art. Art. 85–88 and 101 – 103 of penal code of the Polish Army, in the decree on protection of State, and – the latter quashed – in s.p.c. The jurisdiction of military courts in cases of civilians was abolished in the act of April 5, 1955 on transfer to common courts of the former competence of military courts in cases of civilians, functionaries of public security agencies, the Civic Militaria and Prison Staff. Military courts retained their competence in cases of the specified categories of civilians accused of espionage (Art. 7 s.p.c.). The passing of that act was the first manifestation of a gradual abolition of the legal and judiciary terror. Convictions of civilians tried by military courts were two or three times more frequent than convictions of military service men. Starting from as early as the latter half of 1944, civilians were convicted for membership of illegal or delegalized organizations (mainly the former Home Army) and for illegal possession of firearms (70 per cent of all convictions). Aftcr 1952, the number of persons convicted for the latter went down; instead, more persons were convicted for banditry and failure to inform on an offence. Forfeiture of property was adjudicated in about 40 to 50 per cent of cases of civilians; it accompanied sentences to long prison terms or to death, as well as another additional penalty: deprivation of public rights. It was imposed first of all on those who opposed the newly introduced political system, but also on chance perpetrators of what was called anti-State propagande. Common courts adjudicated forfeiture of property mainly for offences specified in two decrees: the one of August 31, 1944 on statutory penalties for Nazi war criminals, and the decree of June 28,1946 on criminal responsability for repudiation of Polish nationality during the 1939-1945 war. Over 90 per cent of all forfeiture were adjudicated in such cases. During the 1959–1969 decade, the additional penalty of forfeiture of property was imposed basing on special statutes. Two statutes were passed as a novelty which provided for forfeiture while aiming at special protection of the social property. They were: the act of January 21, 1958 on increased protection of social property, and the act of June 18, 1959 on criminal responsability for offences against social property. Nearly all forfeitures in that period were adjudicated for offences specified in the act of June 18, 1959, and the actual offence concerned was appropriation of social property in practically all cases. Convictions for the offences specified in the discussed statut constituted one-fifth of all convictions; most cases, however, concerned petty or not too serious offences where forfeiture was optional only. This is why that penalty was imposed rather seldom; there were realatively few acts for which it was obligatory. Forfeiture was also most seldom adjudicated by force of ther statutes. It amounted to 1,5–2,2 per cent of all additional penalties imposed. The new penal code passed on April 19, 1969 introduced forfeiture of property to its catalogue of additional penalties. Forfeiture of the whole or part of property was obligatory on the case of conviction for the following crimes: 1) against the basic political or economic interests of Polish People’s Republic: betrayal of the fatherland, conspiracy against Polish People’s Republic, espionage, terrorism, sabotage, abuse of confidence in foreign relations, misinformation, participation in organized crime against the economy or foreign currency regulations; and 2) appropriation of social property of considerable value. Besides, the court could adjudicate forfeiture of property wholly or in part in the case of conviction of another crime committed for material profit. The code’s regulation of application of forfeiture was clearly copied from the earlier legislation: the s.p.c. and the acts that increased the protection of social property. During the fifteen years 1970–1984, forfeiture of property was among the least frequently imposed penalties and constituted from 1,2 to 3,3 per cent of all additional penalties. It accompagnied nearly exlusively the convictions for two types of offences: appropriation of social property of considerable value, and that same offence committed by a person who availed himself of the activity of a unit of socialized economy, and acted in conspiracy with others to the detriment of that unit, its customers or contractors. Convictions for these offences constituted about 1 per cent of all convictions for offences against property. The fourth and last period discussed are the years 1985–1990 when forfeiture was again adjudicated very often, as in the 1940’s – 1950’s, to be abolished completely in the end. The entire five-year period was characterized by changes in penal law, one completely opposing another: from extension of penalization and increase of repressiveness introduced by the acts of 1985 to liberalization in 1990. Two acts were passed bearing the same date – may 10, 1985: on changing some provisions of penal law and the law on transgressions, and on special criminal responsability (the so-called provisional act in force till June 30, 1988). They introduced significant changes in the range of application of forfeiture of property, making its adjudication possible, and for some time even obligatory, for common offences. In the discussed period, that penalty was imposed mainly for offences against property. Nearly a half of them were burglaries, and the victims were usually – in two-thirds of cases – natural persons. In the period of particular intensity of convictions – 1986–1987 – forfeiture accompanied 11–12 per cent of ail convictions, the proportion going down to a mere 0,1 per cent in 1989. The imposition of that penalty was extremely broad: consequently, forfeiture was adjudicated in cases of quite petty offences where it was inappropriate and out of all proportion to the seriousness of the act and the guilt of the offender. This made the execution of forfeiture actually ineffective as it usually proved objectless in the case of petty common offenders. Forfeiture of property evolved in a way from was practically non-existence to emergence in special statutes and then in the penal code, to its special use in the criminal policy of the eighties when grounds well known from the past were given for its broader imposition: the need for severe penal repression towards offenders against property, to a complete abolition of that penalty in 1990. Forfeiture was extensively applied in the years 1949–1958 (when common courts adjudicated 1044, and military courts – 1538 forfeitures a year on the average). The next two periods were similar as to the number of forfeitures (503 and 513 respectively). The use of forfeiture was the broadest under the provisional statute (10,345 cases a year on the average). Forfeiture is no doubt one of the most severe penalties affecting property, or penalties in general, which is why it should have been adjudicated in exceptional cases only. Its use under the provisional statute in cases of ,,ordinary” offenders violated the principle of just punishment. On the other hand, forfeiture can hardly be called a just penalty anyway as it always affects not only the offender himself but also his family. The political changes in Poland made it possible to liberalize penal law and to remove the most unjust solutions it contained, the penalty of forfeiture of property included.

The study examined forfeiture and refund on public expenditure: A model for effective financial management in Nigeria. the specific objectives of the study were to: establish the effect of forfeiture and refund in improving actual revenue collected, examine the effect of forfeiture and refund in improving actual public expenditure and determine the effect of forfeiture and refund in improving publicborrowing in Nigeria. Three research questions guided the study. It employed a documentary research design. The finding showed that forfeiture and refunds in improved actual revenue collected, that forfeiture and refunds in improved actual public expenditure and that forfeiture and refunds will reduce public borrowing in Nigeria. The study concluded that forfeiture and refund on publicexpenditure is a good model for effective financial management in Nigeria. Forfeiture and recovery of proceeds of corruption are vital aspects of the anticorruption efforts of the present government in Nigeria. The study among others recommended that Building anti-corruption agencies' capacities through continuous training and re-training programs and international cooperation will block ahaven to corruption and its assets, and it will enhance global combat against corruption. The effectiveness of any recovery, confiscation and asset forfeiture legal regime depends on institutional capacity and funding.

The study examined forfeiture and refund on public expenditure: A model for effective financial management in Nigeria. the specific objectives of the study were to: establish the effect of forfeiture and refund in improving actual revenue collected, examine the effect of forfeiture and refund in improving actual public expenditure and determine the effect of forfeiture and refund in improving public borrowing in Nigeria. Three research questions guided the study. It employed a documentary research design. The finding showed that forfeiture and refunds in improved actual revenue collected, that forfeiture and refunds in improved actual public expenditure and that forfeiture and refunds will reduce public borrowing in Nigeria. The study concluded that forfeiture and refund on public expenditure is a good model for effective financial management in Nigeria. Forfeiture and recovery of proceeds of corruption are vital aspects of the anticorruption efforts of the present government in Nigeria. The study among others recommended that Building anti-corruption agencies' capacities through continuous training and re-training programs and international cooperation will block a haven to corruption and its assets, and it will enhance global combat against corruption. The effectiveness of any recovery, confiscation and asset forfeiture legal regime depends on institutional capacity and funding.

Introduction. This paper highlights the main elements of the legal construction of special forfeiture at the present stage of its legal regulation. The purpose of the paper is the isolation of the main components of the legal structure of special forfeiture, their analysis separately and in conjunction with each other in order to identify inaccurate and conflicting provisions of the Law of Ukraine on Criminal Liability. Results. The content of each element of the legal construction of special forfeiture is analyzed both separately and in conjunction with other elements. The peculiarities of the actual criminal law content of the special forfeiture have been established. The peculiarities of the procedural basis for the application of special forfeiture are analyzed. The characteristic features of the criminal law conditions for the use of special forfeiture have been established. Some shortcomings of the legislative technique in constructing the provisions of the Law of Ukraine on Criminal Liability concerning the persons to whom provisions on special forfeiture are addressed have been established. The peculiarities of the criminal law basis of special forfeiture and the contradiction of this element of its legal structure with its other elements are characterized, which excludes the use of special forfeiture in some cases by its literal meaning in the form in which it is formulated in the law on criminal liability. The characteristic features of the subject of special forfeiture and the contradiction of this element of its construction with the forfeiture of property as a type of punishment are established. The exclusions from some of the above components of special forfeiture are analyzed. The success of the use of the phrase "bona fide purchaser" in the construction of Article 962 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is analyzed. Conclusions. Ambiguous elements of the construction of special forfeiture that require legislative adjustment have been identified. Clearly conflicting provisions of the norms of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability concerning the legal construction of special forfeiture are singled out. Relevant conclusions are made.

Introduction. This paper analyzes the development of norms on the implementation of special forfeiture in Ukraine since its independence. The purpose of the paper is determining the main periods of development of legal regulation of special forfeiture in Ukraine and highlighting the main features of each period. Results. According to the criterion of development of features of structural placement of norms on special forfeiture in the Criminal Code of Ukraine, three main periods of regulation of the specified measure of criminal character are allocated. The main features of the first period of regulation of special forfeiture, which is the regulation of the implementation of the specified measure of criminal nature at the level of norms of the Special Parts of the Criminal Codes of Ukraine of 1960 and 2001, are characterized. The main problems concerning the law enforcement of the rules on special forfeiture, which arose in connection with the legislative approach to special forfeiture at this stage, are described. The peculiarities of the second period of development of regulation of special forfeiture are described, during which the latter was carried out at the level of both the General Part of the Criminal Code and its Special Part. The conflicts between the provisions of the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code regarding special forfeiture that arose at this stage are described, as well as some inconsistent legislative steps to amend the provisions of the law on criminal liability relating to special forfeiture. The main features of the current stage of legal regulation of special forfeiture are described. The problems of making changes to the legislation related to the adoption of laws that do not take into account the peculiarities of the development of legal regulation of special forfeiture are described. Conclusion. Relevant conclusions have been made, in particular, that special forfeiture, contrary to stereotypical views, is not a fundamentally new (implemented over the last decade) measure of a criminal nature in the criminal law of Ukraine. The stages of development of norms on special forfeiture are singled out. The chronological boundaries of each of the stages are set.

In order for the proceeds of unlawful activities to be completely dislodged from the criminals’ hands, the latter should be effectively deterred from allowing their assets to be used to execute or facilitate the commission of offences. When properly exacted, in the interests of justice and within the existing constitutional framework, the legal process known as asset forfeiture should ensure that crime never pays. Asset forfeiture refers to both criminal forfeiture, which is conviction based following the United Kingdom asset forfeiture regime and civil forfeiture, which is non-conviction based following the United States of America one.2 Chapter 5 provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act3 (hereafter POCA) provides for court, Basdeo M – Search, Seizure and Asset Forfeiture in the South African Criminal Justice System: Drawing a Balance between Public Utility and Constitutional Rights (2013) LLD, University of South Africa in Chapter 5 where a comprehensive comparative study of SA POCA and United States of America’s asset forfeiture and origin is undertaken. 3 Act 121 of applications for a restraint, confiscation and realisation for the recovery of proceeds of unlawful activities. The restraint is invoked when a suspect is to be charged or has been charged or prosecuted, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a conviction may follow and that a confiscation order may be made. Chapter 6 provisions of POCA provide for court applications for preservation and forfeiture order targeting both the proceeds of unlawful activities and removal from public circulation of instruments or assets used in the commission of offences where the guilt of the wrongdoer is not relevant. POCA has a Schedule with 34 items setting out examples of offences in relation to which civil forfeiture may be invoked. When the State discharges this noble professed task in the name of public safety, security and crime combating, legal challenges arise. This is more so within a constitutional democratic context where both individual and property rights are enshrined and protected. This study deals with some of these challenges. To the mind of a legal researcher, the law of asset forfeiture is, in this process, moulded and developed. South Africa (a developing country), Canada and New Zealand (developed countries in the north and southern hemispheres) have constitutional democracies. They also have asset forfeiture regimes, which attracted the attention of the researcher. The question is: can the developing country learn some best practices from the developed countries in this particular field? It would be interesting to establish this and the level of development of this field in the three countries under study. South Africa, with no federal government, has nine Provinces, single asset forfeiture legislation5 (combining both criminal forfeiture i.e. restraint, confiscation and realisation applications and civil forfeiture i.e. preservation and forfeiture applications), and a criminal statute6 applicable to all such Provinces. It also has, like Canada and New Zealand, pockets of asset forfeiture provisions embedded in various statutes. There is only one asset forfeiture office under the umbrella of the National Prosecuting Authority.7 It has branches8 in the Provinces, invoking the provisions of POCA, since 1999. It is not part of the police department. The researcher joined the South African Port Elizabeth branch in March 2003, Bloemfontein, Kimberly and Mmabatho branches from 2010 to 2011, July 2012 onwards in the Port Elizabeth and has practical experience in this regard. The Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998. The Namibian POCA 29 of 2004 is almost a replica of the South African POCA except that the former makes express recognition of the victims of the underlying victims. The Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 (as amended). The Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) with its Head Office situated in Pretoria under the umbrella of the National Prosecution Authority, which Raylene Keightley in Young S Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property Legal Measures for Targeting the Proceeds of Crime (2009) Cheltenham Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.: Northampton, MA at 94 calls a specialist implementation agency. In Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban, Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Mmabatho, Mpumalanga and Limpopo. It comprises of eleven Provinces to which the Criminal Code of Canada, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1996 and a host of other statutes apply. Eight of the eleven Provinces have their own and distinct primary stand-alone asset forfeiture statutes introducing civil forfeiture10 as more fully explained in Chapter 2 of this study.

Magister Legum - LLM
This research paper aims to clarify and argue the need for Ethiopia to include civil forfeiture in its assets forfeiture legal framework. It will analyse the existing domestic assets forfeiture laws and international instruments on assets forfeiture. It will show how the new Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Proclamation and the other anti-corruption laws deal with assets forfeiture in general and civil forfeiture in particular. For a number of reasons, Ethiopian law enforcement is struggling to investigate crimes such as money laundering and corruption to obtain convictions.

Even if the main criminals of an organization are incarcerated, they will be replaced by others who would continue illegal activities, unless their financial assets are removed. Thus, civil forfeiture intends to dismantle the economic infrastructure of drug trafficking networks. Civil forfeiture considers the property as guilty, rather than the owner, and it may exist even if there is not a criminal action. Therefore, it is claimed that police agencies have chosen easy targets, such as wealthy drug users rather than major drug traffickers. Consequently, it has been particularly challenged on the basis of the Excessive Fines, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process Clauses. The use of criminal forfeiture instead of civil forfeiture and the elimination of the equitable sharing provision are considered to be the primary solutions.

Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument is an attempt to prove that no agent can meet the demands for true moral responsibility. The Basic Argument proceeds on the assumption that, in order for an agent to be truly morally responsible for her actions, she must be truly responsible for her reasons for performing those actions, which Strawson contends is impossible since it requires an infinite regress of truly responsible decisions to have the reasons one has. In my thesis, I take issue with the Basic Argument. I argue that, contrary to Strawson’s claims, the Basic Argument is not persuasive to those who reject that one’s reasons cause one’s actions. For those who are willing to overlook this shortcoming, I then argue that it is possible for an agent to evade the threat of infinite regress, particularly in situations where two simultaneous choices (at least partially) explain each other.

Die hoeksteen van 'n oop en demokratiese samelewing is verskans in die Handves van Menseregte, gebaseer op menswaardigheid, gelyke beskerming en vryheid. 'n Verpligting word op die staat geplaas om dienooreenkomstig hierdie regte te respekteer, beskerm en te bevorder. Die eiendomsklousule word beskou as een van die belangrikste fundamentele regte wat beskerming geniet. Artikel 25(1) van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid Afrika, 1996 (hierna verwys as die Grondwef) bepaal dat niemand mag, behalwe ingevolge 'n algemene regsvoorskrif, van eiendom ontneem word nie. Vervolgens bepaal dit ook dat geen regsvoorskrif arbitrere ontneming van eiendom mag veroorloof nie. 'n Eienaar se reg op eiendom is egter nie absoluut nie en kan beperk word deur daargestelde wetgewing wat inmenging vanaf staatsowerhede noodsaak en regverdig. Daar rus dus 'n verpligting op wetsgehoorsame eienaars en besitters van eiendom in 'n konstitusionele staat om hulle eiendom op 'n verantwoordelike wyse te bestuur en te beheer, en word dienooreenkomstig ontmoedig om dit nie vir kriminele doeleindes aan te wend nie. Die Wet op die Voorkoming van Georganiseerde Misdaad 121 van 1998 vorm die basis van 'n program van die Suid Afrikaanse regering om die kommerwekkende toename in georganiseerde misdaad, geldwassery en die aktiwiteite van kriminele sindikate aan te spreek. Gemeenregtelike en ander strafregtelike maatstawwe blyk 'n onvoldoende afskrikmiddel te wees om hierdie probleem susksesvol te bekamp. Die hoe-profiel misdaadsindikate en oortreders slaag dikwels daarin om die onwettige opbrengste van misdaad te verskuil, selfs al word hulle voor die gereg gedaag en skuldig bevind. Hierdie besonder ernstige verskynsel word as 'n bedreiging beskou vir ons land se demokrasie en ekonomie. Die Wet maak voorsiening vir besondere hoe boetes, asook beslagleggings- en verbeurdverklaringsbevele van enige eiendom wat "'n middel tot 'n misdaad" daarstel, insluitende enige voordele en bates wat bekom is deur onwettige aktiwiteite. Hierdie studie noodsaak 'n kritiese analise en ondersoek na die grondwetlikheid van hierdie bevele wat moontlik aanleiding kan gee tot die aantasting van sekere gevestigde konstitusionele regte en veral die reg om nie arbitrer van eiendom ontneem te word nie. As gevolg van die sivielregterlike aard van hierdie bevele kan ook geargumenteer word dat die betrokke oortreder se grondwetlike reg op 'n regverdige en billike verhoor geskend kan word. Van besondere belang is Hoofstuk 6 wat bepaal dat 'n skuldigbevinding nie 'n voorvereiste is vir die bekragtiging van so 'n bevel nie. Die vraag ontstaan dan ook of die interpretasie en toepassing van die Wet deur die howe in gevalle waar individue betrokke was by misdaad wat nie direk verband hou met georganiseerde misdaad nie, nie ook neerkom op 'n skending van die eiendomsklousule nie. In hierdie gevalle was daar dan ook wel gepaste alternatiewe strafregterlike maatreels beskikbaar wat as voldoende afskrikmiddel kon dien. Klem word ook gel§ op die impak van sulke bevele op onskuldige eienaars, derdes en kinders, en die beskerming wat die Wet bied. Alhoewel deurgaans beklemtoon word dat die strawwe soos vervat in die Wet nie gemik is op die eienaar nie maar op die (skuldige) eiendom wat gebruik is in misdaad, bestaan die moontlikheid dat hierdie bevele neerkom op buitensporige en selfs dubbele strafmaatreels wat uiteraard grondwetlik aanvegbaar kan wees.
Thesis (LL.M.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

Humankind is becoming increasingly dependent on algorithms in their everyday life. Algorithmic decision support has existed since the entrance of computers but are becoming more sophisticated with elements of Articial Intelligence (AI). Though many decision support systems outperform humans in many areas, e.g. in forecasting task, the willingness to trust and use algorithmic decision support is lower than in a corresponding human. Many factors have been investigated to why this algorithm aversion exists but there is a gap in research about the eects of scenario characteristics. Results provided by this study showed that people prefer recommendations from a human expert over algorithmic decision support. This was also re ected in the self-perceived likelihood of keeping a choice when the decision support recommended the other option, where the likelihood was lower for the group with human expert as the decision support. The results also showed that the decision supports, regardless of type, are more trusted by the user in an acquisition framed scenario than in a forfeiture framed. However, very limited support was found for the hypothesized interaction between decision support and scenario type, where it was expected that algorithm aversion would be stronger for forfeiture than acquisition scenarios. Moreover, the results showed that, independent of the experimental manipulations, participants with a positive general attitude towards AI had higher trust in algorithmic decision support. Together, these new results may be valuable for future research into algorithm aversion but must also to be extended and replicated using dierent scenarios and situations.

Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia State University, 2008.
Title from file title page. Eddy Nahmias, committee chair; Sebastian Rand, Timothy O'Keefe, committee members. Electronic text (58 p.) : digital, PDF file. Description based on contents viewed October 8, 2008. Includes bibliographical references (p. 58).

The aim of this research paper is to examine the legal framework for the recovery of corruptly-acquired assets, with particular emphasis on the Nigerian situation. Its primary focus is a detailed examination of the legal mechanisms for the recovery of such assets in the context of international asset recovery. Despite the success of the Nigerian government in recovering the Abacha loot,8 siphoning off of public funds by public office holders continues, and charges of fraud persist against top bank executives alleged to have converted depositors&rsquo
funds fraudulently. The prevailing criminal or conviction-based forfeiture mechanism in Nigeria appears inadequate to deal effectively with these situations. The need to enhance capacity through the adoption of civil or non-conviction based forfeiture laws therefore becomes imperative.

According to Article 824 of the Latvian Civil Law the inheritance as well as the legacy shall be forfeited from a person due to his or her unworthiness. Therefore, the article explores forfeiture of inheritance from unworthy persons by analysing the main legal grounds for forfeiture of the inheritance, distinguishing forfeiture from disinheritance, exploring the procedure and limitation period for this claim, as well as examining the legal consequences of forfeiture of the inheritance on the basis of unworthiness.

The jurisprudence includes a wide range of elements, among which the most essential are the terms. Referring to the terms we can say that they are the most important means of streamlining social relations, without which it is almost impossible to imagine a single normative act, no matter how legal. This article presents the comparative aspect of these terms in the Republic of Moldova, Romania and the Russian Federation, their importance in the legal field and the essential elements so as not to be confused with the extinctive prescription. With their expiration, the subjective right is extinguished not in connection with its realization or with the impossibility to exercise it forcibly, but because the law limits its exercise only within a predetermined term, at the expiration of which the right, as a rule, ceases. By law or by the will of the parties, deadlines may be established for the exercise of a subjective right or the conclusion of a legal act. Failure to exercise the subjective right within the established term, entails its loss or prevents its commission.

The forfeiture contract consists of the sale of long-term foreign trade receivables, in which the exporter sells its foreign trade claim to a bank or some other specialized financial institute, which is not encumbered by the possibility of recourse claims of third parties to the buyer of claims, which is secured by some of the contractual security means. In this paper, the authors analyzed both the legal nature and the economic functions of the forfeiture contract in business practice. The work is methodologically conceived on the teleological comparison of the forfeiting and other related contracts, such as factoring agreement and loan and securities contract and other receivables prior to maturity, both from the theoretical point of view and from the current legislation, domestic and at the international level, and the economic benefits of this legal transaction for the contracting parties.

Analysis of non-conviction based asset forfeiture laws, policies and court decisions leads to a conclusion that the fundamental human right to property is violated on a systemic scale – standards of proof fall below standard of preponderance of evidence established by current Criminal Law, leading to confiscation of assets without a proof of true criminal origin. Meanwhile, the proof of the criminal origin of assets in most cases is neither linked to the existence of a predicate crime, nor to the traceability of assets from such crime. De facto, in most cases the only sufficient ground for asset forfeiture is a transactional activity match to suspicious transaction methodology by FIU – the lowest possible level of standard of proof, not reaching even the standards of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Moreover, it is made difficult to prove the legal origin of the property, restricting admission of evidence of legality, as well as presuming “that there should be no difficulty in proving legitimate origin”, regardless of the asset size, transaction history and objective capabilities of the owner.

Approximately half of the asset forfeiture procedures initiated on the grounds of alleged criminal activity, involving seizing of private property for on average of three years, end up being terminated. This paper raises some aspects regarding the rights to seek compensation for unjustified or illegal seizures of property in a special administrative procedure. Some of the conclusions are related to the grounds and amounts of compensation: (a) lifting of asset seizure as a proof of unjustified restriction constituting sufficient grounds for compensation; and (b) distinction of illegal seizures as affecting only the limitations to the amount of compensation and officials’ liability vis-a-vis state; and (c) default application of consumer price index to calculation of damages.

Physical culture and sports organizations are the most important subjects of market relations in the field of physical culture and sports. Service - any activity or benefit that one party can provide to another that is generally intangible and does not result in the forfeiture of anything. The production of services may or may not be associated with a commodity in its material form. The main task of management in the field of physical culture, health improvement and sports services is to intentionally influence the workers of the physical culture organization to create conditions to meet the needs of people in physical culture and sports services, to increase the efficiency and the quality of this work, to ultimately receive financial return. It should be emphasized right away that a significant amount of literature is devoted to service issues, a large number of definitions of this concept are known. Here is the one most frequently used by specialists in the field of studying the service sector. This was provided by renowned marketing expert Philip Kotler.