This article is dedicated to the issues of foreign successful experience in legislative regulation of asset forfeiture mechanisms resulting from offenses. Modern states increasingly use different types of confiscation to deprive criminals of any proceeds derived from their offenses. It can be confiscation with criminal conviction, non-conviction based confiscation in rem. Application of civil procedure methods transfers the burden of proof to the defendant. Though confiscation in rem cannot replace criminal forfeiture. The author concludes that at the present time there occurs transformation of different types of confiscation, their enhancement. Particular emphasis is laid on extended confiscation. This type of confiscation allows using similar methods which are used in civil proceedings. Under the influence of international laws extended confiscation is implemented and used in the European criminal law on a large scale, which demonstrates tendencies to unification. On the basis of the analysis of the legislation on forfeiture of illicit assets in several countries in recent years (Great Britain, Australia), the author concludes that there are significant changes in the traditional approach to this institution. One can say that the scope of the institution expands and undergoes modifications in various jurisdictions. Extended confiscation of an offender’s assets, if the crime was committed out of selfish motives, is a fair public response. It is necessary to introduce this type of confiscation in Russia.
Confiscation, civil forfeiture, extended confiscation, unexplained wealth, tax foreclosure, proceeds of crime.
1. Kelly J. Operation Julie: How an LSD Raid Began the War on Drugs. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14052153.
2. Lee D., Pratt C. Operation Julie. How the Undercover Police Team Smashed the World’s Greatest Drugs Ring. 1978 (hb, 1st) 1978382 P.
3. Winch D. Reform of Confiscation Law. URL: http://www.accountingevidence.com/blog/author/david-winch.
4. Vvodit´ li v Rossii konfiskatsiyu imushchestva «in rem»? Diskussiya v Dume. 1 iyunya 2010 g. URL: http://pravo.ru/news/view/31292.
5. Volzhenkin B. V. Zagadki konfiskatsii. Izvestiya vuzov. Pravovedenie. 2008. № 2.
6. Ermakov D., Chistyakova Yu. U rodstvennikov korruptsionerov predlozhili konfiskovat´ imushchestvo. Zhilishchnoe pravo. 2014. № 10. URL: http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=CJI;n=81180.
7. Zvecharovskiy I. Ponyatie mer ugolovno-pravovogo kharaktera. Zakonnost´. 2007. № 1.
8. Lafitskiy V. I. i dr. Perspektivy primeneniya mekhanizmov zamorazhivaniya, aresta i konfiskatsii prestupnykh aktivov, mekhanizmov upravleniya konfiskovannymi aktivami / otv. red. V. I. Lafitskiy. M., 2014.
9. Makarov A. V., Zhukova A. S. Nekotorye zakonodatel´nye osobennosti konfiskatsii imushchestva kak inoy mery ugolovno-pravovogo kharaktera po ustraneniyu korystnoy motivatsii soversheniya prestupleniy. Rossiyskiy sledovatel´. 2013. № 5.
10. Mikhaylov V. I. Konfiskatsiya v natsional´nom i mezhdunarodnom ugolovnom i ugolovno-protsessual´nom prave. Zakonodatel´stvo. 2007. № 3.
11. Ustinov A. V. Konfiskatsiya imushchestva i normy mezhdunarodnogo prava //Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnaya yustitsiya. 2011. № 2. URL: http://www.center-bereg.ru/o2417.html.
12. Yani P. S. Voprosy konfiskatsii imushchestva: pravoprimenitel´nyy aspekt. Zakonodatel´stvo. 2010. № 4.
