Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T19:33:01.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How far is too far? Theorising non-conviction-based asset forfeiture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

Jennifer Hendry  and
Colin King
Jennifer Hendry*
Affiliation:
Jennifer Hendry, Lecturer in Jurisprudence, School of Law, University of Leeds. Email: j.hendry@leeds.ac.uk
Colin King
Affiliation:
Colin King, Senior Lecturer in Law, Sussex Law School, University of Sussex. Email: colin.king@sussex.ac.uk.
*
j.hendry@leeds.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Non-conviction-based (NCB) asset forfeiture is a relatively recent addition to law enforcement's armoury in the fight against organised crime in the UK. It allows for criminal assets to be forfeited to the State even in the absence of criminal conviction, the stated objective being to undermine the profit incentive of criminal activity. Until now, NCB asset forfeiture has principally been critiqued from a criminological point of view, specifically concerning the Packer models and the civil/criminal dichotomy – aside from this, however, it remains rather underdeveloped theoretically. This paper addresses this lack of legal theoretical engagement with NCB asset forfeiture by providing an initial contribution from a systems-theoretical perspective. This contribution makes use of systems theory's unique insights to critique the perceived ‘failure of law’ that gave rise to the NCB approach, and challenges the legitimacy of that approach in terms of procedural rights.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 4: Critical Socio-legal Engagements with Systems Thinking , December 2015 , pp. 398 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alach, Zhivan J. (2011) ‘An incipient taxonomy of organized crime’, Trends in Organised Crime 14(1): 56–72.Google Scholar
Alldridge, Peter (2003) Money Laundering Law: Forfeiture, Confiscation, Civil Recovery, Criminal Laundering and Taxation of the Proceeds of Crime. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Alldridge, Peter (2014) ‘Proceeds of Crime Law since 2003 – Two Key Areas’, Criminal Law Review: 171–188.Google Scholar
Ambos, Kai (2009) ‘Command Responsibility and Organisationsherrschaft: Ways of Attributing International Crimes to the “Most Responsible”’, in Nollkaemper, André and van der Wilt, Harmen (eds), System Criminality in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 127–157.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Andrew (2006) ‘Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence’, International Journal of Evidence and Proof: 241–279.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Andrew (2012) ‘The Exclusion of Evidence Obtained in Violating a Fundamental Right: Pragmatism Before Principle in the Strasbourg Jurisprudence’, in Roberts, Paul and Hunter, Jill (eds), Criminal Evidence and Human Rights: Reimagining Common Law Procedural Traditions. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 145–161.Google Scholar
Birch, Diane (2004) ‘Criminal Justice Act 2003: (4) Hearsay – Same Old Story, Same Old Song?’, Criminal Law Review: 556–573.Google Scholar
Bullock, Karen and Lister, Stuart (2014) ‘Post-Conviction Confiscation of Assets in England and Wales: Rhetoric and Reality’, in King, Colin and Walker, Clive (eds), Dirty Assets: Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets. Farnham: Ashgate, 47–69.Google Scholar
Campbell, Liz (2007) ‘Theorising Asset Forfeiture in Ireland’, Journal of Criminal Law 71(5): 441–460.Google Scholar
Campbell, Liz (2010) ‘The Recovery of “Criminal” Assets in New Zealand, Ireland and England: Fighting Organised and Serious Crime in the “Civil” Realm’, Victoria University Wellington Law Review 41: 15–36.Google Scholar
Campbell, Liz (2013a) Organised Crime and the Law: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Campbell, Liz (2013b) ‘Criminal Labels, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Presumption of Innocence’, Modern Law Review 76(4): 681–707.Google Scholar
Cassella, Stefan D. (2008) ‘The Case for Civil Forfeiture: Why in Rem Proceedings are an Essential Tool for Recovering the Proceeds of Crime’, Journal of Money Laundering Control 11(1): 8–14.Google Scholar
Coggon, John (2010) ‘Assisted Dying and the Context of Debate: “Medical Law” Versus “End-of-Life Law”’, Medical Law Review 18: 541–563.Google Scholar
Coles, Nigel (2001) ‘It's Not What You Know – It's Who You Know that Counts: Analysing Serious Crime Groups as Social Networks’ British Journal of Criminology 41(4): 580–594.Google Scholar
De Grazia, Jessica and Hyland, Kingsley (2011) ‘Mainstreaming the Use of Assisting Offenders: How to Make SOCPA 2005, Section 73 and 74 Work’, Criminal Law Review: 357–376.Google Scholar
Donohue, Laura K. (2008) The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics and Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douzinas, Costas (2000) The End of Human Rights: Critical Thought at the Turn of the Century. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Easton, Stephen, and Karaivanov, Alexander (2009) ‘Understanding Optimal Criminal Networks’, Global Crime 10: 41–65.Google Scholar
European Council (2012) Confiscation and Asset Recovery: Better Tools to Fight Crime. (Memo/12/179, 12 March 2012). Brussels: European Council.Google Scholar
Gallant, Michelle (2004) ‘Alberta and Ontario: Civilizing the Money-Centered Model of Crime Control’. Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law 4: 13–33.Google Scholar
Gallant, Michelle (2014) ‘Civil Processes and Tainted Assets: Exploring Canadian Models of Forfeiture’, in King, Colin and Walker, Clive (eds), Dirty Assets: Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets. Farnham: Ashgate, 165–181.Google Scholar
Gilmore, William (2011) Dirty Money: The Evolution of International Measures to Counter Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, 4th edn.Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
Gray, Anthony Davidson (2012) ‘Forfeiture Provisions and the Criminal/Civil Divide’, New Criminal Law Review 15: 32–67.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1996) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Harvey, Jackie (2014) ‘Asset Recovery: Substantive or Symbolic’, in King, Colin and Walker, Clive (eds), Dirty Assets: Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets. Farnham: Ashgate, 183–202.Google Scholar
Hendry, Jennifer (2014) ‘Kadi in Sight of Autopoiesis’, in Avbelj, MatejFontanelli, Filippo and Martinico, Giuseppe (eds), Kadi on Trial: A Multifaceted Analysis of the Kadi Trial. London: Routledge, 63–76.Google Scholar
Hm Government (2011) Local to Global: Reducing the Risk from Organised Crime. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Hm Government (2013) Serious and Organised Crime Strategy. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ho, Hock Lai (2012) ‘The Presumption of Innocence as a Human Right’, in Roberts, Paul and Hunter, Jill (eds), Criminal Evidence and Human Rights: Reimagining Common Law Procedural Traditions, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 259–281.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Dick (2013) Lush Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Home Office (2004) One Step Ahead: A 21st Century Strategy to Defeat Organised Crime. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2006) New Powers Against Organised and Financial Crime. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Howard League For Penal Reform (1984) Profits of Crime and Their Recovery: Report of a Committee Chaired by Sir Derek Hodgson. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Jackson, John D. (2001) ‘Silence and Proof: Extending the Boundaries of Criminal Proceedings in the United Kingdom’, International Journal of Evidence and Proof: 145–173.Google Scholar
Jackson, John D. and Summers, Sarah J. (2012) The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Imogen (2010) ‘A Political Judgment? Reconciling Hearsay and the Right to Challenge’, International Journal of Evidence and Proof: 232–252.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Anthony (2004) ‘Justifying the Civil Recovery of Criminal Proceeds’, Journal of Financial Crime: 8–23.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Anthony (2005) ‘Putting Robin Hood out of Business: A Proceeds of Crime Case Study’, Journal of Money Laundering Control 9(1): 19–26.Google Scholar
Kenney, Michael (2007) ‘The Architecture of Drug Trafficking: Network Forms of Organization in the Colombian Cocaine Trade’, Global Crime 8(3): 233–259.Google Scholar
King, Colin (2012) ‘Using Civil Processes in Pursuit of Criminal Law Objectives: A Case Study of Non-conviction-based Asset Forfeiture’, International Journal of Evidence and Proof 16(4): 337–363.Google Scholar
King, Colin (2014a) ‘“Hitting Back” at Organized Crime: The Adoption of Civil Forfeiture in Ireland’, in King, Colin and Walker, Clive (eds), Dirty Assets: Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets. Farnham: Ashgate, 141–164.Google Scholar
King, Colin (2014b) ‘Civil Forfeiture and Article 6 of the ECHR: Due Process Implications for England and Wales and Ireland’, Legal Studies 34(3): 371–394.Google Scholar
Langbein, John H. (2003) The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lea, John (2004) ‘Hitting Criminals Where It Hurts: Organised Crime and the Erosion of Due Process’, Cambrian Law Review 35: 81–96.Google Scholar
Lippke, Richard (2013) ‘Justifying the Proof Structure of Criminal Trials’, International Journal of Evidence and Proof: 323–346.Google Scholar
Loughlin, Martin (2010) Foundations of Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1993) Risk: A Sociological Theory. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1995) Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2004) Law As A Social System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2012) Theory of Society: Volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2013) A Sociological Theory of Law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mann, Kenneth (1992) ‘Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law’, Yale Law Journal: 1795–1873.Google Scholar
Martin, Richard (2013) ‘The Recent Supergrass Controversy: Have we Learnt from the Troubled Past?’, Criminal Law Review: 273–289.Google Scholar
Meade, J. (2000) ‘Organised Crime, Moral Panic and Law Reform: The Irish Adoption of Civil Forfeiture’, Irish Criminal Law Journal 10(1): 11–16.Google Scholar
Moeller, Hans-Georg (2006) Luhmann Explained: From Souls to Systems. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Mullock, Alexandra (2012) ‘Compromising on Assisted Suicide: Is “Turning a Blind Eye” Ethical?’, Clinical Ethics 7: 17–23.Google Scholar
Mullock, Alexandra (2015) ‘The Supreme Court Decision in Nicklinson: Human Rights, Criminal Wrongs and the Dilemma of Death’, Journal of Professional Negligence: 18–28.Google Scholar
Murray, Kenneth (2013) ‘A Square Go: Tackling Organised Crime Where It Doesn't Want to be Tackled’, Journal of Money Laundering Control 16(2): 99–108.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (2013) Confiscation Orders. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David (1995) ‘Miscarriages of Justice: A Systems Approach’, Modern Law Review 58(3): 299–320.Google Scholar
Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David (2013) Observing Law Through Systems Theory. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Ormerod, David, Choo, Andrew L.-T. and Easter, Rachel (2010) ‘Coroners and Justice Act 2009: The “Witness Anonymity” and “Investigation Anonymity” Provisions’, Criminal Law Review: 368–388.Google Scholar
Paoli, Letizia (2002) ‘The Paradoxes of Organized Crime’, Crime, Law and Social Change 37: 51–97.Google Scholar
Performance and Innovation Unit (2000) Recovering The Proceeds of Crime. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Price, David (2009) ‘What Shape to Euthanasia after Bland? Historical, Contemporary and Futuristic Paradigms’, Law Quarterly Review 125: 142–174.Google Scholar
Quirk, Hannah (2013) ‘Twenty Years On, the Right to Silence and Legal Advice: The Spiraling Costs of an Unfair Exchange’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 64(4): 465–483.Google Scholar
Rees, Edward, Fisher, Richard and Bogan, P. (2011) Blackstone's Guide to the Proceeds of Crime Act, 4th edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Benjamin (2002) Environmental Regulation Through Financial Organisations: Comparative Perspectives on the Industrialised Nations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Paul and Hunter, Jill (eds) (2012) Criminal Evidence and Human Rights: Reimagining Common Law Procedural Traditions. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ralf (2013) Reflexive Labour Law in the World Society. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Scottish Law Commission (1994) Report on Confiscation and Forfeiture. Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. Cm 2622. Edinburgh: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Simser, Jeffrey (2009) ‘Perspectives on Civil Forfeiture’, in Young, Simon N. M. (ed.), Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property: Legal Measures for Targeting the Proceeds of Crime. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 13–20.Google Scholar
Spapens, Toine (2010) ‘Macro Networks, Collectives, and Business Processes: An Integrated Approach to Organized Crime’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 18(2): 185–215.Google Scholar
Sproat, Peter (2009) ‘To What Extent Is the UK's Anti-money Laundering and Asset Recovery Regime Used against Organized Crime?’, Journal of Money Laundering Control 12(2): 134–150.Google Scholar
Sutherland Williams, Mark, Hopmeier, Michael and Jones, Rupert (2013) Millington and Sutherland Williams on The Proceeds of Crime, 4th edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (1992) ‘Social Order from Legislative Noise: Autopoietic Closure as a Problem for Legal Regulation’, in Teubner, Gunther and Febbrajo, Alberto (eds), Law, State and Economy as Autopoetic Systems: Regulation and Autonomy in a New Perspective. Milan: Giuffré, 609–649.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (2006) ‘The Anonymous Matrix: Human Rights Violations by “Private” Transnational Actors’, Modern Law Review 69: 327–346.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (2008) ‘Justice under Global Capitalism’, in Blecher, Michael and Hendry, Jennifer (eds), ‘Governance, Civil Society & Social Movements: Special Issue’, Law & Critique 19(3): 329–334.Google Scholar
Tomkins, Adam (2003) ‘Introduction’, in Campbell, TomEwing, Keith and Tomkins, Adam (eds), Sceptical Essays on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–13.Google Scholar
UNODC (2011) Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resulting From Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Organized Crimes. Vienna: UN Office on Drugs and Crime.Google Scholar
Van Der Wilt, Harmen (2009) ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Functional Perpetration’, in Nollkaemper, André and van der Wilt, Harmen (eds), System Criminality in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 158–182.Google Scholar
Verschraegen, Gert (2002) ‘Human Rights and Modern Society: A Sociological Analysis from the Perspective of Systems Theory’, Journal of Law & Society 29: 258–281.Google Scholar
Vettori, Barbara (2006) Tough on Criminal Wealth. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Walker, Clive (2009) Blackstone's Guide to the Anti-Terrorism Legislation, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Working Group On Confiscation (1998) Third Report: Criminal Assets. London: Home Office.Google Scholar