标签五、内容:欧洲不承认民事没收令的问题

Q3 Social Sciences
Skirmantas Bikelis
{"title":"标签五、内容:欧洲不承认民事没收令的问题","authors":"Skirmantas Bikelis","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2022-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper discusses the problem of non-recognition of civil confiscation orders in Europe. Despite the breakthrough in international cooperation in the freezing and confiscation of crime proceeds in the criminal law domain, the formal approach in some European states destroys the potential of one of the most advanced instruments against crime proceeds—civil confiscation orders. The study offers a comparative analysis of the concepts of the confiscation of crime proceeds within and outside the frameworks of criminal proceedings. The analysis serves as the basis for the discussion of whether there is reasonable ground for the formal distinction between these concepts. The author concludes that the formal elimination of the civil confiscation orders has no substantial background. The analysis of both extended powers of confiscation in the criminal law domain in Europe and the Lithuanian Law on Civil Confiscation in the light of principles of proportionality and fair proceedings shows that civil confiscation regimes outside the framework of criminal proceedings may provide adequate safeguards to those provided in the confiscation regimes within criminal proceedings. The paper contributes to the discussion that is relevant to any European state that considers enacting or amending the civil confiscation legal framework or the legal regulation on recognising and executing crime proceeds confiscation orders. The paper elaborates on the approach that could enhance cooperation among European states in the prevention of organised crime.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Label V. Content: The Problem of Non-Recognition of Civil Confiscation Orders in Europe\",\"authors\":\"Skirmantas Bikelis\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/bjlp-2022-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The paper discusses the problem of non-recognition of civil confiscation orders in Europe. Despite the breakthrough in international cooperation in the freezing and confiscation of crime proceeds in the criminal law domain, the formal approach in some European states destroys the potential of one of the most advanced instruments against crime proceeds—civil confiscation orders. The study offers a comparative analysis of the concepts of the confiscation of crime proceeds within and outside the frameworks of criminal proceedings. The analysis serves as the basis for the discussion of whether there is reasonable ground for the formal distinction between these concepts. The author concludes that the formal elimination of the civil confiscation orders has no substantial background. The analysis of both extended powers of confiscation in the criminal law domain in Europe and the Lithuanian Law on Civil Confiscation in the light of principles of proportionality and fair proceedings shows that civil confiscation regimes outside the framework of criminal proceedings may provide adequate safeguards to those provided in the confiscation regimes within criminal proceedings. The paper contributes to the discussion that is relevant to any European state that considers enacting or amending the civil confiscation legal framework or the legal regulation on recognising and executing crime proceeds confiscation orders. The paper elaborates on the approach that could enhance cooperation among European states in the prevention of organised crime.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38764,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2022-0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2022-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文讨论了欧洲不承认民事没收令的问题。尽管在刑法领域冻结和没收犯罪所得的国际合作取得了突破,但一些欧洲国家的正式做法破坏了打击犯罪所得的最先进工具之一——民事没收令的潜力。该研究报告对刑事诉讼框架内外没收犯罪所得的概念进行了比较分析。该分析是讨论这些概念之间是否有合理的正式区别的基础。提交人的结论是,正式取消民事没收令没有实质性背景。根据相称性原则和公平程序对欧洲刑法领域的扩大没收权和立陶宛《民事没收法》进行的分析表明,刑事诉讼框架之外的民事没收制度可以为刑事诉讼中没收制度提供充分的保障。该文件有助于与任何考虑颁布或修订民事没收法律框架或关于承认和执行犯罪所得没收令的法律法规的欧洲国家相关的讨论。本文阐述了加强欧洲国家在预防有组织犯罪方面合作的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Label V. Content: The Problem of Non-Recognition of Civil Confiscation Orders in Europe
Abstract The paper discusses the problem of non-recognition of civil confiscation orders in Europe. Despite the breakthrough in international cooperation in the freezing and confiscation of crime proceeds in the criminal law domain, the formal approach in some European states destroys the potential of one of the most advanced instruments against crime proceeds—civil confiscation orders. The study offers a comparative analysis of the concepts of the confiscation of crime proceeds within and outside the frameworks of criminal proceedings. The analysis serves as the basis for the discussion of whether there is reasonable ground for the formal distinction between these concepts. The author concludes that the formal elimination of the civil confiscation orders has no substantial background. The analysis of both extended powers of confiscation in the criminal law domain in Europe and the Lithuanian Law on Civil Confiscation in the light of principles of proportionality and fair proceedings shows that civil confiscation regimes outside the framework of criminal proceedings may provide adequate safeguards to those provided in the confiscation regimes within criminal proceedings. The paper contributes to the discussion that is relevant to any European state that considers enacting or amending the civil confiscation legal framework or the legal regulation on recognising and executing crime proceeds confiscation orders. The paper elaborates on the approach that could enhance cooperation among European states in the prevention of organised crime.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics (BJLP) is a scholarly journal, published bi-annually in electronic form as a joint publication of the Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania). BJLP provides a platform for the publication of scientific research in the fields of law and politics, with a particular emphasis on interdisciplinary research that cuts across these traditional categories. Topics may include, but are not limited to the Baltic Region; research into issues of comparative or general theoretical significance is also encouraged. BJLP is peer-reviewed and published in English.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信