The head of Peru's Judiciary, Javier Arévalo Vela, has publicly highlighted Peru's success in recovering the proceeds of corruption and related financial crimes through its non-conviction based forfeiture law, Extinción de Dominio.
The subsystem Peru has rolled out to implement the law "allows the state to recover money from cases of corruption, money laundering and more" he said. Around USD 64 million have already been recovered, with many more cases in the pipeline.
As the war in Ukraine intensifies, calls are growing for states to confiscate Russian assets frozen under sanctions and redirect them to provide support to Ukraine. Our latest Working Paper argues that states can and should do this by enhancing the effectiveness and scope of established asset recovery measures – not by introducing new untested mechanisms that risk inviting future legal challenges, defeating the purpose of sanctions and violating the rule of law.
Written in the light of Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, this Working Paper explores whether it is justifiable to confiscate assets frozen under financial sanctions in order to redirect them to the victims of state aggression.
The paper first explores the concept of sanctions and financial sanctions (asset freezes) and what they mean in practice.
Non-conviction based forfeiture (NCBF) laws allow courts to confiscate assets of a criminal nature, even where no conviction has been obtained in relation to criminal conduct.
They have existed for many years in several countries in a wide variety of forms, and complement other asset recovery mechanisms. Yet this diversity – and the fact that many countries still do not have or use such laws – leads to challenges with their application, especially in cases with an international element.
The war in Ukraine has caused hundreds of billions of dollars of damage so far, including to critical infrastructure. Funding the country's ongoing and post-war reconstruction efforts is a topic very much under debate. Some suggest that assets frozen under war-related sanctions could be used to partly fund the reconstruction. Could they? How?
This document takes stock of recent progress in strengthening Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure in the face of increased attacks on infrastructure and increased reconstruction efforts. It covers:
As the use of crypto assets expands into practically every country and sector, so does its abuse to commit new forms of crime and launder criminal proceeds. Yet with the right tools, capacity and cooperation, the unique characteristics of blockchain-based technologies offer an unprecedented opportunity to investigate organised crime and money laundering networks and to recover stolen funds.
These recommendations follow the 6th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptocurrencies on 1–2 September 2022. The conference was hosted by Europol at its headquarters in The Hague, the Netherlands, together with the Basel Institute on Governance through the Joint Working Group on Criminal Finances and Cryptocurrencies.
One of the major topics of discussion on- and off-stage at this year’s International Anti-Corruption Conference in Washington D.C. will no doubt be the war of aggression in Ukraine.
A session on 9 December 2022 will explore a tricky but absolutely critical issue: whether and how frozen kleptocratic assets can be confiscated and used to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction.
This case study describes how authorities in Kenya achieved both a civil asset forfeiture order and a criminal conviction against a former public official involved in corrupt procurement deals.