Justifying the civil recovery of criminal proceeds

Journal of Financial Crime

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 8-23

  Kennedy, Anthony ^a  

^a Northern Ireland for the Assets Recovery Agency   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Civil law; Crime; Forfeiting

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992969943     PISSN: 13590790     EISSN: 17587239     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/13590790510624990     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. Hereafter referred to as ‘the 2002 Act’ in the text and ‘POCA’ in the footnotes.
2. Home Office (2001) ‘Proceeds of Crime: Consultation on Draft Legislation’, p. 226.
3. Each ofthe principal issues dealt with in this paper is capable ofbeing the subject of a paper in itself. Nevertheless there is merit in providing a general overview ofthe issues involved.
4. Cheh, M. M. (1991) ‘Constitutional Limits on Using Civil Remedies to Achieve Criminal Law Objectives’, 42 Hastings LJ, 1325, p. 1329.
5. [2000] 1 WLR 2020, 2025.
6. Mann, K. (1992) ‘Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middle-ground Between Criminal and Civil Law’, 101 Yale LJ, p. 1795.
7. R(McCann and Others) v Crown Court at Manchester [2001] 1 WLR 358.
8. Klein, S. R. (1999) ‘Redrawing the Criminal-Civil Boundary’, 2 Buff. Crim. LR 679.
9. Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 1.
10. See Gough V. Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2001] 4 All ER 289.
11. Newkirk, T. C. and Brandriss, I. L. (1998) ‘The Advantages of a Dual System: Parallel Streams of Civil and Criminal Enforcement of US Securities Laws’, 16th Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime, 19th September.
12. President's Commission on Organized Crime, Report to the President and the Attorney General (1986) ‘The Edge: Organized Crime, Business and Labour Unions’, s. 11, pp. 1-2, Washington DC.
13. ActNo. 646 of 13th December, 1982.
14. Proceeds of Crime Act 1996.
15. Prevention of Organised Crime Act 1998.
16. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
17. Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000.
18. The Confiscation Act 1997.
19. Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990.
20. Victims’ Restitution and Compensation Payment Act 2001.
21. Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act 2001.
22. Home Office (2001) ‘Proceeds of Crime: Consultation on Draft Legislation’, p. 226.
23. Application No. 12386/86, decision of 15th April, 1991. Although the English translation of the Italian legislation and the case report in M v Italy use the term ‘confiscation’, this term describes what would be termed ‘civil forfeiture’ in this jurisdiction. Under s. 2(3) of Act No. 575 of 31st May, 1965, ‘confiscation’ is possible where the authorities have introduced circumstantial evidence concerning the unlawful origin of the property and the defence has not been able to discharge its burden of rebuttal.
24. (Unreported) Coghlin, J., 1st April, 2004.
25. ‘Confiscation that Counts’, Australian Law Reform Commission Report No. 87, Canberra, 1999, para. 4.169.
26. Systems of civil forfeiture fall into two types: those which deal with the proceeds of crime and those which deal with the instrumentalities of crime. This is nevertheless a legal distinction rather than a factual one. The proceeds of past crimes may also be the instrumentalities of future crimes. The cash forfeiture provisions in POCA permit forfeiture of both cash proceeds and cash instrumentalities. The civil recovery provisions permit forfeiture only in respect of proceeds.
27. Cheh, ref. 7 above.
28. ‘Recovering the Proceeds of Crime’, Report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Cabinet Office, June 2000, para. 5.10. Hereafter referred to as ‘the PIU Report’.
29. Corker, D. (2002) ‘Developments in Criminal Liability and the Proceeds of Crime Bill’, Money Laundering Bulletin, April.
30. POCA, s. 313.
31. Home Office (2001) ‘Proceeds of Crime: Consultation on Draft Legislation’, p. 227.
32. R (McCann and Others) v Crown Court at Manchester [2001] 4 All ER 264.
33. New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985.
34. [2001] 1 WLR358.
35. [200l] 4 All ER 264.
36. R (On the Application q/McCann) v Manchester Crown Court; Clingham v Royal Borough o/Kensington and Chelsea [2002] 4 All ER 593.
37. [2001] IESC 63.
38. Engel v The Netherlands (1976) 1 EHRR 647.
39. ‘Hotelier Loses Plea Against Civil Court Verdict of Rape’, The Times, 22nd November, 1995 and ‘Wife Raped by Husband Wins. £14,000 Payout’, The Times, 10th September, 1997.
40. S v Miller (2001) SC 977.
41. Engel v Netherlands (1976) 1 EHRR 647 and Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom (1984) 7 EHRR 165.
42. Application 12386/86, decision of 15th April, 1991.
43. Application 52439/99, decision of 4th September, 2001.
44. Application 52024/99, decision of 5thJuly, 2001.
45. Application 41661/98, decision of 27th June, 2002.
46. R (On the Application o/McCann) v Manchester Crown Court; Clingham v Royal Borough o/Kensington and Chelsea [2002] 4 All ER 593.
47. [2003] All ER (D) 208 (Apr). Other cases include R (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates’ Court and Another [2003] QB 1238 and Goldsmith v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2001] 1 WLR 1673.
48. R v Benjafield, Leal, Rezvi and Milford [2001] 2 All ER 609.
49. Coghlin, ref. 30 above.
50. (1998) 3 IR 185. The issue was raised in the context of Article 43 of the written Irish Constitution, which protects individual property rights, rather than an ECHR context, as it has been clearly established by the Irish Supreme Court that the Convention does not form part of Ireland's domestic law: In Re O'Laighleis [1960] IR 93.
51. National Director of Public Prosecutions v Meyer, High Court of South Africa, 29thjuly, 1999.
52. (1994) 18 EHRR 371.
53. ‘The Threat from Serious and Organised Crime’, NCIS, 2001, paras 1.6 to 1.8.
54. [2001] 2 All ER 638.
55. [2002] 4 All ER 633.
56. Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act 2000, s. 2.
57. Liberty submission to the Consultation on Proceeds of Crime draft clauses, para. 7.4.
58. Smith, S. (2000) ‘Civil Banishment of Gang Members: Circumventing Criminal Due Process Requirements?’, 67 U Chi. L Rev. 1461.
59. Klein, ref. 11 above.
60. Cheh, ref. 7 above.
61. Despite this theoretical argument, however, civil recovery may nevertheless prove in practice to be an expensive and time-consuming remedy with many built-in procedural protections open to respondents.
62. POCA, s. 2.
63. Response of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society to the Third Report of the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation.
64. PIU Report, para. 5.22.
65. POCA, s. 288.
66. Clarke, B. (2001) ‘Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime: An Australian Response’, ICC, Durban 3rd-7th December.
67. Heffernan, L. with Kingsyton, J. (1994) Human Rights: A European Perspective, The Round Hall Press, Dublin, p. 291.
68. Gilligan v The Criminal Assets Bureau (1998) 3 IR 185.
69. (1995) 20 EHRR 247. Dissenting opinion of Mr H.G. Schermers.
70. 296 F. 3d 713 (8th Cir. 2002).
71. 223 F. 3d 422 (6th Cir. 2000).
72. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Eleventh Report, 4th February, 2002, Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence, Home Office Memorandum, para. 24.
73. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Eleventh Report, 4th February, 2002, para. 19.
74. PIU Report, para. 5.12.
75. A number of orders such as football banning orders, antisocial behaviour orders and sex offender orders have now been viewed as preventive measures rather than punishments: Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2002] 2 All ER 985. It is, however, important to recognise that many orders made by the courts possess both punitive and preventive characteristics.
76. POCA, s. 2(1).
77. Coghlin, ref. 30 above.
78. United States v Salinas 65 F. 3d (6th Cir. 1995).
79. 509 US 602 (1993).
80. Austin concerned the attempted forfeiture ofamobile home where the respondent had stored cocaine and a car body shop from where he sold the drugs.
81. 524 US 321 (1998).
82. MvD [1998] 3 IR 175.
83. Levi, M. (2000) ‘Financial Measures against Illegal Drugs: An Overview’, Police Foundation, p. 4.
84. ‘Confiscation that Counts’, Australian Law Reform Commission, Report No. 87, Canberra, 1999, p. 75.
85. Liberty submission to the Consultation on Proceeds of Crime draft clauses, para. 1.2.
86. Corker, D. (2002) ‘Developments in Criminal Liability and the Proceeds of Crime Bill’, Money Laundering Bulletin, April.
87. POCA, s. 241(3).
88. See ref. 97 above, para. 11.2.
89. JUSTICE submission to the Consultation on Proceeds of Crime draft clauses, p. 7.
90. Hansard, House ofCommons, Standing Committee B, 13th December, 2001.
91. R (On the application ofMcCann) v Manchester Crown Court; Clingham v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2002] 4 All ER 593.
92. B v ChiefConstable ofAvonand SomersetConstabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340.
93. R (On the application ofMcCann) v Manchester Crown Court; Clingham v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2002] 4 All ER 593.
94. These were provided by the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 and the Drugs Trafficking Act 1994. See Butt v HM Customs and Excise [2001] EWHC Admin 1066.
95. Hansard, House ofCommons, Standing Committee B, 11th December, 2001, col. 619.
96. Response of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society to the Third Report of the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation.
97. Liberty submission to the Consultation on Proceeds of Crime draft clauses, paras 7.3 and 7.4.
98. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Eleventh Report, 4 February, 2002, Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence, Home Office Memorandum.
99. PIU Report, para. 5.43.
100. Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254, 1305.
101. Wymyss v Hopkins (1875) LR 10 QB 378, 381.
102. Hansard, ref. 108, col. 630.
103. Opinion of Clare Montgomery QC, Matthew Ryder and Danny Friedman, 24th May, 2001, obtained by Liberty.
104. Liberty submission to the Consultation on Proceeds of Crime draft clauses, para. 8.3.
105. 518 US 267 (1996).
106. 517 US 820 (1996).
107. Home Office Working Group on Confiscation, Third Report, ‘Criminal Assets’, November 1998.
108. ‘Making Crime Pay: Confiscation of Criminal Assets in Scotland’, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland, 14th June, 2000, para. 1.4.
109. Levi, ref. 94, p. 16.
110. Levi questions whetherthe early gainsundertheIrishsystem will be sustained in later years. Some respondents will have been caught by the sudden change in Irish law but it seems likely that the more devious criminals will try to cover their financial tracks in more complex ways., p. 29.
111. Evidence ofAustralian Federal Police Association to Australian Senate.
112. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s. 17.
113. ‘Juries “Should Hear Phone Taps’”, Observer, 8th September, 2002, and ‘MI6 Fights to Block Phone Tap Evidence’, Guardian, 14th October, 2003.
114. PIU Report, para. 5.9.
115. Ontario Hansard, Second Reading Debate ofthe Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act 2001, 1st October, 2001.
116. ‘Judge Critical of Defendants’ “Obstruction” in CAB Cases’, The Irish Times, 18th February, 2000.
117. National Prosecuting Authority, Annual Report 1999-2000, Pretoria, p. 18.
118. The US experience has been one which indicates a clear evolution of civil forfeiture before it arrives at a settled state: Cassella, S. (2003) ‘The Development of Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States’, Acta Juridica, p. 314.