Do the UK's Provisions for Confiscation Orders Breach the European Convention on Human Rights?

Journal of Financial Crime

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 374-381

  Alexander, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993009102     PISSN: 13590790     EISSN: 17587239     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb025849     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. R v Johnson [1990] 2 All ER 428. The same stance is taken by most European jurisdictions.
2. Air Canada v United Kingdom [1995] Times, 13th May; [1995] HRCD 217.
3. City of Portland v 1985 Porsche 944 (1997) 934 P 2d 1126.
4. R v CEC Finance Ltd [1993] HKCLR 134.
5. R v Yeung Tak Sing and Another (1993, HCA, unreported).
6. R v Shum Wah Wah and Another (1995, Mag. App., unreported).
7. R v Shum Wah Wah and Another (1995, Mag. App., unreported).
8. A-G v Chin Chunch Wing and Another [1961] HKLR 479.
9. R v Chan Siu Lin (1993, Mag. App., unreported).
10. Criminal Procedure Code, s. 407(2).
11. Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act, ss. 5, 7.
12. Money Laundering Control Act, Art. 12.
13. [1994] HRCD 6.
14. [1995] HRCD 14.
15. Ministère Public v Sergiaconi, Pasicrisie Luxembourgeoise, 13.312, 21st July, 1934.