EIRP Proceedings, Vol 7 (2012)

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to emphasize the controversies arising during extended seizure and during the sale of seized assets before pronouncing a final conviction.

Prior Work: The study starts from the fundamental difference between special seizure and "extended", further corroborating Decision – Framework of European Council on assets confiscation, constitutional provisions that the "the property obtained legally will not be seized and the acquisition legality is presumed", the  reverse of proof obligation and the phrase “court may confiscate the "other assets", is easily understandable and interpretable otherwise, that can be seize any property, from anyone, if the judge is "convinced" that they provide from illicit activities.

Approach: The method used is observation.

Results: It is required the establishment and use of some ways to protect innocent citizens by the possibility of reversing proof obligation. Therefore, we believe that regulations on extended seizure are designed to unavailable and confiscate properties illegally obtained, but they can leave to increase the Court competence, beyond the real belief and conviction.

Implications: Legislature and academics

Value: Establishing and highlighting the controversies derive from the study.