Requirements for Establishing an Expanding Confiscation System in Light of the Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force and Its Reflection in the Legal System of Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Author

PhD in Criminal Law & Criminology, Allameh Tabatabaʾi University, Tehran

Abstract

Macroeconomic organized and systematic crimes such as money laundering require an organized and coordinated response to its type. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as the most specialized organization in this area of crime has proposed one of the ways to deal with the mentioned crimes through the components of the system of expropriation (confiscation) and also temporary measures under the recommendation of the optimal performance document (records) for confiscation as well as the guidance document of judges and prosecutors. We will examine in this study what are the fundamentals of the expanding confiscation system? What are the components and types of this expanding confiscation system from the perspective of the Financial Action Task Force? How are the components of the extended confiscation system reflected in Iran’s legal system? And what requirements must the confiscation system in Iranian law be enjoyed in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)’s extended confiscation system? The globalization of crime and the desperation of criminal justice system are the most important foundations for the emergence of the expanding confiscation system. The “crimes of particular origin and source (criminal lifestyle),” “legal assumptions,” “mitigating substantive proofs” and “litigation exchanging” form four components of the system of expropriation in reviewing the documents of the Financial Action Task Force. The mentioned components can be different depending on the type of confiscation. Extended confiscation (expanding confiscation) is divided into three types: criminal extended confiscation, civil extended confiscation and administrative extended confiscation. In Iran’s legal system, the “law related to dealing with the property of ministers and employees Act 1959,” “the anti-money laundering (amendment) act 2017” and the “Law of Adding Articles to the Law on How to Implement Article 49 Act 2020” which are the closest system of extended confiscation to the system of confiscation can be seen. The most important damages of the legal system governing the extended confiscation in Iran, in accordance with the standards of the FATF can include: 1) lack of prediction of administrative extended confiscation, 2) absence of the components of the crimes of particular origin and source (criminal lifestyle) and legal assumptions in the detailed criminal confiscation, 3) ambiguity in the standards of the “Principle of Equality of Arms” and 4) and ambiguity in the litigation exchanging criterion and mitigating substantive proofs. It should be noted that this research is done by descriptive-analytical method and library method is used in collecting resources.
 

Keywords

References

  1. توسلی نائینی، منوچهر، قدرت‌اللّٰه خسروشاهی، و زهره نصراللهی، «اصل برابری سلاح‌ها در مرحله تحقیقات مقدماتی در قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری 1392 و اسناد بین‌المللی حقوق بشر»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، سال هشتادم، شماره 94، تابستان 1395 ش.
  2. جوانمرد، بهروز، جرایم سازمان‌یافته فراملی (جلد اول) ـ از حقوق جزای تطبیقی تا بین‌المللی شدن حقوق کیفری، تهران، جاودانه، 1396 ش.
  3. خلیلی پاجی، عارف، تأثیر ارزهای مجازی بر جهانی شدن بزهکاری، به راهنمایی علی‌حسین نجفی ابرندآبادی و باقر شاملو، رساله دکتری دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تابستان 1400 ش.
  4. دلیر، حمید، اموال مرتبط با جرم در حقوق ایران، انگلستان و اسناد بین‌المللی، به راهنمایی رجب گلدوست جویباری، رساله دکتری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 1386 ش.
  5. رابرتسون، رونالد، جهانی شدن؛ تئوری‌های اجتماعی و فرهنگ جهانی، ترجمه کمال پولادی، تهران، ثالث، 1382 ش.
  6. سبحانی، حسین، مبانی و بایسته‌های نظام حاکم بر اموال مرتبط با جرم در پرتو استانداردهای گروه ویژه اقدام مالی؛ سنجش و انعکاس آن‌ها در فقه و حقوق ایران، رساله دکتری دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه، شهریور 1402 ش.
  7. سبحانی، حسین، و سیدمنصور میرسعیدی، «مطالعه تطبیقی مصادره مبسوط کیفری از منظر گروه ویژه اقدام مالی، اتحادیه اروپا، انگلستان و ایران»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دانشگاه تهران، زمستان و بهار 1402 ش.
  8. شریفی طرازکوهی، حسین، درآمدی بر شهروندی جهانی، تهران، نشر میزان، چاپ اول، 1392.
  9. قانون اجرایی اصل 49 قانون اساسی مصوب 1363. و دستورالعمل اجرایی قانون اجرایی اصل 49 قانون اساسی مصوب 1364.
  10. قانون اساسی.
  11. قانون اصلاح قانون مبارزه با پولشویی مصوب 1397.
  12. قانون الحاق به کنوانسیون سازمان ملل متحد برای مبارزه با قاچاق مواد مخدر و داروهای روانگردان در تاریخ 03/09/1370
  13. قانون الحاق دولت جمهوری اسلامی ایران به کنوانسیون سازمان ملل متحد برای مبارزه با فساد (مریدا) در تاریخ 20/07/1387.
  14. قانون الحاق موادی به قانون نحوه اجرای اصل 49 قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران مصوب 1399. و دستورالعمل اجرایی قانون الحاق موادی به قانون نحوه اجرای اصل 49 قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران مصوب 1399.
  15. قانون برنامه پنج‌ساله ششم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران مصوب 1395.
  16. قانون رسیدگی به دارایی مقامات، مسئولان و کارگزاران جمهوری اسلامی ایران مصوب 1394.
  17. قانون مبارزه با پولشویی مصوب 1386.
  18. قانون مبارزه با قاچاق مواد مخدر مصوب 1367.
  19. قانون مبارزه با قاچاق مواد مخدر مصوب 1376.
  20. قانون مبارزه با مواد مخدر مصوب 1389.
  21. قانون مجازات اسلامی مصوب 1392.
  22. قانون مدیریت خدمات کشوری مصوب 1386.
  23. قانون مربوط به رسیدگی به دارایی وزرا و کارمندان دولت اعم از کشوری و لشکری و شهرداری‌ها و مؤسسات وابسته به آن‌ها مصوب 1337.
  24. قانون منع مداخله کارکنان دولت مصوب 1337.
  25. میرسعیدی، سیدمنصور، و حسین سبحانی، «بایسته‌های سند ملی ارزیابی ریسک (خطر) پولشویی و تأمین مالی تروریسم در پرتو رویکرد ریسک پایه»، مجله پژوهش‌های حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، سال دهم، شماره 20، پاییز و زمستان 1401 ش.
  26. نجفی، سینا، «بررسی جزایی ضبط و مصادره اموال در قانون مجازات اسلامی ایران»، فصلنامه بین‌المللی قانون‌یار، سال سوم، شماره 10، تابستان 1398 ش.
  27. نصری، قدیر، «در چیستی جهانی شدن؛ تأملی نظری در سمت و سرشت آهنگ جهانی»، فصلنامه مطالعات راهبردی، سال چهارم، شماره 3 (پیاپی 13)، پاییز 1380 ش.

Books and Articles:

  1. Alagna, Federico, “Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity,” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Vol. 21(4), 2015.
  2. Bassiouni, M. Cherif & Eduardo Vetere, Organized Crime: A Compilation of U.N. Documents, 1975-1998, Ardsley New York, Transnational Publishers Inc., 1998.
  3. Boucht, Johan, “Curtain: Assessing the Feasibility of Extended Appropriation,” in: The Limits of Asset Confiscation: On the Legitimacy of Extended Appropriation of Criminal Proceeds, Oxford, Hart Publishing, Bloomsbury Collections, 2017.
  4. Brun, Jean-Pierre & Anastasia Sotiropoulou & Larissa Gray & Clive Scott & Kevin M. Stephenson, Asset Recovery Handbook: A Guide for Practitioners, 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank.
  5. Brussels, Center for the Study of Democracy, Disposal of Confiscated Assets in the EU Member States: Laws and Practices, 20.7.2012.
  6. Cassella, Stefan D., “Civil Asset Recovery: The American Experience,” eucrim: the European Criminal Law Associations’ fórum, Nº. 3, 2013.
  7. , “The Case for Civil Forfeiture: Why in Rem Proceedings are an Essential Tool for Recovering the Proceeds of Crime,” Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 11(1), 2008.
  8. Euro just, Report on non-conviction-based confiscation (General Case 751/NMSK 2012), For an interesting discussion of the justify cations for civil recovery of criminal proceeds, 2 April 2013.
  9. FATF, Best Practices on Confiscation (Recommendations 4 and 38) and a Framework for Ongoing Work on Asset Recovery, October 2012.
  10. FATF, FATF President’s paper: Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing for judges and prosecutors, FATF, Paris, France, 2018, <https://www.fatf-gafi.org/ publications/methodandtrends/documents/AML-CFT-judges-prosecutors.html>.
  11. FATF, International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France, 2012-2018.
  12. FATF, Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the Effectiveness of AML/CFT Systems, FATF, Paris, France, 2013, Updated February 2018.
  13. Harris, David J., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014.
  14. Harris, David J. & Michael O'Boyle & Edward P. Bates & Carla M. Buckley, Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2015.
  15. Jacobsen, Jorn & Vilde Hallgren Sandvik, “An Outline of the New Norwegian Criminal Code,” Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 3(2), 2015.
  16. Johansen, Jon Petter Rui, “The civil asset forfeiture approach to organised crime: exploring the possibilities for an EU model,” eucrim: the European Criminal Law Associations’ fórum, Nº. 4, 2011.
  17. Kennedy, Anthony, “Justifying the Civil Recovery of Criminal Proceeds,” Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 12(1), 2004.
  18. Manes, Vittorio, “L’ultimo imperativo della politica criminale: nullum crimen sine confiscatione,” Rivista italiana di diritto e Procedura Penale, Vol. 58(3), 2015.
  19. Maugeri, Anna Maria, “The Criminal Sanctions against the Illicit Proceeds of Criminal Organisations,” New Journal of European Criminal Law, Vol. 3(3-4), 2012.
  20. McBride, Jeremy, “Proportionality and the European Convention on Human Rights,” in: Evelyn Ellis (Ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1999.
  21. Milone, Sofia, “On the borders of criminal law. A tentative assessment of Italian "non-conviction based extended confiscation",” New Journal of European Criminal Law, Vol. 8(2), 2017.
  22. Ryder, Nicholas James, “To Confiscate or not to Confiscate? A Comparative Analysis of the Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Legislation in the United States and the United Kingdom,” Journal of Business Law, Vol. 8, 2013.
  23. Stessens, Guy, Money Laundering: A New International Law Enforcement Model, 3rd, Cambridge, 2002.
  24. Thony, Jean-François, “Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: An Overview,” in: Current Developments in Monetary and Financial Law, Vol. 3, 2005.
  25. Thunberg Schunke, Malin, Extended Confiscation in Criminal Law: National, European and International Perspectives, Intersentia, 2017.
  26. Ulph, Janet, “Confiscation Orders, Human Rights and Penal Measures,” Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 126, 2010.
  27. Vettori, Barbara, Tough on Criminal Wealth: Exploring the Practice of Proceeds from Crime Confiscation in the EU, Springer, 2006.
  28. Young, Simon N.M. (Ed.), Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property: Legal Measures for Targeting the Proceeds of Crime, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009.

Laws and Court decisions and documents:

  1. No. 10519/83, Judge.
  2. No. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72, June 1976.
  3. Chapter 10 Section 9 Subsection 4 of the Finnish Criminal Code.
  4. Code of Laws of the United States of America 18. 981(b).
  5. Danmarks borgerliga Straf elov (1930).
  6. Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Freezing and Confiscation of Instrumentalities and Proceeds of Crime in the European Union.
  7. ECtHR, Sporrong and Lonnroth v. Sweden, Appl. No. 7151/75 and 7152/75, 18 December 1984.
  8. Engel and Others v. The Netherlands, Series A No. 22, Appl. No. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72, 8 June 1976.
  9. European Convention on Human Rights 1950.
  10. Irland, The Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (PoCA 1996), as amended by the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2005 (PoCA 2005) and the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2016 (PoCA 2016).
  11. Italy, Codice Antimafia 2011.
  12. Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Paris, 20.III.1952
  13. Sweden, Penal Code, Chapter 36.1962
  14. UK, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  15. United States, The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act 2000.
  16. United States, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment – 2018.
  17. United States, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment – 2015.
  18. No. 8544/79, 21 February 1984.
  19. Germany, Appl. No. 8544/79, 21 February 1984.
  20. ECtHR, Agosi v. the UK, 24 October 1986 and Handyside v. the UK, 7 December 1976.
  21. ECtHR, M v. Italy, Appl. No. 12386/86, 15 April 1991.
  22. No. 12954/87, 22 February 1994.
  23. No. 17440/90, Judgment of 9 February 1995.
  24. No. 41087/98, Judgment of 5 July 2001.
  25. Italy, Appl. No. 52024/99, 5 July 2001.
  26. Norway, Act of 20 May 2005 No 28.
  27. No. 28457/10, Decision on 4 November 2014.
Criminal Law Doctrines
Volume 20, Issue 25
July 2023
Pages 179-222

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics