DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Eurojust's Casework in Asset Recovery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Eurojust's Casework in Asset Recovery Report on Eurojust’s Casework in Asset Recovery February 2019 Report on Eurojust’s Casework in Asset Recovery 12 February 2019 Report on Eurojust’s Casework in Asset Recovery [Status] Table of Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1. Asset Freezing ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Asset Tracing ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.1.1. Legal and practical issues ................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1.2. Eurojust's support in asset tracing ................................................................................................................................ 9 1.1.3. Asset Tracing – Highlights for Practitioners ........................................................................................................... 12 1.2. Asset Freezing........................................................................................................................................................... 15 1.2.1. Legal and practical issues ................................................................................................................................................ 15 A. Requirements for issuing and considerations for executing a freezing order or an LoR seeking freezing measures . 15 B. Differences in national legislation regarding possibilities for freezing assets ............................................................................. 17 C. Identification of the national competent authority ................................................................................................................................. 19 D. Choice of legal instrument ................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 E. Simultaneous transmission of LoRs concerning the seizure of money to more than one requested State ....................... 20 F. Restitution of assets to victims or compensation of victims ................................................................................................................. 20 G. Freezing measures in ongoing parallel investigations ........................................................................................................................... 22 H. Communication of the execution of an LoR seeking freezing measures .......................................................................................... 26 I. Asset management.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 J. Challenges and legal remedies .......................................................................................................................................................................... 29 K. Grounds for refusing the execution of a freezing order or LoR seeking freezing measures.................................................... 35 L. Other issues ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 1.2.2. Eurojust's support in asset freezing ........................................................................................................................... 36 A. Issuing stage of a freezing order or LoR seeking the freezing measures ........................................................................................ 36 B. Execution stage of a freezing order or LoR seeking freezing measures .......................................................................................... 40 1.2.3. Asset Freezing – Highlights for Practitioners ......................................................................................................... 44 1.3. Judicial cooperation instruments and tools in asset tracing and freezing ...................................... 46 2. Asset Confiscation .......................................................................................................................................... 49 2.1. Asset Confiscation ................................................................................................................................................... 49 2.1.1. Legal and practical issues ................................................................................................................................................ 49 2.1.2. Eurojust's support in asset confiscation ................................................................................................................... 52 2.1.3. Asset Confiscation – Highlights for Practitioners ................................................................................................. 53 2.2. Asset Disposal ........................................................................................................................................................... 55 2.2.1. Legal and practical issues ................................................................................................................................................ 55 A. Sale of confiscated assets ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 B. Asset sharing ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 56 C. Restitution of confiscated assets to the victims .......................................................................................................................................... 57 2.2.2. Eurojust's support in asset disposal ........................................................................................................................... 59 A. Sale of confiscated assets ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 B. Process leading to the asset-sharing agreement ....................................................................................................................................... 60 2.2.3. Asset Disposal – Highlights for Practitioners ......................................................................................................... 61 2.3. Judicial cooperation instruments and tools in asset confiscation ....................................................... 62 3. Best practice ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 4. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 65 Annex Legal Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Page 1 of 69 Report on Eurojust’s Casework in Asset Recovery Executive summary The objective of the Report on Eurojust’s Casework in Asset Recovery is to assist competent judicial authorities in the EU Member States to effectively recover criminal assets and to contribute to the fight against transnational crime. The report is primarily based on the analysis of cases addressing asset recovery issues registered at Eurojust between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2018, and is complemented by views expressed during dedicated discussions with some Eurojust National Desks. The report constitutes an overview of the main legal and practical issues encountered by Eurojust in its casework in asset recovery, the support provided by Eurojust at any given stage of the asset recovery process, the main judicial cooperation instruments and tools used, and the best practice identified. In relation to asset tracing, the report identifies the benefit of i) identifying the appropriate corresponding competent national authority; ii) concluding such an enquiry prior to seeking assistance; iii) using specialised forensic accountants to both assist in the investigation of the financial information and serve as potential expert testimony, iv) a multi-disciplinary approach to asset tracing at EU level, especially in larger cases, combining the skills of specialist authorities in the Member States; v) raising awareness among national practitioners on the statutory responsibilities of the Asset Recovery Offices and Financial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 Adopting the Opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017
    College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 adopting the opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017 THE COLLEGE OF EUROJUST, Having regard to the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 (2002/187/JHA) setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, as amended by the Council Decision of 18 June 2003 (2003/659/JHA), and by Council Decision of 16 December 2008 (2009/426/JHA) (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Council Decision”), and in particular Article 36 thereof, Having regard to the Financial Regulation applicable to Eurojust and adopted by the College on 14 January 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Financial Regulation”), and in particular Article 99 (2) thereof, Having regard to the preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017, Having regard to the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 signed off by the Accounting Officer on 11 June 2018 and drawn up by the Administrative Director on 13 June 2018 and sent to the College on 20 June 2018. Whereas: (1) The final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are attached as Annex I to this opinion; (2) The Preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to a report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are included in Annex II to this opinion; (3) PKF Littlejohn LLP Independent Auditors Report on the provisional annual accounts 2017 is attached as Annex III to this opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Archbold Review 5-6, and the News Pieces of EU Legislation in the Area of Justice and Home Item, [2016] 2 Archbold Review 9
    Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Archbold Review Cases in Brief Appeal—inconsistent verdicts—development of case law— the clear law set out in Devlin J’s test and apply it rather than reassertion of proper test—undesirability of elaboration of test the reformulation in Dhillon. The Stone test did not need in judgments; Court of Appeal—proper approach of Court to elaboration, but rather careful application to the circum- development of case law stances of each case. In particular (the contrary having been FANNING AND OTHERS [2016] EWCA Crim 550; suggested), different tests did not apply to multiple counts April 28, 2016 arising out of a single sexual episode, and those arising over (1) Giving judgment in four conjoined appeals, the Lord a long period of time; and it was unnecessary and inappropri- Chief Justice reviewed the authorities on the role of the jury ate to compare the circumstances of one case with another and the approach of the court to applications to appeal based as was urged on the court in R v S [2014] EWCA Crim 927. on what were said to be inconsistent verdicts by the jury. The (3) Although the approach the Court set out needed no fur- starting point was the adoption of the approach set out by ther elaboration, it was necessary to mention three matters: Devlin J in Stone [1955] Crim LR 120, quoted in Hunt [1968] 2 (a) the burden to show that verdicts could not stand was with QB 433 and formally adopted in Durante (1972) 56 Cr.App.R the applicant; (b) a jury may logically find a witness credible 708, that the burden was on the applicant to show that the on one count but not another (contra an interpretation of Griz- verdicts could not stand together, that is, that no reasonable zle [1991] Crim LR 553 and Cilgram [1994] Crim LR 861); and jury could have arrived at that conclusion, which was fact- (c) in the overwhelming generality of cases it would be appro- specific.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the Protocol 36 Opt
    September 2012 Opting out of EU Criminal law: What is actually involved? Alicia Hinarejos, J.R. Spencer and Steve Peers CELS Working Paper, New Series, No.1 http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/working_papers.php Centre for European Legal Studies • 10 West Road • Cambridge CB3 9DZ Telephone: 01223 330093 • Fax: 01223 330055 • http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the right to opt out en bloc of all the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the Treaty of Maastricht ahead of the date when the Court of Justice of the EU at Luxembourg will acquire jurisdiction in relation to them. The government is under pressure to use this opt-out in order to “repatriate criminal justice”. It is rumoured that this opt-out might be offered as a less troublesome alternative to those are calling for a referendum on “pulling out of Europe”. Those who advocate the Protocol 36 opt-out appear to assume that it would completely remove the UK from the sphere of EU influence in matters of criminal justice and that the opt-out could be exercised cost-free. In this Report, both of these assumptions are challenged. It concludes that if the opt-out were exercised the UK would still be bound by a range of new police and criminal justice measures which the UK has opted into after Lisbon. And it also concludes that the measures opted out of would include some – notably the European Arrest Warrant – the loss of which could pose a risk to law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights and Commentary from Dentons
    dentons.com Insights and Commentary from Dentons On March 31, 2013, three pre-eminent law firms—Salans, Fraser Milner Casgrain, and SNR Denton—combined to form Dentons, a Top 10 global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers and professionals worldwide. This document was authored by representatives of one of the founding firms prior to our combination launch, and it continues to be oered to provide our clientsG withro thewing information with they need to do business in an increasingly complex, interconnected and competitive marketplace. The role of government has never been more critical IFI Update - London August 2006 Salans is a full service international law firm with offices in Almaty, Baku, Berlin1, Bratislava, Bucharest, Budapest2, Istanbul, Kyiv, London, Moscow, New York, Paris, Prague, Shanghai, St. Petersburg and Warsaw. Contents may exist in the tort of negligence in a claim In this issue, we examine the following topics: for pure economic loss. A bank’s duty of care concerning an asset freezing order 1 A bank operating in England may be served with notice of an asset freezing order (which Insolvency: transactions at an undervalue and used to be called a Mareva injunction) that transactions to defraud creditors 8 has been issued at the behest of a claimant Cross-border insolvencies: S. 426 of the in litigation against a customer of the bank. Insolvency Act 1986 11 In fact it happens quite frequently. The order is intended to prevent the defendant from Conflict of laws rules for tortious issues 16 dissipating its assets or removing them from Conflict of laws: the quantification of damages the jurisdiction before the claim against it in tort 21 has been heard.
    [Show full text]
  • The Police Foundation's Response
    Select Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee E - Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection & Sub-Committee F - Home Affairs, Health and Education) Joint inquiry into the UK’s 2014 Opt-out Decision (Protocol 36) The Police Foundation’s response About the Police Foundation The Police Foundation is the only independent charity focused entirely on developing people's knowledge and understanding of policing and challenging the police service and the government to improve policing for the benefit of the public. The Police Foundation acts as a bridge between the public, the police and the government, while being owned by none of them. Founded in 1979 by the late Lord Harris of Greenwich, the Police Foundation has been highly successful in influencing policing policy and practice, through research, policy analysis, training and consultancy. Introduction 1. Under Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the UK is entitled to withdraw from approximately 130 EU policing and criminal justice measures. The Government has until 31 May 2014 to decide whether to continue to be bound by the measures, or whether to use its right to opt out. The right to opt out is exercised en bloc, i.e. all pre-Lisbon measures must be opted out of in one go. Application could then be made to opt back into specific measures. 2. The Home Secretary has announced that the government is currently minded to use its right to opt out of all the pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate with the European Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures which are judged to be in the national interest.1 At this stage it is not clear which measures the Home Office would plan to opt back in to, which it would like to opt out of completely, and the reasons for this approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and EU Agencies What the Agencies’ Existing Third Country Relations Can Teach Us About the Future EU- UK Relationship Nicolai Von Ondarza / Camille Borrett
    Working Paper SWP Working Papers are online publications within the purview of the respective Research Division. Unlike SWP Research Papers and SWP Comments they are not reviewed by the Institute. RESEARCH DIVISION EU / EUROPE | WP NR. 02, APRIL 2018 Brexit and EU agencies What the agencies’ existing third country relations can teach us about the future EU- UK relationship Nicolai von Ondarza / Camille Borrett Contents Introduction 3 I. The EU’s defined interest 4 II. EU agencies and their relevance to Brexit 5 The integrity of the single market 7 Relevance for Northern Ireland 8 Internal and external European security 11 III. EU agencies relationships with third countries 12 Full participation (EEA model) 12 Bilateral cooperation agreements 14 Fringe cases 20 IV. The UK and EU agencies during transition 23 Conclusions 25 List of Abbreviations 28 Overview: EU Agencies and their third country relationships 29 2 Introduction The Brexit negotiations are amongst the most complex the European Union has conducted. After more than 45 years of membership the UK’s exit from the EU is about more than leav- ing the Union’s institutions and its major policy areas. It is also, crucially, about its disen- tanglement from the EU legal order as well as the rules and regulations governing the single market and beyond. One crucial example in order to understand how this disentanglement of the legal order will affect the future relationship, are the 36 agencies the EU has set up to help regulate its single market and support coordination between its members states across many different policy areas.1 Almost two years after the UK’s population voted to leave the EU and less than a year until its formal exit, legally set for 29 March 2019, the Brexit talks are entering the next crucial stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Asset Recovery Handbook
    Asset Recovery Handbook eveloping countries lose billions each year through bribery, misappropriation of funds, Dand other corrupt practices. Much of the proceeds of this corruption find “safe haven” in the world’s financial centers. These criminal flows are a drain on social services and economic development programs, contributing to the impoverishment of the world’s poorest countries. Many developing countries have already sought to recover stolen assets. A number of successful high-profile cases with creative international cooperation has demonstrated Asset Recovery Handbook that asset recovery is possible. However, it is highly complex, involving coordination and collaboration with domestic agencies and ministries in multiple jurisdictions, as well as the A Guide for Practitioners, Second Edition capacity to trace and secure assets and pursue various legal options—whether criminal confiscation, non-conviction based confiscation, civil actions, or other alternatives. A Guide for Practitioners, This process can be overwhelming for even the most experienced practitioners. It is exception- ally difficult for those working in the context of failed states, widespread corruption, or limited Jean-Pierre Brun resources. With this in mind, the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative has developed and Anastasia Sotiropoulou updated this Asset Recovery Handbook: A Guide for Practitioners to assist those grappling with Larissa Gray the strategic, organizational, investigative, and legal challenges of recovering stolen assets. Clive Scott A practitioner-led project, the Handbook provides common approaches to recovering stolen assets located in foreign jurisdictions, identifies the challenges that practitioners are likely to Kevin M. Stephenson encounter, and introduces good practices. It includes examples of tools that can be used by Second Edition practitioners, such as sample intelligence reports, applications for court orders, and mutual legal assistance requests.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Official Report
    Vol. 721 Monday No. 53 25 October 2010 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDER OF BUSINESS Questions Climate Change: IPCC Leadership Charities: War Zones Iraq: Camp Ashraf Housing: Shared Ownership Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL] Report Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (Cm 7944) Motion to Disapprove Statements of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 59 and HC 96) Motion of Regret Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page £3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/101025.html PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords £6 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440; Lords £255 Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session.
    [Show full text]
  • A One-Stop Shop for Fighting Serious Cross-Border Crime in the European Union and Beyond
    Eurojust: a one-stop shop for fighting serious cross-border crime in the European Union and beyond In recent years, organised crime groups have gone increasingly global. The European Union is strongly committed to fighting such crime based on the principles of justice and rule of law that define our democratic systems. Judicial and law enforcement authorities in the European Union, however, work within national legal systems, which govern what acts are considered to be crimes, which sanctions apply and how investigations and trials are conducted. To detect, investigate and effectively prosecute cross-border crimes, judicial and law enforcement authorities from different countries therefore need to work closely together. Eurojust is the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit, an EU agency located in The Hague, Netherlands. Eurojust was started in 2002 and is fully focused on providing practical support to investigators, prosecutors and judges from different countries. Judicial practitioners come to Eurojust for support in a wide range of criminal investigations, including investigations of fraud, money laundering, corruption, trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, cybercrime and terrorism. In 2018, Eurojust provided support in 6 500 cases, an increase of almost 19 % compared to 2017. Practical support and services to prosecutors and joint investigation teams Eurojust offers a range of practical tools and services especially designed for prosecutors and investigators of serious crime, including: On-call coordination for urgent requests, for example when a European Arrest Warrant needs to be quickly arranged to arrest a suspect in another country. On-call coordination is available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
    [Show full text]
  • The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On
    THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEN YEARS ON SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEN YEARS ON SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME EDITORS ELSPETH GUILD SERGIO CARRERA AND ALEJANDRO EGGENSCHWILER CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound analytical research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe today. This paperback is published in the context of IN:EX, a three-year project on converging and conflicting ethical values in the internal/external security continuum in Europe, funded by the Security Programme of DG Enterprise of the European Commission’s 7th Framework Research Programme. The opinions expressed in this publication and the analysis and arguments given are the sole responsibility of the authors writing in a personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect those of CEPS or any other institution with which the authors are associated. ISBN 978-94-6138-034-0 © Copyright 2010, European Union and Centre for European Policy Studies All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies and the European Union. Centre for European Policy Studies Place du Congrès 1, B-1000 Brussels Tel: 32 (0) 2 229.39.11 Fax: 32 (0) 2 219.41.51 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.ceps.eu CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------x In re : Chapter 11 : SOUNDVIEW ELITE LTD., et al., : Case No. 13-13098 (REG) : Debtors. : (Jointly Administered) ------------------------------------------------------x : CORINNE BALL, as Chapter 11 Trustee of : SOUNDVIEW ELITE LTD., : : Plaintiff, : Adv. Proc. No. 14-01923 (REG) : v. : : SOUNDVIEW COMPOSITE LTD., : : Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------x DECISION ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ASSET FREEZING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION APPEARANCES: JONES DAY Counsel for Plaintiff Corinne Ball, as Chapter 11 Trustee of Debtor Soundview Elite Ltd. 222 East 41st Street New York, New York 10017 By: William J. Hine, Esq. (argued) Veerle Roovers, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER M. LEVINE Former1 Counsel for Defendant Soundview Composite Ltd. 99 Park Avenue, Suite 330 New York, New York 10016 By: Peter M. Levine, Esq. (argued) 1 After the filing of his brief and oral argument on the summary judgment elements of this decision, Mr. Levine sought permission to withdraw from his representation of defendant Soundview Composite Ltd. His motion was granted. SHER TREMONTE LLP Successor Counsel for Defendant Soundview Composite Ltd. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, New York 10004 By: Robert Knuts, Esq.2 2 Mr. Knuts filed a brief on the asset-freezing injunction elements of this decision. The Court did not need, nor hold, oral argument as to these. ROBERT E. GERBER UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: In the chapter 11 cases of debtors Soundview Elite Ltd. (“Elite”) and its affiliates (collectively, and with Elite, the “Soundview Debtors”), plaintiff Corinne Ball (the “Trustee”) was appointed chapter 11 trustee for the Soundview Debtors after this Court removed Alphonse Fletcher (“Fletcher”) and others under Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex I -An EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights
    An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights Annex I -An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights AN EU MECHANISM ON DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Annex I - An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights Abstract This Research Paper provides an overview of the existing EU mechanisms which aim to guarantee democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights within the EU itself, as set in Article 2 TEU. It analyses the scope of these mechanisms, the role of EU institutions and other relevant actors, and identifies gaps and shortcomings in the current framework. The Research Paper also includes illustrative case-studies on several key challenges, including the limits of infringement actions in addressing the threats to judicial independence in Hungary; the shortcomings of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism in Bulgaria; and the consequences of a weak fundamental rights proofing of the Data Retention Directive. The Research Paper briefly examines the monitoring mechanisms existing at international level, including the UN and the Council of Europe before considering how the EU institutions interact to protect and promote Article 2 TEU values and the role of national authorities and individuals in fulfilling this objective. An analysis of the impact of the gaps and shortcomings identified in this Research Paper is also offered, with a particular focus on the principle of mutual trust, socio-economic development and fundamental rights protection. The impact on mutual trust is discussed in an illustrative case-study on the consequences of the unequal enforcement of the European Arrest Warrant framework decision.
    [Show full text]