NCJ Number
119772
Journal
Bulletin on Narcotics Volume: 35 Issue: 2 Dated: (April-June 1983) Pages: 21-39
Date Published
1983
Length
19 pages
Annotation
There is nothing inherently wrong with depriving a criminal of the proceeds of a crime which jeopardized the health of innocent people.
Abstract
The power to seize and preserve is most needed when the accused person still has the proceeds of the crime in their possession. Legislation is needed to empower certain police officers who believe on reasonable grounds that monies in bank accounts are traceable to property obtained from a breach in criminal law and to apply to the court for an order preventing withdrawals or the monies should be paid to the court. There are three reasons why the right to seize property before the guilt of the accused has been established will need to be circumscribed. First, the ability of the accused to carry on business may be adversely affected. Second, the money may legally belong to the accused and to another person who is not suspected of committing a crime. Third, such seizure may be in breach of one of the rights of the accused guaranteed under a written constitution. Confiscation is relevant in two different situations. The first is when the transaction which yields the profit is illegal, and the other is when the transaction itself is legal, but the profit is increased by unlawful means. A concerted effort is necessary to stamp out the crimes that span the boundaries of more than one country. This study recommends legislation that would allow effective confiscatory action to be taken against property associated with criminal activity, and that would facilitate the seizure of property prior to a criminal trial as well as the forfeiture of property directly related to a crime. 8 references. (Author abstract modified)