Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:51 am
Time: 1:51 am
Results for confiscation orders
3 results foundAuthor: Wood, Helena Title: The Big Payback: Examining Changes in the Criminal Confiscation Orders Enforcement Landscape Summary: The UK legislation for removing the proceeds of crime from the hands of convicted criminals, governed by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), is viewed as particularly punitive due to its ability to capture a wide pool of income and assets, some of which are not linked to the indictable offence. While this is desirable in policy terms, the broad framing of the law has created unintended consequences for those charged with enforcing the orders and the system has faced increasing criticism, most prominently in a 2013 report of the National Audit Office (NAO), regarding the disparity between the levels of orders made in the courts and the amounts eventually collected from the criminal. The NAO's report and some of the wider media coverage could be criticised for their focus on revenue-raising and 'value for money' rather than the impact on criminals, and for their failure to highlight the complexity of the law and the extent to which this (and not administrative failures) has led to the backlog of uncollected confiscation orders - currently L1.6 billion and rising. However the report did make a number of valid points, including on multi-agency co-ordination, and provided a catalyst for the government to recognise the centrality of the enforcement process to the success of the confiscation-orders regime as a whole. This paper examines the legislative and systemic changes to the confiscation-order enforcement process introduced by the government in 2014 and 2015, and examines the extent to which these offer the needed shift in priority towards enforcement to reduce the current backlog and to prevent a future build-up. The paper then makes recommendations for consideration by policy-makers. Details: London: Royal University Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI), 2016. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: RUSI Occasional Paper, February 2016: Accessed March 14, 2016 at: https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201602_op_the_big_payback.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201602_op_the_big_payback.pdf Shelf Number: 138223 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureConfiscation OrdersOrganized CrimesProceeds of Crime |
Author: Wood, Helena Title: Enforcing Criminal Confiscation Orders: From Policy to Practice Summary: The enforcement process for criminal confiscation orders operating under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) has faced considerable criticism from both parliamentary and media commentators. The POCA was indeed a significant step forward and addressed the need to adopt effective measures to tackle the proceeds of criminal activity. However, the criminal-confiscation regime has a number of flaws, particularly in the practical challenges of enforcement. These were most prominently highlighted by the 2013 review conducted by the National Audit Office which led to calls for the development of a more effective system. The headlines make for stark reading: L1.6 billion in unenforced confiscation orders, an amount which is continuing to rise. This paper is structured around two key issues. First, it examines how the law has been framed and applied. It provides a detailed analysis of the process, shedding light on some of the weaknesses of the current legislative environment. In addressing the second issue - unenforced confiscation orders - the paper specifically examines the assets on which these orders are based. The paper's overall purpose is to assess the extent to which the law, rather than administrative failings, is the root cause of the large value of uncollected orders. In short, to what extent do real assets exist against which the authorities can take enforcement action? Details: London: London: Royal University Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI), 2016. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Occasional Paper: Accessed March 14, 2016 at: https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201602_op_enforcing_criminal_confiscation_orders.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201602_op_enforcing_criminal_confiscation_orders.pdf Shelf Number: 138224 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureConfiscation OrdersOrganized CrimeProceeds of Crime |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Confiscation Orders: Progress Review Summary: government's administration of criminal confiscation orders has seen a greater focus on enforcing the orders, according to the NAO. Many of the fundamental weaknesses identified two years ago remain, however, and the system of managing confiscation orders has not been transformed. Confiscation orders are the main way through which the government carries out its policy to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes. The spending watchdog reported on the administration of confiscation orders in December 2013, concluding that the process was not working well enough and did not provide value for money. The Committee of Public Accounts subsequently made six recommendations for the system's improvement, which were accepted by the government. Today's report found that the criminal justice bodies involved have made some progress against most of the Committee's recommendations. Despite this, the NAO considers that the only recommendation which has been fully addressed is that the sanctions for non-payment should be strengthened. The Home Office introduced new legislation which includes longer default prison sentences and powers for judges to impose travel bans for non-payers. It is too early to conclude, however, whether these changes will prove successful. Since 2014, the criminal justice bodies have improved how they administer confiscation orders, with greater focus on enforcement and better joint working across bodies including the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. This has led to a $22 million (16%) increase in confiscated income in two years and the highest amount collected to date. The number of orders imposed, however, has fallen by 7% and are made in only a tiny fraction of total crimes. According to the NAO, more could be done to reduce confiscation order debt, which has risen by $158 million to $1.61 billion in the last two years. Much of the debt now relates to orders which are at least 5 years old and HM Courts & Tribunals Service assessed that only $203 million of this total debt can realistically be collected. There are, however, fewer financial investigators, which has reduced the capacity needed to help recover high-value orders, and the use of restraint orders to freeze an offender's assets has also fallen by 12%. Both are key to successful enforcement. There is also the potential for more collection, for example through greater involvement of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to find and repatriate assets transferred overseas or changes in the law to stop criminals hiding illicit assets under other people's names. The Criminal Finances Improvement Plan, which set out 11 objectives covering the whole administrative process of managing confiscation orders, has helped galvanise efforts to improve the enforcement of orders since its launch in 2014. The government has not however met its ambitious targets for the plan's implementation. In addition, the plan does not set out agreed success measures nor make clear the priority of the government's objectives for confiscation. Competing priorities have also affected the push to increase the use of confiscation orders, as while the government aspires for law enforcement agencies to treat confiscation orders as a priority, most police forces do not consider asset recovery a priority compared to other areas of law enforcement, such as countering extremism. Details: London: NAO, 2016. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: HC: 886, 2015-16: Accessed March 16, 2016 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Confiscation-orders-progress-review.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Confiscation-orders-progress-review.pdf Shelf Number: 138254 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureConfiscation OrdersProceeds of Crime |