Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:54 am
Time: 12:54 am
Results for criminal assets
2 results foundAuthor: Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission Title: Assets of Queensland Drug Offenders: An analysis of Crime and Corruption Commission proceeds of crime data, 2009-14 Summary: The CCC has examined its proceeds of crime data from 2009 to 2014 to inform law enforcement and government about the value and nature of assets held by drug offenders in Queensland. The research does not analyse the assets of all known drug offenders in Queensland. Rather, the research examines drug offenders who were referred to the CCC for proceeds of crime action, and their assets that were detected and restrained by the CCC. To our knowledge, this is the first piece of research in Australia that has examined the assets of drug offenders using proceeds of crime data. The CCC found: - Assets held by Queensland drug offenders typically ranged from $100 000 to $500 000, with a median value of about $230 000. - Higher-value assets were associated with factors such as trading mainly in cocaine, being a producer or importer in the supply chain, and longer participation in drug offending. - Drug offenders with known links to an OMCG had lower-value assets than did offenders without such links. Offenders with links to OMCGs may often reinvest a portion of their criminal proceeds into the OMCG itself. - Real property, followed by cash, accounted for the greatest percentage of offenders' assets. - Higher percentages of cash were associated with offenders trading mainly in heroin, being involved in distribution or dealing, or operating in south-east Queensland. - Most assets restrained from Queensland drug offenders were registered in their own name. However, proceeds of crime data almost certainly underestimate the percentage of assets held by drug offenders in other names. The findings of the research will also be of interest to agencies and researchers in other jurisdictions. Details: Brisbane: Crime and Corruption Commission, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 13, 2016 at: http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications/ccc/research/assets-of-queensland-drug-offenders-2014-ccc-research-project Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications/ccc/research/assets-of-queensland-drug-offenders-2014-ccc-research-project Shelf Number: 138658 Keywords: Criminal AssetsDrug OffendersProceeds of Crimes |
Author: Australian National Audit Office Title: Proceeds of Crime: Australian Federal Police; Australian Financial Security Authority Attorney-General's Department Summary: The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of the Australian Federal Police's, the Australian Financial Security Authority's and the Attorney-General's Department's administration of property and funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Background 1. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (the POCA) provides a scheme (the"POCA scheme") to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crimes against Commonwealth law. It seeks to disrupt, deter and reduce crime by undermining the profitability of criminal enterprises, depriving persons of the benefits derived from crime, and preventing reinvestment of the proceeds in further criminal activity. 2. The POCA also provides a scheme that allows for confiscated funds to be given back to the community in an endeavour to prevent and reduce the harmful effects of crime in Australia. This mechanism has provided funding to non-government and community organisations, local councils, as well as Commonwealth and state police forces and Commonwealth criminal intelligence entities. Audit objective and criteria 3. The audit objective was to assess whether the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) and the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) effectively carried out key operational and advisory functions related to property and proceeds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 4. To form a conclusion against the audit objective, the ANAO adopted the following high-level audit criteria: effective restraint is achieved by the AFP and/or AFSA through the timely implementation of appropriate court orders; AFSA administers restrained property in an efficient and economical manner and consistent with relevant court orders; AFSA disposes of forfeited property in an appropriate manner and transfers the net proceeds to the Confiscated Assets Account; AGD provides advice to the Minister for Justice on which proposals for funding from the Confiscated Assets Account represent the best value for money; and the AFP and AFSA report against benchmarked performance measures. Conclusion 5. The AFP, AFSA and AGD effectively carry out key operational and advisory functions related to property and proceeds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 6. Risk based planning procedures are in place for deciding which property should be restrained and what conditions should be placed on the property when seeking a restraining order. The manner in which restraining orders are implemented depends on the type of property under restraint. For the major classes of property, AFP and AFSA processes have worked well and custody and control of property has been achieved in a way that minimises the risk of the property being dissipated. 7. AFSA has appropriate custodial arrangements in place for all types of property. Legislative and administrative constraints currently limit the ability the of Official Trustee to achieve improved rates of return from the substantial amount of funds held in the restrained and forfeited monies bank accounts and the Confiscated Assets Account. AFSA also manages property in a way that is consistent with the relevant court orders and disposes of forfeited property in an appropriate manner in order to maximise the sale proceeds. 8. The AGD has established effective processes to identify the possible use of funds from the Confiscated Assets Account. It has also advised the Minister for Justice on proposals to assist in achieving value for money from expenditure. During the financial years 2010-11 to 2015-16, the main beneficiaries of funding have been Commonwealth law enforcement and criminal intelligence agencies. Significant funding has also been approved for non-government, community organisation and local council projects, with the New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland police forces also receiving funding. 9. The AFP publicly reports the estimated recovery value of property restrained each year. When combined with the Australian Crime Commission's (ACC's) public reporting of the estimated value of property confiscated each year, this illustrates the trends in the amount of criminal proceeds intercepted by the POCA scheme. AFSA also undertakes limited public reporting on its administration of property. This reporting does not include information on the costs of administering property under its custody and control, which is an important aspect of its overall performance in relation to the proceeds of crime. However, AFSA has made some improvements in its internal reporting capacity about the costs of managing property and is in the early stages of developing benchmarks for some aspects of these costs. Supporting findings Restraining property 10. Planning and decision-making procedures by the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce investigators and litigators relating to restraint are risk-based. Where the AFP has judged that the risk of dissipation is high, restraining order applications include a provision for custody and control of the property to be granted to AFSA. 11. Restraining orders are implemented in a timely manner and in a way that minimises the risk of property being dissipated. However, the AFP could do more to register orders involving motor vehicles on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) in a timely manner. Custody and disposal of property 12. Custodial arrangements for property that has been placed into the custody and control of AFSA vary depending on the type of property restrained. Testing demonstrates that appropriate custodial arrangements are in place for all types of property. Management of the funds held in the restrained and forfeited monies bank accounts and the Confiscated Assets Account reflect legislative and administrative constraints that limit the ability of the Official Trustee to achieve improved rates of return from the substantial amount of funds held in these accounts. 13. AFSA manages property in a way that is consistent with the relevant court orders. Where consent, variation and/or exclusion orders are granted by the court, AFSA has acted consistently with the court order. 14. In 2015-16, the disposal processes utilised by AFSA have achieved sale proceeds from forfeited property which have exceeded the estimated value of the property, as determined by an independent and/or certified valuer, in 76 per cent of matters, including all of the higher-value property. How funds from the Confiscated Assets Account are used 15. The processes through which the possible use of funds - stand-alone projects or grant programs-are identified and submitted for the Minister for Justice's approval have evolved over time. In recent years, more structured and targeted processes have been implemented in order to assist in achieving better overall outcomes from Confiscated Assets Account funding. The AGD provided the Minister with relevant advice to assist him in meeting his decision making obligations. 16. The main beneficiaries of funding from the Confiscated Assets Account have been Commonwealth criminal intelligence or law enforcement entities. Significant funds have been approved for non-government, community organisation and local council projects, mainly through the Safer Streets Programme. The New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland police forces have also received funding. Performance Monitoring and Reporting 17. The AFP publicly reports on the estimated recovery value of property restrained each year and whether the AFP has met the benchmark set for that year. It also internally monitors another key performance measure-the estimated value of property confiscated each year-which is publicly reported by the ACC. These two measures illustrate the trends in the criminal proceeds intercepted by the POCA scheme. In the context of a current AFP wide review of performance measures, additional metrics could be developed to provide better information both on the AFP's performance in litigating POCA cases and, in the longer term, the effect of the POCA scheme on the underlying criminal economy. 18. AFSA's public reporting on its administration of property under its custody and control is limited to high-level information. It is in the early stages of developing an improved internal reporting capacity to monitor the costs of managing property under AFSA custody and control. This work could be also be used to enable public reporting of the costs to administer such property, which is an important aspect of AFSA's overall performance and responsibilities under the POCA scheme. Details: Canberra: ANAO, 2017. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: ANAO Report No. 43 2016-17: Accessed April 6, 2017 at: https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net2766/f/ANAO_Report_2016-2017https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net2766/f/ANAO_Report_2016-2017_43_0.pdf_43_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 144738 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureCriminal AssetsFinancial CrimesProceeds of Crime |