德国的非法致富:评估改革后的资产追回制度没收犯罪所得的能力

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS International Review of Law and Economics Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.1016/j.irle.2024.106230
{"title":"德国的非法致富:评估改革后的资产追回制度没收犯罪所得的能力","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examines the effectiveness of Germany's reformed asset recovery regime, which was implemented in 2017, in terms of its ability to confiscate proceeds of crime and whether it qualifies as illicit enrichment legislation. The research utilizes Dornbierer's (2021) definition of illicit enrichment to evaluate the reformed asset recovery law and analyses trends in asset recovery by reviewing data on assets seized and confiscated since 2017. Additionally, the study compares the reformed asset recovery regime to its predecessor to determine whether weaknesses that reduced the effectiveness of the previous framework to confiscate PoC have been addressed, while also evaluating the reformed regime for any potential weaknesses that may hinder its ability to confiscate proceeds of crime. The study concludes that while the reformed regime introduces some elements of illicit enrichment, it does not satisfy the criteria for illicit enrichment legislation. Nonetheless, the reformed regime is more effective in confiscating proceeds of crime, as evidenced by the high value of assets seized since the reform was implemented. Additionally, most of the weaknesses that existed in the previous system have been resolved. However, the research highlights the remaining challenges regarding the confiscation of proceeds implicated in ML, fraud, and corruption, as well as profits from non-criminal offenses. Future studies could explore whether the increased confiscation of assets leads to a decrease in profit-driven crime.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000504/pdfft?md5=b1a15c15d6d4520b3ec0e687f248e681&pid=1-s2.0-S0144818824000504-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Illicit enrichment in Germany: An evaluation of the reformed asset recovery regime's ability to confiscate proceeds of crime\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study examines the effectiveness of Germany's reformed asset recovery regime, which was implemented in 2017, in terms of its ability to confiscate proceeds of crime and whether it qualifies as illicit enrichment legislation. The research utilizes Dornbierer's (2021) definition of illicit enrichment to evaluate the reformed asset recovery law and analyses trends in asset recovery by reviewing data on assets seized and confiscated since 2017. Additionally, the study compares the reformed asset recovery regime to its predecessor to determine whether weaknesses that reduced the effectiveness of the previous framework to confiscate PoC have been addressed, while also evaluating the reformed regime for any potential weaknesses that may hinder its ability to confiscate proceeds of crime. The study concludes that while the reformed regime introduces some elements of illicit enrichment, it does not satisfy the criteria for illicit enrichment legislation. Nonetheless, the reformed regime is more effective in confiscating proceeds of crime, as evidenced by the high value of assets seized since the reform was implemented. Additionally, most of the weaknesses that existed in the previous system have been resolved. However, the research highlights the remaining challenges regarding the confiscation of proceeds implicated in ML, fraud, and corruption, as well as profits from non-criminal offenses. Future studies could explore whether the increased confiscation of assets leads to a decrease in profit-driven crime.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Law and Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000504/pdfft?md5=b1a15c15d6d4520b3ec0e687f248e681&pid=1-s2.0-S0144818824000504-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Law and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000504\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000504","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究从没收犯罪所得的能力以及是否符合资产非法增加立法的角度,考察了德国于2017年实施的改革后的资产追回制度的有效性。研究利用多恩比勒(2021 年)对资产非法增加的定义来评估改革后的资产追回法,并通过审查 2017 年以来扣押和没收的资产数据来分析资产追回的趋势。此外,本研究还将改革后的资产追回制度与其前身进行了比较,以确定是否已经解决了削弱以前没收犯罪所得框架有效性的薄弱环节,同时还评估了改革后的制度是否存在任何可能阻碍其没收犯罪所得能力的潜在薄弱环节。研究得出的结论是,虽然改革后的制度引入了一些资产非法增加的要素,但并不符合资产非法增加立法的标准。不过,改革后的制度在没收犯罪所得方面更加有效,改革实施以来没收的资产价值很高就是证明。此外,以前制度中存在的大多数弱点都已得到解决。然而,研究强调了在没收牵涉到洗钱、欺诈和腐败的收益以及非刑事犯罪的利润方面仍然存在的挑战。未来的研究可以探讨资产没收的增加是否会导致利润驱动型犯罪的减少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Illicit enrichment in Germany: An evaluation of the reformed asset recovery regime's ability to confiscate proceeds of crime

This study examines the effectiveness of Germany's reformed asset recovery regime, which was implemented in 2017, in terms of its ability to confiscate proceeds of crime and whether it qualifies as illicit enrichment legislation. The research utilizes Dornbierer's (2021) definition of illicit enrichment to evaluate the reformed asset recovery law and analyses trends in asset recovery by reviewing data on assets seized and confiscated since 2017. Additionally, the study compares the reformed asset recovery regime to its predecessor to determine whether weaknesses that reduced the effectiveness of the previous framework to confiscate PoC have been addressed, while also evaluating the reformed regime for any potential weaknesses that may hinder its ability to confiscate proceeds of crime. The study concludes that while the reformed regime introduces some elements of illicit enrichment, it does not satisfy the criteria for illicit enrichment legislation. Nonetheless, the reformed regime is more effective in confiscating proceeds of crime, as evidenced by the high value of assets seized since the reform was implemented. Additionally, most of the weaknesses that existed in the previous system have been resolved. However, the research highlights the remaining challenges regarding the confiscation of proceeds implicated in ML, fraud, and corruption, as well as profits from non-criminal offenses. Future studies could explore whether the increased confiscation of assets leads to a decrease in profit-driven crime.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
38
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The International Review of Law and Economics provides a forum for interdisciplinary research at the interface of law and economics. IRLE is international in scope and audience and particularly welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers on comparative law and economics, globalization and legal harmonization, and the endogenous emergence of legal institutions, in addition to more traditional legal topics.
期刊最新文献
Illicit enrichment in Germany: An evaluation of the reformed asset recovery regime's ability to confiscate proceeds of crime On the strategic choice of overconfident lawyers Judiciary-driven finance: Quasi-experimental evidence from specialized financial adjudication institutions in China Mandatory disclosure of open-ended real estate fund shares that are registered for redemption? Predicting patent lawsuits with machine learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1