Law in the Books, Law in Action

Vettori, Barbara

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4129-7_4

Tough on Criminal Wealth

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4129-7_4

|View full text |Cite

Law in the Books, Law in Action

Barbara Vettori

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Scottish Law Commission expressed its preference to use the term ‘forfeiture’ in the first sense and ‘confiscation’ in the second sense. Vettori (2006, p. 2) notes the distinction between the UK/EU meaning of ‘forfeiture’ and its meaning in the US, ‘where it has a much wider coverage’. Vettori goes on to note that ‘still today the two terms – forfeiture and confiscation – are used interchangeably, so that the potential for confusion is high’.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How far is too far? Theorising non-conviction-based asset forfeiture

Hendry

King

2015

International Journal of Law in Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Non-conviction-based (NCB) asset forfeiture is a relatively recent addition to law enforcement's armoury in the fight against organised crime in the UK. It allows for criminal assets to be forfeited to the State even in the absence of criminal conviction, the stated objective being to undermine the profit incentive of criminal activity. Until now, NCB asset forfeiture has principally been critiqued from a criminological point of view, specifically concerning the Packer models and the civil / criminal dichotomy -aside from this, however, it remains rather underdeveloped theoretically. This paper addresses this lack of legal theoretical engagement with NCB asset forfeiture by providing an initial contribution from systems-theoretical perspective. This contribution makes use of systems theory's unique insights to critique the perceived 'failure of law' that gave rise to the NCB approach, and challenges the legitimacy of that approach in terms of procedural rights.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How far is too far? Theorising non-conviction-based asset forfeiture

Hendry

King

2015

International Journal of Law in Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Law in the Books, Law in Action

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

How far is too far? Theorising non-conviction-based asset forfeiture

How far is too far? Theorising non-conviction-based asset forfeiture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About