Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 2 Internal Security

Years help

  1. 1 2013

  2. 1 2011

Authors help

  1. 1 Butkevich S.

  2. 1 Karazniewicz J.

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  crime benefits
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

National Strategy of Ukraine for Prevention and Counteraction of the Legalization (Laundering) of the Proceeds of Crime

100%
Butkevich S.
Internal Security
|
2013
|
vol. 5(1)
95-106
EN
The article presents current issues in determining the nature and characteristics of organizational and legal aspects of the strategy of prevention and counteraction of legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and terrorist financing in Ukraine. In the paper, the author scrutinizes general theoretical questions of the organization and implementation of financial monitoring, the legal framework for public entities and initial financial monitoring, as well as law-enforcement and other government agencies authorized to prevent and counteract the legalization (laundering) of proceeds of crime and financing of terrorism. The main tasks of the State Service for Financial Monitoring of Ukraine are defined as a central body of executive power and the financial intelligence unit of the administrative type created for the implementation of state policy in the field of prevention and counteraction of legalization (laundering) of proceeds of crime or financing of terrorism, and therefore playing a key role in anti-legalization activities. In addition, taking into account the provisions of the legislation of Ukraine and some of the CIS countries, the practical work of law-enforcement and other government bodies, suggestions were made and recommendations were developed for further improvement of strategy (conception) for prevention and counteraction to legalization (laundering) of proceeds of crime and financing terrorism, including the main criteria for assessing the effectiveness and impact of activities in this area. Scientific exploration has not only theoretical but also of considerable practical importance for the further development of the national anti-legalization system. Thus, the study provides a holistic view of the existing problems in the strategic plans (programmes) for prevention and counteraction to legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime in the context of the current political and economic development of Ukraine.
2

Criminal Law Determinants for Depriving Offenders of Objects and Benefits Obtained from Crime

100%
Karazniewicz J.
Internal Security
|
2011
|
vol. 3(2)
169-180
EN
Deprive offenders of the benefits they obtained from crime is a particularly important instrument in the system of fight against organized crime. Confiscation of crime obtained assets fulfills important role not only as a form of repression, but also as a factor preventing the development of criminal activities. The Polish Penal Code of 1997 introduced forfeiture, which can be ordered either as a punitive measure or precautionary measure. Its scope specified in Articles 44 and 45 of Polish Penal Code is wide. It includes both the seizure of objects and proceeds from crime. The forfeiture of items can be ordered to the items directly obtained from crime, objects that helped or were designed to help in committing the crime, and objects whose manufacture, possession, trade, transmission, transfer or transport is prohibited. In terms of material profits, mandatory forfeit is ordered for both gains obtained directly from crime, as well as for those which the offender obtained indirectly. Given the difficulties of proof associated with showing that the property belonging to the offender has been obtained in connection with a criminal offence, the Polish legislator decided to introduce legal presumptions relating to the sourcing of property belonging to the offender. The burden of proving that the property belonging to the offender has been obtained by them legally lies with the person concerned. Similar approach is used if the circumstances indicate high probability of transfer by the perpetrator of their assets onto another person, legal entity, or agency without corporate status. In both cases the authorities are exempt from the obligation to prove that the property was obtained illegally, and the burden of proof lies with the perpetrator or any other entity concerned. It seems that such arrangements allow for effective carrying out of the tasks by the state authorities to deprive offenders of crime related property.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.