united-states international due-process civil-rights
Is there any other jurisdiction where a government-devised scheme similar to civil forfeiture for crime prevention exist other than the U.S.?
<p>In the U.S., many states adopted laws that allow law enforcement to appropriate property that is liquid or easily liquidated (in practice predominantly cash) not only in cases where past criminal activity has been found substantially likely by law enforcement and confiscation is done to initiate criminal prosecution, but even when (1) there would be no such prosecution (or if there was and a case was closed the confiscated property would not be returned) and even in cases where (2) there is only a suspicion of future criminal activity.</p>
<p>Is there any state in the Western world that allows for either one of the two or both situations?</p>
<p>Are there better arguments to this ploy in the U.S. today than the sovereign citizen-equivalent arguments that the property is the defendant (Haha!) and not a person so due process doesn’t apply?</p>

<p>Yes, in <a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="england-and-wales-container">england-and-wales</a> the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/22/part/1/chapter/1/crossheading/unexplained-wealth-orders-england-and-wales-and-northern-ireland/enacted" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Criminal Finances Act 2017</a> introduced 'Unexplained Wealth Orders', which compel the respondent to provide a statement:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>(a) setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</li>
<li>(b) explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</li>
<li>(c) where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the
order, and</li>
<li>(d) setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>There a few requirements set out in section 362B, for example, the property must have value of over £50,000; there should be &quot;reasonable grounds&quot; for suspicion that the respondent would have been unable to obtain the property using their lawfully obtained income; the respondent or their connections must have either been involved in serious or organised crime, or be a politically exposed person, and so on.</p>
<p>If the respondent refuses to make such a statement, the police may apply for a Civil Recovery Order to confiscate the property, with the property in question &quot;presumed to be recoverable property&quot; (section 362C(2)). Giving false information in such a statement is a criminal offence.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/british-columbia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;british-columbia&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;british-columbia&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="british-columbia-container">british-columbia</a></p>
<p>British Columbia has a civil forfeiture regime governed by the <a href="https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/05029_01" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Civil Forfeiture Act</em></a>.</p>
<p>It establishes an office called the &quot;director&quot; of civil forfeiture. The director can apply to the court for orders forfeiting to the government property that was the proceeds of or the instrument of unlawful activity.</p>
<p>Findings are &quot;to be made on the balance of probabilities.&quot;</p>

<h2>Yes</h2>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag">australia</a></p>
<p>The Commonwealth and all states and territories have <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/poca2002160/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Proceeds of Crime</a> legislation. Under these acts, the government can confiscate:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>benefits derived from breaking the law,</p>
<p>money made from writing or having film or television shows made about how you broke the law,</p>
<p>unexplained wealth that you can’t prove was obtained legally,</p>
<p>as a punishment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Further there is a Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and the Commonwealth’s law was enacted to actuate Australia’s obligations under that Convention and other treaties.</p>

<p>There are states where money can be seized simply because the owner gives no plausible explanation of the source, with no requirement for the prosecution to show any connection between the money and a crime, e.g. <a href="https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/0/93412.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Italy</a>. AFAIK the prosecution still has to show an organized crime connection, but they do not have to suggest any connection between the money and the crime, as long as the money is disproportionate to the legal economic activity of the owner.</p>
