For more than a decade Australian jurisdictions have enthusiastically embraced wide-reaching laws for the forfeiture and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. These were offered as new and potent weapons against organised crime. Despite the lack of evidence regarding its effectiveness, this type of legislation has become progressively more severe. This paper enquires how such legislation has been applied in practice over the past ten years, whether it has been properly targeted, whether it has achieved its intended deterrent effect, and whether the enactment of ever more draconian measures is the appropriate policy response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbrechtH-J. (1998). Post-Adjudication dispositions from an international and comparative perspectivePaper delivered at conference, Sentencing policy in comparative international perspective, Minneapolis.
2.
Australian Law Reform Commission (1998). Commonwealth legislation relating to forfeiture of the proceeds of prime: An introduction to the inquirySydney, ALRC.
3.
Australian Law Reform Commission (1999). Confiscation that counts: A review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, Report No. 87, Sydney, ALRC.
4.
Australian National Audit Office, (1996). Recovery of proceeds of crime. Audit Report No. 23, Canberra, AGPS.
5.
BenselerJ. (1997). Forfeiture legislation in Germany: Legal basis and prosecution practice. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 5, 203.
6.
BerstenM. (1990). Defining organised crime in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 23, 39.
7.
CoadB. (1995). ‘Commentary’ in National Crime Authority, National proceeds of crime conference, Canberra, AGPS.
8.
ComrieN. (1998). The roles of the financial industry and law enforcement in combating money laundering: A co-operative approac. in Money laundering in Australia, Melbourne, AUSTRAC & Monash University.
9.
FisseB. (1989). The rise of money-laundering offences and the fall of principle. Criminal Law Journal, 13, 5.
10.
FraserD. (1992). Lawyers, guns and money: Economics and ideology on the money trail, in FisseB., FraserD. and CossG. (Eds.) The money trail: Confiscation of proceeds of crime, money laundering and cash transaction reporting. Sydney, Law Book Company.
11.
FreibergA. (1988). Ripples from the bottom of the harbour: Some social ramifications of taxation fraud. Criminal Law Journal, 12, 136.
12.
FreibergA. (1992). Criminal confiscation, profit and liberty. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 25, 441.
13.
FreibergA., & PfefferM. (1993). The (deferred) wages of sin: Confiscating superannuation benefits. Criminal Law Journal, 17, 157.
14.
KarchmerC. (1985). Money laundering and the organised underworld, in AlexanderH. and CaidenG. (Eds.) The politics and economics of organized crime. Lexington: Lexington Books.
15.
KilchlingM. (1997). Comparative perspectives on forfeiture legislation in Europe and the United States. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 5, 342.
16.
Levi (1995). Taking the profit out of crime: Rhetoric and reality. Unpublished Paper, Boston.
17.
LeviM. (1997). Evaluating the “New Policing”: Attacking the money trail of organised Crime. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 30, 1.
18.
LeviM. & OsofskyL. (1995). Investigating, seizing and confiscating the proceeds of crime, Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 61, London, Home Office Police Department.
19.
LevyL. W. (1996). A license to steal: The forfeiture of property. Chapel Hill N.C., University of North Carolina Press.
20.
National Crime Authority, Proceeds of Crime Working Party, (1995). Confiscation and forfeiture: Legislation and practice. In: National Crime Authority, National proceeds of crime conference, Canberra, AGPS.
21.
PaoliL. (1995). Seizure and confiscation measures in Italy: An evaluation of their effectiveness and constitutionality. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 5, 256.
