The right of defence under Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders
| Author | Nuno Brandão |
| DOI | 10.1177/20322844221084334 |
| Published date | 01 March 2022 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 13(1) 28–41
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20322844221084334
journals.sagepub.com/home/nje
The right of defence under
Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on
the mutual recognition of
freezing orders and
confiscation orders
Nuno Brandão
University of Coimbra Faculty of Law, Coimbra, Portugal
Abstract
The article analyses the position of persons affected by the mutual recognition procedures under
Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 14 November 2018 on the
mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders, assessing whether the rights of defence
that can be exercised therein are sufficient to effectively safeguard the interests of such persons.
Keywords
Assets recovery, freezing orders, confiscation orders, mutual recognition, defence rights
The political-criminal context
In a wander, even if fleeting, through the world of asset recovery we come across a mantra: crime
cannot and must not pay, and the State must attack criminals where it hurts them most, in their
profit.
1
This is often followed by a lament: the measures and instruments at our disposal have not
proved sufficient or effective enough to respond to the political-criminal need to deprive criminals of
Corresponding author:
Nuno Brandão, University of Coimbra Faculty of Law, Paço das Escolas, Coimbra 3004-528, Portugal.
Email: nbrandao@fd.uc.pt
1. See, among many others, Katalin Ligeti/Michele Simonato, ‘Asset Recovery in the EU: towards a comprehensive
enforcement model beyond confiscation? An introduction’, in Katalin Ligeti/Michele Simonato (eds.), Chasing Criminal
Money (Hart Publishing 2017) 1; and Pedro Caeiro, ‘Sentido e função do instituto da perda de vantagens relacionadas com
o crime no confronto com outros meios de prevenção da criminalidade redit´
ıcia (em especial, os procedimentos de
confisco in rem e a criminalização do enriquecimento “il´
ıcito”)’(2011) 2 Revista Portuguesa de Ciˆ
encia Criminal, 267,
273–276.
To continue reading
Request your trial