Confiscation and Forfeiture of Property in Connection with Alleged Unlawful Conduct

doi:10.1017/9781009038126.011

11 - Confiscation and Forfeiture of Property in Connection with Alleged Unlawful Conduct

A Preliminary Assessment of Risks and Process

from Part III - Criminal Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2025

Johan Boucht and

Beth A. Colgan

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg August Universität Göttingen
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
University of Bremen
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Köln

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on the practices of confiscation and forfeiture, by which the government permanently transfers money or property from the individual to the state, without compensation, because of a connection between the property and alleged unlawful conduct. The chapter describes and critically considers the rules on both conviction-based confiscation and forfeiture and those allowed without obtaining a conviction in six jurisdictions in Europe (the European Union, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, England & Wales) and relatively common practices at the federal and state levels in the United States. The chapter describes and examines several of the purported benefits and costs of these practices as well as key issues related to adjudicatory processes and statutory and constitutional protections. In doing so, the chapter identifies a number of fundamental areas of concern, offering some suggested avenues for reform or further study.

Keywords

asset confiscation forfeiture innocent owner instrumentalities mission creep proceeds profit proportionality revenue

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Volume III
, pp. 395 - 437

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009038126.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alldridge, P., ‘Proceeds of Crime Law since 2003 – Two Key Areas’, Criminal Law Review, 1 (2013), 171–88.Google Scholar

Atkinson, C., Mackenzie, S. and Hamilton-Smith, N., A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Asset-Focussed Interventions against Organised Crime, University of Glasgow (2017).Google Scholar

Beeman, M., Elliott, K., Joy, R., Allen, E. and Mrozinski, M., At What Cost? Findings from an Examination into the Imposition of Public Defense System Fees, National Legal Aid & Defender Association (July 2022).Google Scholar

Boucht, J., The Limits of Asset Confiscation: On the Legitimacy of Extended Appropriation of Criminal Proceeds, Hart (2017).Google Scholar

Boucht, J., ‘Asset Confiscation in Europe – Past, Present, and Future Challenges’, Journal of Financial Crime, 26 (2019), 529–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boucht, J., ‘Extended Confiscation: Criminal Assets or Criminal Owners?’, in Ligeti, K. and Simonato, M. (eds.), Chasing Criminal Money, Hart (2019), 121–36.Google Scholar

Boucht, J., ‘Proportionality in Asset Confiscation Proceedings’, in Billis, E., Knust, N. and Rui, J. P. (eds.), Proportionality in Crime Control and Criminal Justice, Hart (2021), 249–73.Google Scholar

Boucht, J., ‘Non-Conviction Based Confiscation: Moving the Confiscation of Criminal Proceeds from the Criminal to the “Civil” Sphere. Benefits, Issues and Two Procedural Aspects’, in Franssen, V. and Harding, C. (eds.), Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Enforcement Mechanisms in Europe Origins, Concepts, Future, Bloomsbury (2022), 239–41.Google Scholar

Boucht, J., ‘Extended Confiscation and Human Rights’, in Hryniewicz-Lach, E. (ed.), Extended Confiscation of Illicit Assets and the Criminal Law: National and EU Perspectives (Routledge, forthcoming 2025).Google Scholar

Boucht, J. and Frände, D., Finsk straffrätt: En introduktion till straffrättens allmänna läror, 2nd edn, Polisyrkeshögskolan (2020).Google Scholar

Bullock, K., Mann, D., Street, R. and Coxon, C., ‘Examining Attrition in Confiscating the Proceeds of Crime’, Research Report 17, Home Office (2019).Google Scholar

Burnett, J., ‘Sheriff under Scrutiny for Drug Money Spending’, NPR, 18 June 2008.Google Scholar

Campbell, L., ‘Criminal Labels, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Presumption of Innocence’, Modern Law Review, 76 (2013), 681–707.CrossRef Google Scholar

Campbell, L., Organised Crime and the Law: A Comparative Analysis, Hart (2013).Google Scholar

Chistyakova, Y., Wall, D. S. and Bonino, S., ‘The Back-Door Governance of Crime: Confiscating Criminal Assets in the UK’, European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, 27 (2021), 495–515.10.1007/s10610-019-09423-5CrossRef Google Scholar

Colgan, B. A., ‘Revenue, Race, and the Potential Unintended Consequences of Traffic Enforcement Reform’, North Carolina Law Review, 100 (2023), 889–958.Google Scholar

Colgan, B. A. and McLean, N., ‘Financial Hardship and the Excessive Fines Clause: Assessing the Severity of Property Forfeitures after Timbs’, Yale Law Journal Forum, 128 (2020), 430–49.Google Scholar

Coll, I. and Renå, H., Inndragning: en satsing uten resultater? Hva fungerer og hva fungerer ikke? PHS forsking 2023:4, Politihøgskolen (2023).Google Scholar

Datar, S. and Dooling, S., ‘It’s Easy for Police to Seize Money. Worcester’s District Attorney Makes It Hard to Get It Back’, WBUR, 18 August 2021.Google Scholar

Dreier, N., ‘Grandmother (72) Could Get Home, Vehicle Returned after Court’s Asset Forfeiture Ruling’, Boston 25 News, 31 May 2017.Google Scholar

Fischer, T., Strafgesetzbuch mit Nebengesetzen, 71st edn, C. H. Beck (2024).Google Scholar

Gottschalk, E., ‘Public Attitudes to Asset Recovery and Awareness of the Community Cashback Scheme – Results from an Opinion Poll’, Research and Analysis Unit, Home Office (2010).Google Scholar

Handley, J., Helsby, J. and Martinez, F., ‘Inside the Chicago Police Department’s Secret Budget’, Chicago Reader, 29 September 2016.Google Scholar

Harmon, R. A., ‘Federal Programs and the Real Costs of Policing’, New York University Law Review, 90 (2015), 870–960.Google Scholar

Honchariw, D., Who Does Civil Asset Forfeiture Target Most? A Review of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Forfeiture Activities for Fiscal Year 2016, Nevada Policy Research Institute (2017).Google Scholar

Hulme, S., Disley, E. and Blondes, E. L. (eds.), Mapping the Risk of Serious and Organized Crime Infiltrating Legitimate Businesses, European Commission (2021).Google Scholar

Kelly, B. D. and Kole, M., ‘The Effects of Asset Forfeiture on Policing: A Panel Approach’, Economic Inquiry, 54 (2016), 558–75.10.1111/ecin.12232CrossRef Google Scholar

Kilching, M., ‘Comparative Perspectives on Forfeiture Legislation in Europe and the United States’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 5 (1997), 342–62.Google Scholar

King, C., ‘Civil Forfeiture and Article 6 of the ECHR: Due Process Implications for England & Wales and Ireland’, Legal Studies, 34 (2013), 371–94.Google Scholar

King, C. and Hendry, J., Civil Recovery of Criminal Property, Oxford University Press (2023).Google Scholar

Knepper, L., McDonald, J., Sanchez, K. and Smith Pohl, E., Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture, 3rd edn, Institute for Justice (2020).Google Scholar

Kruisbergen, E. W., Kleemans, E. R. and Kouwenberg, R. F., ‘Explaining Attrition: Investigating and Confiscating the Profits of Organized Crime’, European Journal of Criminology, 13 (2016), 677–95.10.1177/1477370816633262CrossRef Google Scholar

Lee, A., Cary, N. and Ellis, M., ‘How Civil Forfeiture Errors, Delays Enrich SC Police, Hurt People’, Greenville News, 22 April 2020.Google Scholar

Martin, K. D., ‘Monetary Myopia: An Examination of Institutional Responses to Revenue from Monetary Sanctions for Misdemeanors’, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29 (2018), 630–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Matningsdal, M., Inndragning, Oslo Universitetsforlaget (1987).Google Scholar

Matrix Knowledge Group, ‘The Illicit Drug Trade in the United Kingdom’, Home Office Online Report 20/07 (2007).Google Scholar

Millington, T. and Sutherland Williams, M., Millington and Sutherland Williams on the Proceeds of Crime, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar

Moiseienko, A., ‘The Limitations of Unexplained Wealth Orders’, Criminal Law Review, 3 (2022), 230–41.Google Scholar

Mughan, S., Li, D. and Nicholson-Crotty, S., ‘When Law Enforcement Pays: Costs and Benefits for Elected versus Appointed Administrators Engaged in Asset Forfeiture’, American Review of Public Administration, 50 (2020), 297–314.10.1177/0275074019891993CrossRef Google Scholar

Naylor, R. T., ‘Wash-out: A Critique of Follow-the-Money Methods in Crime Control Policy’, Crime, Law & Social Change, 32 (1999), 1–58.10.1023/A:1008386203362CrossRef Google Scholar

Nicholson-Crotty, S., Nicholson-Crotty, J., Li, D. and Mughan, S., ‘Race, Representation, and Assets Forfeiture’, International Public Management Journal, 24 (2021), 47–66.10.1080/10967494.2020.1728454CrossRef Google Scholar

O’Harrow, R., Jr and Rich, S., ‘D.C. Police Plan for Future Seizure Proceeds Years in Advance in City Budget Documents’, Washington Post, 15 November 2014.Google Scholar

O’Harrow, R., Jr, Rich, S. and Tan, S., ‘Asset Seizures Fuel Police Spending’, Washington Post, 11 October 2014.Google Scholar

Rulli, L. S., ‘The Long Term Impact of CAFRA: Expanding Access to Counsel and Encouraging Greater Use of Criminal Forfeiture’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14 (2001), 87–97.10.1525/fsr.2001.14.2.87CrossRef Google Scholar

Sakellaraki, A., ‘EU Asset Recovery and Confiscation Regime – Quo Vadis? A First Assessment of the Commission’s Proposal to Further Harmonise the EU Asset Recovery and Confiscation Laws. A Step in the Right Direction?’, New Journal of Criminal Law, 13 (2022), 478–501.10.1177/20322844221139577CrossRef Google Scholar

Sakellaraki, A., ‘The German Non-Conviction Based Confiscation (NCBC) Model – Legal Nature, Application Requirements and Recent Constitutional Jurisprudence’, in Quattrocolo, S., Oliveira e Silva, S. and Sacchetto, E. (eds.), Assets Confiscation and Prevention of Crime in Europe: An Overview upon the EU and Domestic Legislations, Wolters Kluwer (2022), 231–53.Google Scholar

Sallah, M., O’Harrow, R., Jr, Rich, S. and Silverman, G., ‘Stop and Seize: Aggressive Police Take Hundreds of Millions of Dollars from Motorists Not Charged with Crimes’, Washington Post, 6 September 2014.Google Scholar

Schwartz, J. C., ‘Civil Rights Ecosystems’, Michigan Law Review, 114 (2020), 1539–601.Google Scholar

Smith, D. and Cassella, S., ‘The Role of Civil Forfeiture’, Judicature, 100 (2016), 67–73.Google Scholar

Sproat, P. A., ‘To What Extent Is the UK’s Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Regime Used against Organised Crime?’, Journal of Money Laundering Control, 12 (2009), 134–46.10.1108/13685200910951901CrossRef Google Scholar

UK Cabinet Office, ‘Recovering the Proceeds of Crime’, Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (2000).Google Scholar

UK Parliament, Committees, ‘Legal Aid Needs Urgent Reform to Secure Fairness of the Justice System’, 27 July 2021.Google Scholar

Vettori, B. and Di Nicola, A., ‘The Social Reuse of Confiscated Assets in EU Member States: From Current Experiences to an EU Policy for a Powered by Citizens Fight against Crime’, in Lieti, K. and Simonato, M. (eds.), Chasing Criminal Money: Challenges and Perspectives on Asset Recovery in the EU, Hart (2017), 321–43.Google Scholar

Welsh, S. M., ‘Tracing Commingled Funds in Asset Forfeiture’, Mississippi Law Journal, 88 (2019), 179–253.Google Scholar

Wilson, J. J., ‘Maine Becomes Fourth State to End Civil Forfeiture’, Institute for Justice, 13 July 2021.Google Scholar

Worrall, J., ‘Addicted to the Drug War: The Role of Civil Asset Forfeiture as a Budgetary Necessity in Contemporary Law Enforcement’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 29 (2001), 171–87.10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00082-4CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.