Albrecht, H.-J., ‘Sentencing in the Federal Republic of Germany’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 7 (1995), 305–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, Vol. III: International Criminal Procedure, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2025).Google Scholar

Ascoli, S., Sentencing in International Criminal Law, Hart (2011).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. and Kelly, R., Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 7th edn, Hart Bloomsbury (2021).Google Scholar

Biland-Zimmermann, B., Das Schuldinterlokut in der Hauptverhandlung, Juris (1975).Google Scholar

Blau, G., ‘Die Teilung des Strafverfahrens in zwei Abschnitte. Schuldspruch und Strafausspruch’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 81 (1969), 31–48.Google Scholar

Bohlander, M., ‘Sentencing and Enforcement: An Overview’, in Principles of German Criminal Procedure, Hart (2021), 175–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borden, R., ‘Jury Discretion and the Unitary Trial Procedure in Capital Cases’, Arkansas Law Review, 26 (1972), 33–62.Google Scholar

Carroll, J., ‘The Defense Lawyer’s Role in the Sentencing Process: You’ve Got to Accentuate the Positive and Eliminate the Negative’, Mercer Law Review, 37 (1986), 981–1004.Google Scholar

Dahs, H., ‘Fortschrittliches Strafrecht in rückständigem Strafverfahren. Zur Dringlichkeit einer Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung durch ein “Schuldinterlokut”’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, [1970], 1705–12.Google Scholar

Damaska, M., ‘Propensity Evidence in Continental Legal Systems’, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 70 (1994), 55–67.Google Scholar

Dölling, D., Die Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung: Eine Erprobung vor Einzelrichtern und Schöffengerichten, Kriminologische Studien, 28, Schwartz (1978).Google Scholar

Douglass, J., ‘Confronting Death: Sixth Amendment Rights at Capital Hearing’, Columbia Law Review, 10 (2005), 1967–2028.Google Scholar

Dugas, M., ‘Committing to Justice: The Case for Impact of Race and Culture Assessments in Sentencing African Canadian Offenders’, Dalhousie Law Journal, 43 (2020), 103–58.Google Scholar

Epps, D. and Ortman, W., ‘The Informed Jury’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 75 (2022), 823–90.Google Scholar

Expert Commission, ‘Bericht der Expertenkommission zur effektiveren und praxistauglicheren Ausgestaltung des allgemeinen Strafverfahrens und des jugendgerichtlichen Verfahrens’, ed. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbrauchschutz, October 2015.Google Scholar

Farrington, R., Summary Justice, Matador Books (2016).Google Scholar

Fischinger, H., ‘Die Teilung des Strafverfahrens in zwei Abschnitte: Schuldspruch und Strafausspruch’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 81 (1969), 49–60.Google Scholar

Fisher, T., ‘Constitutionalism and the Criminal Law: Rethinking Criminal Trial Bifurcation’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 61 (2011), 811–43.10.3138/utlj.61.4.811CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frase, R., Sentencing in Germany and in the United States: Comparing Äpfel with Apples, Iuscrim edn, Research in brief, 7, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law (2001).Google Scholar

Frase, R. and Roberts, J. V., Paying for the Past: Prior Record Enhancements in the US Sentencing Guidelines, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar

Fyfe, S. and Heinze, A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2022), Vol. II, 173–220.Google Scholar

Gormley, J., Roberts, J. V., Bild, J. et al., Sentence Reductions for a Guilty Plea: A Review of Policy, Practice and Research, Sentencing Academy (2020).Google Scholar

Hauri, M. and Venetz, P., ‘Art. 342’, in Niggli, M. A., Heer, M. and Wiprächtiger, H. (eds.), Basler Kommentar, 2nd edn, Helbing Lichtenhahn (2014).Google Scholar

Heckner, W., Die Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung nach Schuld- und Reaktionsfrage (Schuldinterlokut): Vorschlag einer Gesetzesnovelle zum Strafverfahrensrecht, G. Bauknecht (1973).Google Scholar

Heine, S., ‘Zur Verwertbarkeit von Aussagen im Ausland möglicherweise gefolterter Zeugen Besprechung der El Haski-Entscheidung des EGMR– Urteil vom 25. 9. 2012 – 649/08 (El Haski v. Belgien)’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, [2013], 680–3.Google Scholar

Heinitz, E., ‘Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung’, in Becker, W. and Schnorr von Carolsfeld, L. (eds.), Sein und Werden im Recht. Festgabe für Ulrich von Lübtow zum 70. Geburtstag, Duncker & Humblot (1970), 835–45.Google Scholar

Heinze, A. and Fyfe, S., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Issues in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 343–88.Google Scholar

Herrmann, J., Die Reform der deutschen Hauptverhandlung nach dem Vorbild des anglo-amerikanischen Strafverfahrens, Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag (1971).Google Scholar

Hodgson, J. and Soubise, L., ‘Understanding the Sentencing Process in France’, Crime & Justice, 45 (2016), 221–65.10.1086/685538CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Comparative Assessment of Sentencing Laws, Practices, and Trends’, in Brown, D. K., Turner, J. I. and Weisser, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019), 887–910.Google Scholar

Hörnle, T. ‘Zur Lage der Strafzumessung in Deutschland’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, (2019), 282–95.Google Scholar

Horovitz, A., ‘The Emergence of Sentencing Hearings’, Punishment & Society, 9 (2007), 271–99.10.1177/1462474507077495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jeffries, S. and Stenning, P., ‘Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: Law, Policy, and Practice in Three Countries’, Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 56 (2014), 447–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jung, H. ‘Zur Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung. Eine grundsätzliche Positionsbestimmung’, in Beisel, H., Verrel, T., Laue, C. et al. (eds.), Die Kriminalwissenschaften als Teil der Humanwissenschaften. Festschrift für Dieter Dölling zum 70. Geburtstag, Nomos (2023), 307–24.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Sibony, O. and Sunstein, C., Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, William Collins (2021).Google Scholar

Kern, E., ‘Lehren des Brühneprozesses’, Deutsche Richterzeitung (1962), 353–4.Google Scholar

Kohlrausch, E., ‘Der Londoner Gefängniskongreß 1925’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 47 (1927), 191–346.10.1515/zstw.1927.47.1.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lutes, N., ‘The Role of Defence Counsel at Sentencing’, in Cole, D. and Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Sentencing in Canada: Essays in Law, Policy and Practice, Irwin Law (2019), 129–52.Google Scholar

O’Malley, T., Sentencing Law and Practice, 3rd edn, Thomson Reuters (2016).Google Scholar

Manson, A., The Law of Sentencing, Irwin Law (2001).Google Scholar

Manson, A., Roberts, J. V., Healy, P. et al. (eds.), Sentencing and Penal Policy in Canada, 3rd edn, Emond Montgomery (2016).Google Scholar

Nestler, C., ‘Sentencing in Germany’, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 7 (2003), 109–38.10.1525/nclr.2003.7.1.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nisbett, R. and Ross, L., Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment, Lawrence Erlbaum (1980).Google Scholar

Pakes, F., Comparative Criminal Justice, 3rd edn, Routledge (2015).Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V., ‘Deferred Sentencing: A Fresh Look at an Old Concept’, Criminal Law Review, 3 (2022), 204–24.Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. and Harrendorf, S., ‘The Role of Prior Convictions at Sentencing in Anglo-Saxon Jurisdictions and Germany’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Issues in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 261–303.Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. and Reid, A., ‘Aboriginal Incarceration in Canada since 1978: Every Picture Tells the Same Story’, Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 59 (2017), 313–46.Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V., Pina-Sanchez, J. and Marder, I., ‘Individualisation at Sentencing: The Effects of Sentencing Guidelines and “Preferred” Numbers’, Criminal Law Review, 2 (2018), 123–36.Google Scholar

Robinson, G., Pre-Sentence Reports: A Review of Policy, Practice and Research, Sentencing Academy (2022).Google Scholar

Roxin, C., ‘Die Reform der Hauptverhandlung im deutschen Strafprozeß’, in Lüttger, H. (ed.), Probleme der Strafprozeßreform: Berliner Gastvorträge, reprint 2019, De Gruyter (1975), 52–72.Google Scholar

Roxin, C., ‘Welches Gesamtkonzept sollte der Strafprozeßreform zugrundegelegtwerden?’, in Schreiber, H.-L. (ed.), Gesamtreform des Strafverfahrens: Internationales Christian-Broda-Symposion, Luchterhand (1987), 16–24.Google Scholar

Saetveit, K., ‘Beyond Pollard: Applying the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Right to Sentencing’, Stanford Law Review, 68 (2016), 481–509.Google Scholar

Schäfer, G., Sander, G. M. and van Gemmerer, G., Praxis der Strafzumessung, 6th edn, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar

Schmidt, E., ‘Probleme der Struktur des Strafverfahrens unter rechtsstaatlichen Gesichtspunkten’, Deutsche Richterzeitung (1959), 16–21.Google Scholar

Schmidt-Leichner, E., ‘Deutscher und anglo-amerikanischer Strafprozeß. – Ein Diskussionsbeitrag’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1951), 7–10.Google Scholar

Schöch, H. and Schreiber, H.-L., ‘Ist die Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung praktikabel? Erfahrungen mit der Erprobung eines informellen Tatinterlokuts’, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 11 (1978), 63–7.Google Scholar

Schroth, K. and Schroth, M., Die Rechte des Verletzten im Strafprozess, 3rd edn, C. F. Müller (2018).Google Scholar

Schunck, B., Die Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung. Die Erprobung des informellen Tatinterlokuts bei Strafkammern, Kriminologische Studien, 39, Schwartz (1982).Google Scholar

Sorvatzioti, D., ‘Why Sentencing Needs a Separate Trial in the Continental System’, in Papacharalambous, C. (ed.), The Aims of Punishment: Theoretical, International and Law Comparative Approaches, Sakkoulas Publications (2020), 145–66.Google Scholar

Spencer, S., ‘Evidence of the Defendant’s Bad Character’, in Evidence of Bad Character, Hart (2016), 70–143.Google Scholar

Spohn, C., How Judges Decide, Sage (2002).Google Scholar

Taylor, M., Wasik, M. and Leng, R., Blackstone’s Guide to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar

Terblanche, S., A Guide to Sentencing in South Africa, LexisNexis (2016).Google Scholar

Thibaut, J. and Walker, L., Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum (1975).Google Scholar

Thomas, K., ‘Beyond Mitigation: Towards a Theory of Allocution’, Fordham Law Review, 75 (2007), 2641–83.Google Scholar

Turner, J., ‘Implementing Blakely’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 17 (2004), 1–21.10.1525/fsr.2004.17.2.106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tyler, T., Why People Obey the Law, Princeton University Press (2006).10.1515/9781400828609CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ulmen, H., Das Schuldinterlokut. Die Teilung des Strafverfahrens in zwei Abschnitte: Schuldspruch und Strafausspruch, Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Strafprozessreform, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (1973).Google Scholar

Van Koppen, P. and Penrod, S., ‘Adversarial or Inquisitorial: Comparing Systems in Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice’, in Van Koppen, P. and Penrod, S. (eds.), Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice: Psychological Perspectives on Criminal Justice Systems, Kluwer (2003), 347–406.10.1007/978-1-4419-9196-6_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wasik, M., A Practical Approach to Sentencing, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Sentencing and Punishment in Germany’, in Tonry, M. and Frase, R. (eds.), Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries, Oxford University Press (2001), 188–221.10.1093/oso/9780195130539.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘The Decay of the Inquisitorial Ideal: Plea Bargaining Invades German Criminal Procedure’, in Jackson, J. D., Langer, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.), Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context: Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaska, Hart (2008), 39–64.Google Scholar

Weigend, T. ‘No News Is Good News: Criminal Sentencing in Germany since 2000’, Crime & Justice, 45 (2016), 83–106.10.1086/686041CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weigend, T. and Turner, J., ‘The Constitutionality of Negotiated Criminal Judgments in Germany’, German Law Journal, 15 (2014), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitman, J., ‘Presumption of Innocence or Presumption of Mercy? Weighing Two Western Modes of Justice’, Texas Law Review, 94 (2016), 933–93.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle 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), 681–707.10.1111/1468-2230.12030CrossRefGoogle 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/s10610-019-09423-5CrossRefGoogle 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.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).10.1093/oso/9780198824251.001.0001CrossRefGoogle 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), 677–95.10.1177/1477370816633262CrossRefGoogle 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), 630–62.10.1177/0887403418761099CrossRefGoogle 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), 297–314.10.1177/0275074019891993CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

Nicholson-Crotty, S., Nicholson-Crotty, J., Li, D. and Mughan, S., ‘Race, Representation, and Assets Forfeiture’, International Public Management Journal, 24 (2021), 47–66.10.1080/10967494.2020.1728454CrossRefGoogle 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.2001.14.2.87CrossRefGoogle 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), 478–501.10.1177/20322844221139577CrossRefGoogle 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), 134–46.10.1108/13685200910951901CrossRefGoogle 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)00082-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar