European Integration - Realities and Perspectives
Extended Seizure and Sale of Seized
Assets before Pronouncing a Final Conviction
, Mihail-Silviu Pocora
, Georgeta Modiga
This study aims at emphasizing the controversies arising during extended seizure and during the
sale of seized assets before pronouncing a final conviction.
The study starts from the fundamental difference
between special seizure and "extended", furt her corroborating Decision – Framework of European Council on
assets confiscation, constitutional pr ovisions that the "the property obtained legall y will not be seized and the
acquisition legality is presumed", the reverse of pr oof obligation and the phrase “court may confiscate the
"other assets", is easily understandable and interpretable otherwise, that can be seize any property, from
anyone, if the judge is "convinced" that they provide from i llicit activities. The method used during the study
It is required the establishment a nd use of some ways to protect innocent citizens by the
possibility of reversing proof obligation. Therefore, we b elieve that regulations on extended seizure are
designed to u navailable and confiscate properti es illegally obtained, but they can leave to increase the Court
competence, beyond the real belief and conviction.
unavailable assets; property; serious crimes; conviction
Starting from the fundamental difference between the special seizure and "extended", namely,
that regarding to proven way of assets illicit origin which has to be confiscated, this study
aims to highlight the controversies appeared during extended seizure. Corroborating the
Decision - Framework of European Council on assets confiscation, constitutional provisions
that the " the property obtained legally will not be seized and the acquisition legality is
presumed ", reversing of prove obligation and the phrase “the Court may confiscate "other
goods", is easy to understand, and otherwise interpretable, that can be seize any property from
anyone, if the judge is "convinced" that the property provide from illicit activities. This, also
because any legal framework does not include the basic of judge conviction and ways of
defense of individual against are carry these measures.
Asset forfeiture generally, is intended to unavailable assets, until a final Court decision of
establishing the guilt, of conviction, after then they can be seized. The sale of seized assets
before pronouncing a final conviction is found in a Law Project and provides the possibility
of sale the assets by retaining the corresponding amount to the state, and if later, the defendant
is found guilty, the amount is further remain to the state and if the individual is found not
guilty, the amount will be returned to the owner of assets. In analyzing these situations, it
Senior Lecturer, PhD, “Danubius” University of Galati, Faculty of Law, Romania, Address : 3 Galati Blvd, Galati, Romania,
tel: +40372 361 102, fax: +40372 361 290, Corresponding author: firstname.lastname@example.org.
PhD Student, “ Al. I. Cuza” Police Academy, R omania, Address: Aleea Privighetorilor nr. 1A, sector 1, Bucharest 01 4031,
Romania, Tel.: 021/317.55.23, Fax: 021/317.55.17, e-mail: email@example.com.
Associate Professor, PhD, “Danubius” University of Galati, Faculty of Law, Romania, Address: 3 Galati Blvd, Galat i,
Romania, tel: +40372 361 102, fax: +40372 361 290, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.