Legal regulation on handling criminally acquired property and its impact upon business environment - the experience of Latvia

• Author: Armands Smans
• Position: The Faculty of Law, the University of Latvia
• Pages: 179-200

Legal regulation on handling criminally acquired property

and its impact upon business environment – the experience

of Latvia

Mg. iur., PhD. student Armands SMANS

1

Abstract

The prevailing importance of material values in contemporary society,

undoubtedly, influences the nature of crime. At present, the main a im of criminal offences is

to gain material benefits. In such conditions, in the majority of criminal cases it is

inconceivable that the purpose of criminal proceedings could be reached without effective

resolution of material issues of criminal procedure. The article examines the regulation on

handling criminally acquired property in the Latvian criminal proce dure, as well as

assesses the impact of this regulation upon the business environment. I.e., the study

provides answers to questions related to protecting the rights of a merchant as a victim, by

using the tools envisaged by the Criminal Procedu re Law. The study also examines

business risks linked to such cases, where law enforcemen t institutions presume illegal

origins of a merchant’s property. The research also focuses on implementation of the

aforementioned legal instruments in correlation with human rights recognized in the

European Union. The article provides an insight into the relevant issues in the Latvian

criminal procedure in connection with confiscation of criminally acquired property or

returning it to the victim, as well as into Latvia’s experience in implementing the Directive

2014/42/EU. Hopefully, the findings expressed in th e article will be useful both fo r the

theoreticians and practitioners of criminal procedure and will contribute to international

sharing of experience. The following research methods have been used in preparing this

article: analysis and synthesis of legal literature, of case law, and regulatory enactments;

comparative method, analytical method, inductive and deductive method.

Keywords: criminal procedure, property issues in criminal proceedings, criminally

obtained property, proce edings regarding criminally obtained property, commercial

activities.

JEL classification: K14, K22

1. Introduction

The prevailing importance of material values in contemporary society

2

,

undoubtedly, influences also the nature of crime. At present, the main aim of

1

Armands Smans - The Faculty of Law, the University of Latvia, smans.armands@gmail.com.

2

Hamkova D. Noziedzīga noda rījuma kvalificēta un salikta sastāva konstrukcijas problēmas. In

book: Tiesību efektivitāte postmodernā sabiedrībā. Latvijas Universitātes 73. zinātniskās

konferences rakstu krājums. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 2015, p. 157.

180 Volume 8, Issue 1, March 2018 Juridical Tribune

criminal offences is to gain material benefits

3

. In view of the above, in the majority

of criminal cases it is inconceivable that the purpose of criminal proceedings,

defined in Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law that is in force in Latvia

(hereinafter – the Criminal Procedure Law) - the fair regulation of criminal legal

relations

4

– could be achieved without an effective solution to the property issues

of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is important that legal regulation on

reaching the solution to property issues in criminal proceedings would comply with

contemporary requirements and would facilitate reaching the purpose of the

criminal procedure without unjustified intervention in the life of a person.

One of the property issues in criminal proceedings is the handling of a

criminally obtained property

5

. This issue of property is linked to the principle,

which is generally recognised in criminal procedure law, that a person, who has

committed a criminal offence, should not enjoy the material benefits gained as the

result of the criminal offence

6

. In this regard, it has been validly pointed out in

legal literature that the person should be “deprived of” what he has gained illegally

or by using what had been illegally obtained, i.e., unjustly

7

. The opinion that the

development of crime is thus deprived of its economic grounds can be found in

periodicals

8

. Hence, pursuant to Section 7011 (1) of the Criminal Law that is in

force in Latvia (hereinafter – the Criminal Law), a property, “which has come into

the ownership or possession of a person as a direct or indirect result of a criminal

offence” must be recognised as being criminally obtained.

The article examines regulation on the handling of a criminally acquired

property in the Latvian criminal procedure and also assesses the impact of this

regulation on business environment. I.e., the study provides answers to questions

linked to the possibilities for protecting the rights of a merchant as a victim, using

the tools provided for by the Criminal Procedure Law that is in force in Latvia. The

research also examines the risks of business activities linked to cases, where law

enforcement institutions presume that the merchant’s property has been criminally

obtained. Likewise, the study focuses on correlation between the use of the

3

Kūtris G. Noziedzīgi iegūta manta: tiesiskais regulējums un problemātika. “Jurista Vārds”, 17 April

2007, No. 16 (469). The document is available online at: http://www.juristavards.lv/doc/155864-

noziedzigi-ieguta-manta-tiesiskais-regulejums-un-problematika/ [accessed on 27 October 2017].

4

Meikališa Ā., Strada-Rozenberga K. Kriminālprocesa izpratne, mērķis un kriminālprocesa tiesību

avoti. In book: Meikališa Ā., Strada-Rozenberga K. Kriminālprocess. Raksti. 2005–2010. Rīga:

Latvijas Vēstnesis, 2010, p. 35.

5

See Meikališa Ā., Strada-Rozenberga K. Procesuālie termiņi, dokumenti un mantiskie jautājumi. In

book: Meikališa Ā., Strada-Rozenberga K. Kriminālprocess. Raksti. 2005–2010. Rīga: Latvijas

Vēstnesis, 2010, p. 185.

6

Boucht J. Civil Asset Forfeiture and The Presumption of Innocence under Article 6(2) ECHR. “New

Journal of European Criminal Law”, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 2014, p. 221.

7

Meikališa Ā., Strada-Rozenberga K. Procesuālie termiņi, dokumenti un mantiskie jautājumi. In

book: Meikališa Ā., Strada-Rozenberga K. Kriminālprocess. Raksti. 2005–2010. Rīga: Latvijas

Vēstnesis, 2010, p. 183.

8

Kūtris G. Noziedzīgi iegūta manta: tiesiskais regulējums un problemātika. “Jurista Vārds”, 17 April

2007, No. 16 (469). The document is available online at: http://www.juristavards.lv/doc/155864-

noziedzigi-ieguta-manta-tiesiskais-regulejums-un-problematika/ [accessed on 27 October 2017].