Magister Legum - LLM

<p>The aim of this research paper is to examine the legal framework for the recovery of corruptly-acquired assets, with particular emphasis on the Nigerian situation. Its primary focus is a detailed examination of the legal mechanisms for the recovery of such assets in the context of international asset recovery. Despite the success of the Nigerian government in recovering the Abacha loot,8 siphoning off of public funds by public office holders continues, and charges of fraud persist against top bank executives alleged to have converted depositors&rsquo / funds fraudulently. The prevailing criminal or conviction-based forfeiture mechanism in Nigeria appears inadequate to deal effectively with these situations. The need to enhance capacity through the adoption of civil or non-conviction based forfeiture laws therefore becomes imperative.</p>

<p>The aim of this research paper is to examine the legal framework for the recovery of corruptly-acquired assets, with particular emphasis on the Nigerian situation. Its primary focus is a detailed examination of the legal mechanisms for the recovery of such assets in the context of international asset recovery. Despite the success of the Nigerian government in recovering the Abacha loot,8 siphoning off of public funds by public office holders continues, and charges of fraud persist against top bank executives alleged to have converted depositors&rsquo / funds fraudulently. The prevailing criminal or conviction-based forfeiture mechanism in Nigeria appears inadequate to deal effectively with these situations. The need to enhance capacity through the adoption of civil or non-conviction based forfeiture laws therefore becomes imperative.</p>

Magister Legum - LLM / The aim of this research paper is to examine the legal framework for the recovery of corruptly-acquired assets, with particular emphasis on the Nigerian situation. Its primary focus is a detailed examination of the legal mechanisms for the recovery of such assets in the context of international asset recovery. Despite the success of the Nigerian government in recovering the Abacha loot,8 siphoning off of public funds by public office holders continues, and charges of fraud persist against top bank executives alleged to have converted depositors&rsquo; funds fraudulently. The prevailing criminal or conviction-based forfeiture mechanism in Nigeria appears inadequate to deal effectively with these situations. The need to enhance capacity through the adoption of civil or non-conviction based forfeiture laws therefore becomes imperative. / South Africa

Magister Legum - LLM / Several international instruments relating to the forfeiture of assets derived through unlawful means have been developed in the last decade. These relate to both civil and criminal forfeiture proceedings. Nevertheless, the processes of tracing the assets and having them forfeit to the State present formidable obstacles to justice authorities enforcers around the world. The fact of the matter is that the advent of the internet has made it easier for money launderers to camouflage the nature and the physical locality of their ill-got gains. This has made it all the more necessary for states and financial institutions to co-operate more closely in hitting the criminals where it hurts most – their pockets. However, the international structures that provide for mutual legal assistance procedures are drafted in broad terms or in guideline-form. Most of the books and journal articles dealing with money laundering devote scant attention to this very important aspect of combating transnational economic criminality. In most of the literature, this topic is simply avoided. This paper, which confines itself to civil recovery proceedings, strives to determine first, what international mechanisms are available for obtaining information located abroad that could be used for domestic civil forfeiture, and second, to identify some of the most intractable problems encountered by justice authorities in their attempts to attach property situated abroad. The idea is to identify the principal point of discordance, and to suggest ways in which the international instruments governing civil forfeiture could be amended so as to make them more user friendly.

Magister Legum - LLM / Today corruption is a major concern for most countries.1 Civil forfeiture of the proceeds of corruption has been embraced as a key strategy by many states in recovering public funds lost through corruption.2 It may be defined as a remedial statutory device designed to recover the proceeds of a crime as well as its instrumentalities.3 Originally, asset recovery regimes adopted by most states were predominantly criminal forfeiture. This mode of forfeiture is preceded by a conviction, after which the state takes possession of the proceeds of the crime from a convicted individual.4 Its proceedings are in personam and the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, actual forfeiture only takes place after the issue of a conviction order. As a consequence, it is always lengthy and often results in delayed realisation of the proceeds of crime. 5 The inherent weaknesses of criminal forfeiture gave birth to the idea of developing a civil forfeiture system.6 This mode is different from the former in that its proceedings are in rem. Hence the standard of proof is proof on a balance of probabilities and a conviction order is not required.7