In order for the proceeds of unlawful activities to be completely dislodged from the criminals’ hands, the latter should be effectively deterred from allowing their assets to be used to execute or facilitate the commission of offences. When properly exacted, in the interests of justice and within the existing constitutional framework, the legal process known as asset forfeiture should ensure that crime never pays. Asset forfeiture refers to both criminal forfeiture, which is conviction based following the United Kingdom asset forfeiture regime and civil forfeiture, which is non-conviction based following the United States of America one.2 Chapter 5 provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act3 (hereafter POCA) provides for court, Basdeo M – Search, Seizure and Asset Forfeiture in the South African Criminal Justice System: Drawing a Balance between Public Utility and Constitutional Rights (2013) LLD, University of South Africa in Chapter 5 where a comprehensive comparative study of SA POCA and United States of America’s asset forfeiture and origin is undertaken. 3 Act 121 of applications for a restraint, confiscation and realisation for the recovery of proceeds of unlawful activities. The restraint is invoked when a suspect is to be charged or has been charged or prosecuted, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a conviction may follow and that a confiscation order may be made. Chapter 6 provisions of POCA provide for court applications for preservation and forfeiture order targeting both the proceeds of unlawful activities and removal from public circulation of instruments or assets used in the commission of offences where the guilt of the wrongdoer is not relevant. POCA has a Schedule with 34 items setting out examples of offences in relation to which civil forfeiture may be invoked. When the State discharges this noble professed task in the name of public safety, security and crime combating, legal challenges arise. This is more so within a constitutional democratic context where both individual and property rights are enshrined and protected. This study deals with some of these challenges. To the mind of a legal researcher, the law of asset forfeiture is, in this process, moulded and developed. South Africa (a developing country), Canada and New Zealand (developed countries in the north and southern hemispheres) have constitutional democracies. They also have asset forfeiture regimes, which attracted the attention of the researcher. The question is: can the developing country learn some best practices from the developed countries in this particular field? It would be interesting to establish this and the level of development of this field in the three countries under study. South Africa, with no federal government, has nine Provinces, single asset forfeiture legislation5 (combining both criminal forfeiture i.e. restraint, confiscation and realisation applications and civil forfeiture i.e. preservation and forfeiture applications), and a criminal statute6 applicable to all such Provinces. It also has, like Canada and New Zealand, pockets of asset forfeiture provisions embedded in various statutes. There is only one asset forfeiture office under the umbrella of the National Prosecuting Authority.7 It has branches8 in the Provinces, invoking the provisions of POCA, since 1999. It is not part of the police department. The researcher joined the South African Port Elizabeth branch in March 2003, Bloemfontein, Kimberly and Mmabatho branches from 2010 to 2011, July 2012 onwards in the Port Elizabeth and has practical experience in this regard. The Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998. The Namibian POCA 29 of 2004 is almost a replica of the South African POCA except that the former makes express recognition of the victims of the underlying victims. The Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 (as amended). The Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) with its Head Office situated in Pretoria under the umbrella of the National Prosecution Authority, which Raylene Keightley in Young S Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property Legal Measures for Targeting the Proceeds of Crime (2009) Cheltenham Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.: Northampton, MA at 94 calls a specialist implementation agency. In Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban, Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Mmabatho, Mpumalanga and Limpopo. It comprises of eleven Provinces to which the Criminal Code of Canada, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1996 and a host of other statutes apply. Eight of the eleven Provinces have their own and distinct primary stand-alone asset forfeiture statutes introducing civil forfeiture10 as more fully explained in Chapter 2 of this study.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:27501 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Ndzengu, Nkululeko Christopher |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela University, Faculty of Law |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Doctoral, LLD |
| Format | xv, 258 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela University |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds