Мир закона

IRSTI 10.87.51

UDC 341.461

Abubakirova Gulnur Muratbekkizi — graduate student of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology of the Law Institute of the Kyrgyz National University named after J. Balasagyn (Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek);

Mediyev Renat Amangeldyevich — Researcher at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, doctor (PhD), associate professor (IL 61820, USA)

LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF THE USA ON ASSET FORFEITURE AND THE MECHANISM FOR THE RECOVERY OF STOLEN ASSETS: ANALYSIS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Annotation. This article examines U.S. legislative policy on confiscation and recovery of stolen assets, focusing on the mechanisms used to effectively implement legal processes. The analysis includes an assessment of the legal framework for confiscation, international cooperation, and practical aspects of recovering assets stolen as a result of criminal activity, including corruption and money laundering. Particular attention is paid to the role of federal and local authorities, as well as the involvement of the private sector in asset recovery initiatives. It is noted that the analysis of the U.S. legislative policy on the issues of confiscation and mechanism of stolen asset recovery allows to identify possible areas for improvement of national legislation and practice in this area. The results of the study can serve as a basis for the development of recommendations to optimize the mechanism of stolen asset recovery in the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is an urgent task to ensure law enforcement and economic security of the country.

Keywords: legislation, policy, international cooperation, countering, corruption, confiscation, recovery, assets.

Әбубәкірова Гүлнұр Мұратбекқызы — Ж. Баласағын атындағы Қырғыз ұлттық университеті заң институтының қылмыстық құқық және криминология кафедрасының аспиранты (Қырғыз Республикасы, Бішкек қ.);

Медиев Ренат Амангельдіұлы – Урбана-Шампейндегі Иллинойс универси­тетінің ғылыми қызметкері, (PhD) докторы, қауымдастырылған профессор (доцент) (Иллинойс, 61820, АҚШ)

АКШ-ТЫҢ МҮЛІКТІ ТӘРКІЛЕУ ЖӘНЕ ҰРЛАНҒАН АКТИВТЕРДІ ҚАЙТАРУ МЕХАНИЗМІ ЖӨНІНДЕГІ ЗАҢНАМАЛЫҚ САЯСАТЫ: ТАЛДАУ ЖӘНЕ ІСКЕ АСЫРУ

Түйін. Бұл мақалада ұрланған активтерді тәркілеу және қайтару саласындағы АҚШ-тың заңнамалық саясаты қарастырылып, құқықтық процестерді тиімді жүзеге асыру үшін қолданылатын тетіктерге назар аударылады. Талдау тәркі­леу­дің құқықтық негіздерін, халықаралық ынтымақтастықты және сыбайлас жемқор­лық пен ақшаны жылыстатуды қоса алғанда, қылмыстық әрекеттен ұрланған ак­тивтерді қайтарудың практикалық аспектілерін бағалауды қамтиды. Федералды және жергілікті өзін-өзі басқару органдарының рөліне, сондай-ақ жеке сектордың активтерді қайтару бастамаларына қатысуына ерекше назар аударылады. Ұрлан­ған активтерді тәркілеу және қайтару механизмі бойынша АҚШ-тың заңнамалық саясатын талдау осы саладағы ұлттық заңнама мен тәжірибені жақсартудың мүм­кін бағыттарын анықтауға мүмкіндік беретіні атап өтілді. Зерттеу нәтижелері Қа­зақстан Республикасында ұрланған активтерді қайтару тетігін оңтайландыру жөніндегі ұсынымдарды әзірлеу үшін негіз бола алады, бұл елдің құқықтық тәртібі мен экономикалық қауіпсіздігін қамтамасыз ету үшін өзекті міндет болып табы­лады.

Түйінді сөздер: заңнама, саясат, халықаралық ынтымақтастық, қарсы іс-қимыл, сыбайлас жемқорлық, тәркілеу, қайтару, активтер.

Абубакирова Гулнур Муратбековна — аспирант кафедры уголовного права и криминологии Юридического института Кыргызского Национального университета имени Ж. Баласагына (Кыргызская Республика, г. Бишкек);

Медиев Ренат Амангельдыевич — научный сотрудник Иллинойского университета в Урбане-Шампейне, доктор (PhD), ассоциированный профессор (доцент) (Иллинойс, 61820, США)

ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬНАЯ ПОЛИТИКА США В СФЕРЕ КОНФИСКАЦИИ И ВОЗВРАТА ПОХИЩЕННЫХ АКТИВОВ: АНАЛИЗ И МЕХАНИЗМЫ РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ

Аннотация. В данной статье рассматривается законодательная политика США в области конфискации и возврата похищенных активов, с акцентом на ме­ханизмы, применяемые для эффективной реализации правовых процессов. Анализ включает в себя оценку правовых основ конфискации, международного сотруд­ничества и практических аспектов возвращения активов, похищенных в результате преступной деятельности, включая коррупцию и отмывание денег. Особое вни­мание уделяется роли федеральных и местных органов власти, а также участию част­ного сектора в инициативах по возврату активов. Отмечается, что анализ зако­нодательной политики США по вопросам конфискации и механизма возврата по­хи­щенных активов позволяет выявить возможные направления для улучшения на­ционального законодательства и практики в данной области. Результаты иссле­дования могут служить основой для разработки рекомендаций по оптимизации механизма возврата похищенных активов в Республике Казахстан, что является актуальной задачей для обеспечения правопорядка и экономической безопасности страны.

Ключевые слова: законодательство, политика, международное сотруд­ни­чест­во, противодействие, коррупция, конфискация, возврат, активы.

 

Introduction. In the context of globalization and growth of cross-border financial flows, the problem of returning illegally acquired assets to the state is becoming increasingly relevant for many countries, including the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter — RK). In this regard, on November 26, 2022, the President of the RK Kassym-Jomart Tokayev in the framework of the implementation of the strategy “New Kazakhstan”[1] highlighted the problem of return of stolen assets as one of the priority areas of state policy.

In this context, on July 12, 2023, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 21-VIII LRK “On the Return of Illegally Acquired Assets to the State”[2] (hereinafter — the Law of the RK “On the Return of Assets”) was adopted, which is aimed at creating legal mechanisms to ensure the detection, freezing, confiscation and return of criminally acquired assets. The Law of the RK “On Asset Recovery” includes basic provisions that establish key concepts, principles, goals and objectives on which the legal regulation of the return of illegally acquired assets is based, which allows to increase the effectiveness of public policy in this direction.

The next positive process of realization of the above-mentioned normative-legal act is that the Government of the RK approved the Regulations and composition of the Commission on the return of illegally acquired assets (hereinafter – the Commission) on the return of illegally acquired and withdrawn assets to the state, which is reflected in paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law of the RK “On the return of assets”². The Commission’s activity is aimed at identification, return and prevention of illegal withdrawal of financial assets from the country.

In accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Asset Recovery”, approved to restore justice and protect the economic interests of the country, the Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 5, 2023 № 366 established a specialized body — the Committee on Asset Recovery under the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter —– the Committee)[3]. The main task of the Committee is to detect, identify and return illegally acquired assets in the interests of the state. The Committee’s activities are aimed at restoring economic resources, countering illicit enrichment, as well as strengthening public confidence in legal mechanisms to protect the economic interests of the state.

At the same time, the process of implementing comprehensive measures aimed at the return to the state of illegally acquired assets, including those that have been transferred out of the country, as well as at identifying and eliminating the causes and conditions that contribute to the concentration of economic resources in violation of the law and the illegal withdrawal of assets, covers all stages of civil legal relations. Thus, these tasks require improvement of algorithms of international legal interaction with foreign states and international organizations for effective cooperation in the field of confiscation and asset recovery.

Based on the above, it seems that the analysis of the legislative policy of the United States of America (hereinafter — the U.S.) in the field of confiscation and mechanisms for the return of stolen assets is relevant and can contribute to the development of national legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in improving the algorithms of international legal interaction.

Materials and methods. To analyze the U.S. legislative policy in the field of confiscation and mechanisms for the return of stolen assets, methods of comparative legal analysis of U.S. legislative policy and national legal norms were used, as well as legal methods, which allowed to identify effective and key trends in the field of confiscation and mechanisms for the return of stolen assets in the law enforcement practice of the United States.

The materials of the study were specialized normative and legal acts, as well as scientific works in the field of criminal, criminal procedure and civil law, devoted to the issues of confiscation and mechanisms for the return of stolen assets.

Discussion. The issue of combating corruption through confiscation and mechanisms to recover stolen assets is a key focus of U.S. legislative policy. The U.S. policy on confiscation of criminally derived assets of foreign origin is an interesting precedent both from the point of view of law enforcement and in the context of protecting the rights of affected countries. In this aspect, two main stages can be distinguished: asset forfeiture and asset recovery, each of which has its own peculiarities and legal characteristics[4].

The beginning of a major legislative and policy initiative in the area of forfeiture and stolen asset recovery mechanisms in the United States, is a program launched in July 2010 by the U.S. Department of Justice, known as the “Asset Recovery Initiative” which has become an important step in the fight against corruption in the international arena[5].

The purpose of this initiative is to seize illegal assets of non-residents and return the funds to the countries from which they were withdrawn. This mechanism, being unique and quite effective, is aimed not only at keeping assets out of legal circulation, but also at restoring justice to countries that have suffered economic damage from corruption.

The structure of the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Division of the U.S. Department of Justice was formed from a specialized team of attorneys, investigators, and financial analysts responsible for investigating and prosecuting asset recovery cases⁵.

The discussion offers an analysis of the legal aspects of the discovery and asset forfeiture process carried out by U.S. law enforcement and special agencies.

U.S. law enforcement and specialized agencies provide legal assistance in investigations related to the recovery of criminal assets located in the United States only under certain conditions. Such assistance is provided when a foreign country identifies such assets or requests U.S. assistance in locating them.

The first step is to seek informal investigative assistance, which includes gathering evidence through interviews, observation, and analysis of public data. Foreign law enforcement agencies can contact a U.S. Department of Justice attaché for informal assistance. The U.S. also participates in specialized networks, such as the Camden Network and the Asset Recovery Coordinators Initiative, that support information sharing[6].

The second step is a formal request for legal assistance under a mutual legal assistance treaty (hereinafter — MLAT)[7] where the foreign jurisdiction states the circumstances of the case and the basis for the request, including the necessary documents and evidence. The Office of Foreign Affairs coordinates formal MLAT requests and can advise on their drafting. A 314(a)[8] request through financial institutions is used to trace assets through financial centers, requiring proof of the significance of the case. The requesting agency completes certification forms that are sent through the U.S. Department of Justice attaché to the financial centers to obtain account information.

The third step is Egmont requests that allow foreign agencies to share financial intelligence through the financial intelligence unit of other countries in the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units[9].

Within the framework of the issue of information exchange through financial intelligence, we note that domestic legal scholars note that “in legal science, issues related to financial intelligence from open sources have not been fully investigated, there are also no regulated normative acts, including methodological recommendations for their implementation”[10].

To summarize the discussion, it should be noted that for Kazakhstan, as well as for other countries facing the problem of asset forfeiture abroad, the experience of the United States on cooperation in the field of asset detection and seizure can become a valuable reference point for developing and improving their own asset recovery mechanisms. It is important to note that successful recovery of confiscated assets requires not only thoughtful legislative regulation, but also interstate cooperation, as there is often a need to overcome legal barriers and enforce court decisions outside of national jurisdiction.

Results. In this section we will look at two main aspects, asset forfeiture and divestiture (asset recovery), each of which has its own peculiarities and legal characteristics.

After identifying and disclosing the location of assets, U.S. law enforcement and specialized agencies (hereinafter referred to as the U.S. agency) offer two options to assist other states in recovering them[11].

The first option: If a foreign state or jurisdiction has a judgment relating to the assets, U.S. Offices may enforce the judgment, provided they receive a mutual legal assistance request from the foreign jurisdiction concerned.

The second option is that if the foreign state or jurisdiction does not have a judgment on the assets, U.S. agencies may initiate their own judicial proceedings. This can take the form of either criminal forfeiture or civil forfeiture, which is conducted without a conviction. The ability to implement this mechanism is based on U.S. confiscation powers.

It should also be noted that U.S. law provides for two basic forms of forfeiture of illegal assets: criminal forfeiture and non-conviction-based forfeiture[12]. Criminal forfeiture applies in the event of a conviction and involves the seizure of property that is the proceeds of crime or used in criminal activity, with control of the defendant by the court. Non-conviction-based confiscation is aimed directly at the property rather than the defendant and does not require a conviction, but does require proof of a link between the object of confiscation and the criminal activity. This form of forfeiture is useful in cases where prosecution is not possible, such as when the defendant is absconding, deceased, or outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Non-conviction proceedings may be initiated for property associated with certain foreign crimes that are predicate offenses for money laundering, as well as offenses that have international components.

However, under U.S. law, at the request of U.S. prosecutors based on an arrest or indictment in a foreign jurisdiction, courts may temporarily restrain assets located in the United States for up to 30 days, with the possibility of extension if evidence is presented that the assets are linked to a foreign offense that triggers confiscation under U.S. law. A court order may be issued without notice to the parties and may be extended if there is “good cause” to retain the assets while U.S. authorities gather evidence from the foreign country that establishes that the assets are linked to criminal activity[13].

U.S. legislative policy has the authority to enforce foreign restraining orders and asset forfeiture orders in a number of specific cases. For example, under mutual legal assistance treaties, the U.S. has the authority to enforce foreign asset forfeiture orders. To do so, the offense involving the confiscated property must meet the confiscation criteria of U.S. legislative policy as if it had been committed in U.S. territory. This mechanism allows U.S. authorities to cooperate effectively with foreign jurisdictions in enforcing asset forfeiture orders.

We also note that the U.S. has the authority to execute foreign asset forfeiture orders and judgments under multilateral conventions such as the 1988 Vienna Convention[14], the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)[15], and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)[16]. It is understood that offenses involving confiscated assets must meet the criteria for forfeiture under U.S. legislative policy.

The procedure for executing requests for provisional restraint of assets in the United States requires the requesting party to provide the Office of International Cooperation with a summary of the facts of the case, supporting information in accordance with the provisions of applicable international agreements, and a copy of the court order identifying the specific assets or total amount to be restrained.

The results of this analysis demonstrate the high efficiency of the U.S. legal infrastructure in confiscating illicitly obtained property and the significant role that U.S. jurisdictions play in global anti-corruption initiatives. Civil forfeiture procedures allow the U.S. authorities to initiate seizure of assets related to corrupt activities even with minimal connection to the country’s territory, which makes this practice important for countries exposed to corruption risks, including the Republic of Kazakhstan. The inclusion of the United States in the chain of international cooperation on asset recovery, as well as the attractiveness of its financial system for foreign capital, emphasizes the need to strengthen international cooperation to improve the effectiveness of the fight against illicit financial flows.

Conclusion. In conclusion, we note that the U.S. experience in the area of confiscation and return of stolen assets is a valuable example for study and adaptation in the legislative systems of other countries, including Kazakhstan. The basis of the U.S. policy is the creation of a comprehensive legal and institutional framework that not only allows for the effective identification and seizure of criminally derived assets, but also ensures their transparent and fair return to their rightful owners. An important element of U.S. policy is interagency cooperation, encompassing both domestic and international law enforcement agencies, which enhances the effectiveness and flexibility of law enforcement. Confiscation tools, including procedures such as civil forfeiture without criminal conviction and the use of special funds to manage confiscated assets, provide an effective leveraging of resources in the fight against financial crime.

The experience of the U.S. legislative policy in the area of confiscation and return of stolen assets can serve as a reference point for Kazakhstan in strengthening its national anti-corruption policy, as well as in developing mechanisms of interstate cooperation for the effective return of assets illegally transferred abroad.

 

References

1. Глава государства провел расширенное заседание Правительства Республики Казахстан // https://akorda.kz/ru/glava-gosudarstva-provel-rasshirennoe-zasedanie-pravitelstva-respubliki-kazahstan-81311 (Access data: 23.01.2025).
2. О возврате государству незаконно приобретенных активов: закон Республики Казахстан от 12 июля 2023 г. № 21-VIII ЗРК  // https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2300000021 (Access data: 23.01.2025).
3. О мерах по реализации Закона Республики Казахстан «О возврате государству незаконно приобретенных активов: указ Президента Республики Казахстан от 5 окт. 2023 г. № 366 // https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/U2300000366 (Access data: 23.01.2025).
4. Asset Forfeiture and Money. Laundering / Editor-in-Chief Christian A. Fisanick // Journal of Federal Law and Practice. — 2019. — № 3 (67). — 299 p // https://www.justice.gov/usao/page/file/1205051/dl (Access data: 23.01.2025).
5. Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) // https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-mlars (Access data: 23.01.2025).
6. Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network (CARIN) Manual // https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/publications/camden-asset-recovery-inter-agency-network-carin-manual (Access data: 23.01.2025).
7. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties of the United States // Office of International Affairs Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice. – 8 p. // https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-oia/file/1498806/dl (Access data: 23.01.2025).
8. FinCEN’s 314(a) Fact Sheet // https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/ 314afactsheet.pdf (Access data: 23.01.2025).
9. 2015 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) // Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units // https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2015/vol2/239473.htm (Access data: 23.01.2025).
10. From, M. Waging War Against Corruption in Developing Countries: How Asset Recovery Can be Compliant with the Rule of Law / M. From // Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. — 2019. —– № 29. — P. 165-233.
11. Manual on International Cooperation for the Purposes of Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime // United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Vienna // https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/Publications/Confiscation_Manual_Ebook_E.pdf (Access data: 23.01.2025).
12. Types of Federal Forfeiture // https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture (Access data: 23.01.2025).
13. Еркенов Б. Д., Сейлханова С. А. Эффективность применения инстру­ментов OSINT при противодействии преступной легализации (отмыванию) // Құқық қорғау органдары академиясының Жаршысы. — 2024. — № 2 (32). — С. 175-183.
14. United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. – Vienna, December 20, 1988 // https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=vi-19&chapter=6&clang=_en (Access data: 23.01.2025).
15. Legislative Guide for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. — UNODC. — 2006. — 285 p. // https://www.unodc.org/pdf/corruption/CoC_LegislativeGuide.pdf (Access data: 23.01.2025).
16. UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and The Protocols Thereto: Adopted by the UN General Assembly: 15 November 2000, by resolution 55/25 // https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/UNTOC.html (Access data: 23.01.2025).

 Spisok literatury / References

1. Glava gosudarstva provel rasshirennoye zasedaniye Pravitel’stva Respubliki Kazakhstan // https://akorda.kz/ru/glava-gosudarstva-provel-rasshirennoe-zasedanie-pravitelstva-respubliki-kazahstan-81311 (data obrashcheniya: 23.01.2025).
2. O vozvrate gosudarstvu nezakonno priobretennykh aktivov: zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 12 iyulya 2023 g. № 21-VIII ZRK // https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2300000021 (data obrashcheniya: 23.01.2025).
3. O merakh po realizatsii Zakona Respubliki Kazakhstan «O vozvrate gosudarstvu nezakonno priobretennykh aktivov: ukaz Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 5 okt. 2023 g. № 366 // https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/U2300000366 (data obrashcheniya: 23.01.2025).
4. Asset Forfeiture and Money. Laundering / Editor-in-Chief Christian A. Fisanick // Journal of Federal Law and Practice. — 2019. — № 3 (67). — 299 p // https://www.justice.gov/usao/page/file/1205051/dl (Access data: 23.01.2025).
5. Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) // https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-mlars (Access data: 23.01.2025).
6. Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network (CARIN) Manual // https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/publications/camden-asset-recovery-inter-agency-network-carin-manual (Access data: 23.01.2025).
7. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties of the United States // Office of International Affairs Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice. – 8 p. // https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-oia/file/1498806/dl (Access data: 23.01.2025).
8. FinCEN’s 314(a) Fact Sheet // https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/ 314afactsheet.pdf (Access data: 23.01.2025).
9. 2015 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) // Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units // https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2015/vol2/239473.htm (Access data: 23.01.2025).
10. From, M. Waging War Against Corruption in Developing Countries: How Asset Recovery Can be Compliant with the Rule of Law / M. From // Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. — 2019. —– № 29. — P. 165-233.
11. Manual on International Cooperation for the Purposes of Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime // United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Vienna // https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/Publications/Confiscation_Manual_Ebook_E.pdf (Access data: 23.01.2025).
12. Types of Federal Forfeiture // https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture (Access data: 23.01.2025).
13. Yerkenov B. D., Seylkhanova S. A. Effektivnost’ primeneniya instrumentov OSINT pri protivodeystvii prestupnoy legalizatsii (otmyvaniyu) // Kūkykˌ korġau organdary akademiyasynyň Zharshysy. — 2024. — № 2 (32). — S. 175-183.
14. United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. – Vienna, December 20, 1988 // https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=vi-19&chapter=6&clang=_en (Access data: 23.01.2025).
15. Legislative Guide for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. — UNODC. — 2006. — 285 p. // https://www.unodc.org/pdf/corruption/CoC_LegislativeGuide.pdf (Access data: 23.01.2025).
16. UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and The Protocols Thereto: Adopted by the UN General Assembly: 15 November 2000, by resolution 55/25 // https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/UNTOC.html (Access data: 23.01.2025).