The debate surrounding the authorization of confiscation orders for assets linked to criminal activities prior to a trial revolves around intricately balancing law enforcement objectives and human rights considerations. Supporters contend that allowing pre-trial confiscation orders can thwart individuals engaged in criminal pursuits from disposing of their unlawful assets, ensuring that the gains from illegal activities are preserved for potential restitution or penalties. Moreover, the prospect of pre-trial confiscation may serve as a deterrent, dissuading individuals from engaging in criminal behavior due to the risk of having their assets seized before a trial. This approach can also bolster the efficacy of law enforcement by swiftly addressing and neutralizing the financial aspects of criminal enterprises.
However, pre-trial confiscation orders may collide with the fundamental human rights principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This contradicts the idea that individuals should not face punishment before undergoing due process and being convicted. It implies that the right to a fair trial encompasses the right to defend oneself against charges, and pre-trial confiscation might hinder a defendant’s ability to mount a robust defense by restricting their access to resources. The inherent risk of wrongful confiscation is ever-present, as assets seized before a trial may lead to unjust consequences if the charges are ultimately dismissed, impacting innocent individuals.
Therefore, a balanced solution is necessary, one that effectively addresses law enforcement needs while safeguarding human rights. In this paper titled Asset freezing before criminal guilt, I discuss my perspectives in the context of Bill 76 proposed by government.
