The paper reflects research by the AIC for the Criminology Research Council. It argues that the confiscation of "illegally obtained proceeds of crime -
is a key strategy for disrupting criminal activity, especially serious and organised crime. Confiscation ... serves a number of purposes. First, it seeks to deter crime by reducing its profitability, as well as diminishing offenders' ability to finance further criminal activity. In addition, compensation schemes aim to redress imbalances by compensating society for the adverse impacts of criminal activity and reimbursing the state for the costs of incurred in fighting crime. Finally, there is public utility in demonstrating to the community that crime 'does not pay'.Bartels notes that in Australia recovery of crime proceeds involves two mechanisms. Conviction based recovery enables the recovery of assets associated with a crime after a conviction for that crime has been secured. In contrast, non-conviction (or civil) based recovery allows the restraint and recovery of assets suspected of criminal origins without the necessity of securing a criminal conviction.
All Australian states and territories, except Tasmania, have legislation allowing for both non-conviction and conviction based recovery.
The paper identifies the background to confiscation schemes and key recent developments, including examination of the effectiveness of legislative efforts to disrupt and dismantle 'serious and organised crime groups' and associations with such groups. The paper offers an overview of the key statutes in each jurisdiction, notably the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). Data on each jurisdiction's confiscation legislation is discussed. The paper calls for more systematic processes for recording and reporting information that data.
