THE OWNERSHIP OF CONFISCATED PROCEEDS OF CORRUPTION UNDER THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Article 51 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption sets forth the return of assets diverted through corruption as a fundamental principle of the Convention. This raises the question of whether the State where the stolen assets are located is entitled to refuse their repatriation or subje...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The International and comparative law quarterly 2018-07, Vol.67 (3), p.669-694 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 694 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 669 |
| container_title | The International and comparative law quarterly |
| container_volume | 67 |
| creator | Moiseienko, Anton |
| description | Article 51 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption sets forth the return of assets diverted through corruption as a fundamental principle of the Convention. This raises the question of whether the State where the stolen assets are located is entitled to refuse their repatriation or subject it to certain conditions. This article analyses the Convention and the policy considerations behind it and argues that such a State has a wider discretion over the return of stolen assets than is often thought. Furthermore, the article argues that the rule of law may be better served if States take vigorous action to confiscate the proceeds of corruption regardless of whether they are ultimately repatriated. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S002058931800012X |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1017_S002058931800012X</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S002058931800012X</cupid><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20181128004360</informt_id><jstor_id>26800968</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26800968</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-d6a1a6f27275f8f269e2b7b293f9f329a71fd82d1a5fb2607c2b12a7476e08e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkF1r2zAUhsVYYVnbH7CLgaHXXnUkWx-XwXEaQ7CD7Wy7mpBjK3Vo6kxyL_bvZ9f9grKLXQne9zmPOAehL4C_AQZ-XWBMcCgkBYExBvLzA5pBwMFnQoYf0Wys_bH_hD47dxgQRsNwhn6Vq9jLfqRxXqySjZctvShLl0kRzct44W3yLIrjRTHleb7dlEmWett0EefeOLlNR_57nD7m85t5khblG_QCnRl955rLp_ccbZdxGa38dXaTRPO1vwsE7f2aadDMEE54aIQhTDak4hWR1EhDidQcTC1IDTo0FWGY70gFRPOAswaLhtFzdDV5T7b7_dC4Xh26B3s_fKkIZiAlDuRIwUTtbOecbYw62fao7R8FWI1nVO_OOMysphl7bHul96079co12u5uVXtvuse4s3tVd-2ooRTYM0YwCAAyqALK8KBav1fd9v3JqVr3-v91XyfdwfWdfVmFsAGQTAw9fdpWHyvb1vvm9Sj_3vcvhhyn5w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2061990496</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THE OWNERSHIP OF CONFISCATED PROCEEDS OF CORRUPTION UNDER THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Moiseienko, Anton</creator><creatorcontrib>Moiseienko, Anton</creatorcontrib><description>Article 51 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption sets forth the return of assets diverted through corruption as a fundamental principle of the Convention. This raises the question of whether the State where the stolen assets are located is entitled to refuse their repatriation or subject it to certain conditions. This article analyses the Convention and the policy considerations behind it and argues that such a State has a wider discretion over the return of stolen assets than is often thought. Furthermore, the article argues that the rule of law may be better served if States take vigorous action to confiscate the proceeds of corruption regardless of whether they are ultimately repatriated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-5893</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6895</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S002058931800012X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Assets ; Civil society ; CORRUPTION ; Crime ; Economic aspects ; Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977-US ; Human rights ; INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW ; International law ; Money laundering ; Ownership ; Political corruption ; Progress reports ; Repatriation ; Rule of law ; Transnational crime ; WHITE COLLAR CRIME</subject><ispartof>The International and comparative law quarterly, 2018-07, Vol.67 (3), p.669-694</ispartof><rights>Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-d6a1a6f27275f8f269e2b7b293f9f329a71fd82d1a5fb2607c2b12a7476e08e63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26800968$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S002058931800012X/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,799,12824,27901,27902,55603,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moiseienko, Anton</creatorcontrib><title>THE OWNERSHIP OF CONFISCATED PROCEEDS OF CORRUPTION UNDER THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION</title><title>The International and comparative law quarterly</title><addtitle>ICLQ</addtitle><description>Article 51 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption sets forth the return of assets diverted through corruption as a fundamental principle of the Convention. This raises the question of whether the State where the stolen assets are located is entitled to refuse their repatriation or subject it to certain conditions. This article analyses the Convention and the policy considerations behind it and argues that such a State has a wider discretion over the return of stolen assets than is often thought. Furthermore, the article argues that the rule of law may be better served if States take vigorous action to confiscate the proceeds of corruption regardless of whether they are ultimately repatriated.</description><subject>Assets</subject><subject>Civil society</subject><subject>CORRUPTION</subject><subject>Crime</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977-US</subject><subject>Human rights</subject><subject>INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW</subject><subject>International law</subject><subject>Money laundering</subject><subject>Ownership</subject><subject>Political corruption</subject><subject>Progress reports</subject><subject>Repatriation</subject><subject>Rule of law</subject><subject>Transnational crime</subject><subject>WHITE COLLAR CRIME</subject><issn>0020-5893</issn><issn>1471-6895</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkF1r2zAUhsVYYVnbH7CLgaHXXnUkWx-XwXEaQ7CD7Wy7mpBjK3Vo6kxyL_bvZ9f9grKLXQne9zmPOAehL4C_AQZ-XWBMcCgkBYExBvLzA5pBwMFnQoYf0Wys_bH_hD47dxgQRsNwhn6Vq9jLfqRxXqySjZctvShLl0kRzct44W3yLIrjRTHleb7dlEmWett0EefeOLlNR_57nD7m85t5khblG_QCnRl955rLp_ccbZdxGa38dXaTRPO1vwsE7f2aadDMEE54aIQhTDak4hWR1EhDidQcTC1IDTo0FWGY70gFRPOAswaLhtFzdDV5T7b7_dC4Xh26B3s_fKkIZiAlDuRIwUTtbOecbYw62fao7R8FWI1nVO_OOMysphl7bHul96079co12u5uVXtvuse4s3tVd-2ooRTYM0YwCAAyqALK8KBav1fd9v3JqVr3-v91XyfdwfWdfVmFsAGQTAw9fdpWHyvb1vvm9Sj_3vcvhhyn5w</recordid><startdate>20180701</startdate><enddate>20180701</enddate><creator>Moiseienko, Anton</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180701</creationdate><title>THE OWNERSHIP OF CONFISCATED PROCEEDS OF CORRUPTION UNDER THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION</title><author>Moiseienko, Anton</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-d6a1a6f27275f8f269e2b7b293f9f329a71fd82d1a5fb2607c2b12a7476e08e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Assets</topic><topic>Civil society</topic><topic>CORRUPTION</topic><topic>Crime</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977-US</topic><topic>Human rights</topic><topic>INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW</topic><topic>International law</topic><topic>Money laundering</topic><topic>Ownership</topic><topic>Political corruption</topic><topic>Progress reports</topic><topic>Repatriation</topic><topic>Rule of law</topic><topic>Transnational crime</topic><topic>WHITE COLLAR CRIME</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moiseienko, Anton</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The International and comparative law quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moiseienko, Anton</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THE OWNERSHIP OF CONFISCATED PROCEEDS OF CORRUPTION UNDER THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION</atitle><jtitle>The International and comparative law quarterly</jtitle><addtitle>ICLQ</addtitle><date>2018-07-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>669</spage><epage>694</epage><pages>669-694</pages><issn>0020-5893</issn><eissn>1471-6895</eissn><abstract>Article 51 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption sets forth the return of assets diverted through corruption as a fundamental principle of the Convention. This raises the question of whether the State where the stolen assets are located is entitled to refuse their repatriation or subject it to certain conditions. This article analyses the Convention and the policy considerations behind it and argues that such a State has a wider discretion over the return of stolen assets than is often thought. Furthermore, the article argues that the rule of law may be better served if States take vigorous action to confiscate the proceeds of corruption regardless of whether they are ultimately repatriated.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S002058931800012X</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0020-5893 |
| ispartof | The International and comparative law quarterly, 2018-07, Vol.67 (3), p.669-694 |
| issn | 0020-5893 1471-6895 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1017_S002058931800012X |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Assets Civil society CORRUPTION Crime Economic aspects Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977-US Human rights INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW International law Money laundering Ownership Political corruption Progress reports Repatriation Rule of law Transnational crime WHITE COLLAR CRIME |
| title | THE OWNERSHIP OF CONFISCATED PROCEEDS OF CORRUPTION UNDER THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T20%3A52%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE%20OWNERSHIP%20OF%20CONFISCATED%20PROCEEDS%20OF%20CORRUPTION%20UNDER%20THE%20UN%20CONVENTION%20AGAINST%20CORRUPTION&rft.jtitle=The%20International%20and%20comparative%20law%20quarterly&rft.au=Moiseienko,%20Anton&rft.date=2018-07-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=669&rft.epage=694&rft.pages=669-694&rft.issn=0020-5893&rft.eissn=1471-6895&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S002058931800012X&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E26800968%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2061990496&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S002058931800012X&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20181128004360&rft_jstor_id=26800968&rfr_iscdi=true |