Section 68
of Criminal Asset Recovery Order, 2012
Section 68
(1)
Where, upon application by the Public Prosecutor, the High Court is satisfied that property is tainted property in respect of a money laundering or serious offence of which a person has been convicted, the High Court may order that property be confiscated.
(2)
In determining whether property is tainted property, the High Court may presume –
(a)
where the evidence establishes that the property was in the person’s possession at the time of, or immediately after, the commission of the offence of which the person was convicted that the property was used in, or in connection with, the commission of the offence;
(b)
where the evidence establishes that the property was under the control of the person at the time of, or immediately after, the commission of the offence of which the person was convicted – that the property was derived, obtained or realised as a result of the commission by the person of the offence of which the person was convicted;
(c)
where the evidence establishes that the property, and in particular money, was found in the person’s possession or under the person’s control in a building, vehicle, receptacle or place during the course of investigations conducted by the police before or after the arrest an charge of the person for the offence of which the person was convicted, that the property was derived, obtained or realised as a result of the commission by the person of the offence of which the person was convicted;
Incorporating amendments until S 22/2017
(Cleancopy) NHN/Amiriah/Bb/Karimah as of 26.12.2019
*Note: amendment on page 7,75,81,123 on 11.01.2020
72
BLUV as at 11th March 2017
(d)
where the evidence establishes that the value, after the commission of the offence, of all ascertainable property of a person convicted of the offence exceeds the value of all ascertainable property of that person prior to the commission of that offence, and the High Court is satisfied that the income of that person from sources unrelated to criminal activity of that person cannot reasonably account for the increase in value – that the value of the increase represents property which was derived, obtained or realised by the person directly or indirectly from the commission of the offence of which the person was convicted.
(3)
Where the High Court orders that property, other than money, be confiscated, the Court shall specify in the order the amount that it considers to be the value of the property at the time when the order is made.
(4)
In considering whether a confiscation order should be made under subsection
(1)
the Court shall have regard to –
(a)
the rights and interests, of any person in the property;
(b)
the gravity of the offence concerned;
(c)
any undue hardship that may reasonably be expected to be caused to any person by the making of the order; and
(d)
the use that is ordinarily made of the property, or the use to which the property was intended to be put.
(5)
Where the High Court makes a confiscation order, the Court may give such directions as are necessary or convenient for giving effect to the order.
(6)
In determining whether the property is the subject-matter of a money laundering offence or a serious offence, the High Court shall apply the standard of proof required in civil proceedings.
Effect of confiscation order.