Seizing proceeds of crime: limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measures
The current state of organized and institutionalized crime control stresses the patrimonialization of criminal law. In this context, it is important, both for the repression of crimes and for the fundamental rights of the accused, that the proper use and limits of preservative measures provisioned b...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal
2020-06-01
|
| Series: | Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ibraspp.com.br/revista/index.php/RBDPP/article/view/353 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The current state of organized and institutionalized crime control stresses the patrimonialization of criminal law. In this context, it is important, both for the repression of crimes and for the fundamental rights of the accused, that the proper use and limits of preservative measures provisioned by the Code of Criminal Procedure be observed. These measures refer to the purposes defined by the Penal Code to make certain the obligation to repair damages and to decree the forfeiture of instruments, products and proceeds of crime. In regard to crimes committed by multiple agents, the ammount of assets subject to preservative measures must be limited regarding each co-defendant. Unlike the obligation to repair damages, which has a solidary nature under the provisions of the Civil Code, forfeiture must observe strict subjective limits, with respect to the intranscendence of criminal penalties. For example, seizure of assets, a preservative measure that aims to constrain goods that, in the end, will be affected by forfeiture, is restricted by the unjust enrichment effectively perceived by a criminal agent, with no solidarity among these co-defendants at that point. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2525-510X |