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!
|
| _version_ | 1849710962592972800 |
|---|---|
| author | Guilherme Brenner Lucchesi Ivan Navarro Zonta |
| author_facet | Guilherme Brenner Lucchesi Ivan Navarro Zonta |
| author_sort | Guilherme Brenner Lucchesi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-49f5cbee153d4b06bd635b617a4fe245 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2525-510X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-06-01 |
| publisher | Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal |
| spelling | doaj-art-49f5cbee153d4b06bd635b617a4fe2452025-08-20T03:14:45ZengInstituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual PenalRevista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal2525-510X2020-06-016273576410.22197/rbdpp.v6i2.353185Seizing proceeds of crime: limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measuresGuilherme Brenner Lucchesi0Ivan Navarro Zonta1Universidade Federal do ParanáUniversidade Federal do ParanáThe 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.http://www.ibraspp.com.br/revista/index.php/RBDPP/article/view/353medidas assecuratóriasperdimentoenriquecimento ilícitosequestro de bens |
| spellingShingle | Guilherme Brenner Lucchesi Ivan Navarro Zonta Seizing proceeds of crime: limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measures Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal medidas assecuratórias perdimento enriquecimento ilícito sequestro de bens |
| title | Seizing proceeds of crime: limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measures |
| title_full | Seizing proceeds of crime: limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measures |
| title_fullStr | Seizing proceeds of crime: limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measures |
| title_full_unstemmed | Seizing proceeds of crime: limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measures |
| title_short | Seizing proceeds of crime: limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measures |
| title_sort | seizing proceeds of crime limits to solidarity in decreeing preservative measures |
| topic | medidas assecuratórias perdimento enriquecimento ilícito sequestro de bens |
| url | http://www.ibraspp.com.br/revista/index.php/RBDPP/article/view/353 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT guilhermebrennerlucchesi seizingproceedsofcrimelimitstosolidarityindecreeingpreservativemeasures AT ivannavarrozonta seizingproceedsofcrimelimitstosolidarityindecreeingpreservativemeasures |