Modeli odvzema premoženja nezakonitega izvora

V zadnjih letih se je iz ZDA tudi v Evropo preselila ideja, da je najučinkovitejši spopad z organiziranim in ekonomskim kriminalom odvzem premoženjske koristi oziroma nezakonito pridobljenega premoženja. S porastom organizirane kriminalitete so se namreč organizirane kriminalne združbe dokopale do precejšnje finančne moči ter z umazanim denarjem začele prodirati tudi v legalne sfere delovanja. Zaporne kazni za pregon tovrstnih aktivnosti niso več učinkovite v zadostni meri, zlasti ker imajo združbe z znatnimi finančnimi sredstvi s korupcijo moč vplivati na odločanje tako organov pregona, sodstva kot tudi finančnih institucij in celo zakonodajalcev. Opisanim specifikam organiziranega kriminala so se morala prilagoditi tudi orodja za boj proti njem. Eno od najučinkovitejših je zagotovo uporaba postopkov odvzema premoženja nezakonitega izvora. V teoretičnem delu smo opredelili koncept odvzema premoženja nezakonitega izvora ter predstavili nekatere kritične poglede nanj. Ugotovili smo, da je odvzem premoženja š širši pojem kot je zgolj zaplemba premoženja saj obsega pet faz: 1. finančna preiskava, 2. zavarovanje premoženja, 3. zaplemba, 4. izvršba odločbe o zaplembi in 5. razpolaganje s premoženjem.. Na podlagi tega smo analizirali akte mednarodnih organizacij ter med seboj primerjali ureditve štirih držav članic EU, ki so na tem področju uspešne, ter Slovenije. Iz naše analize obveznosti in priporočil, ki nam jih nalagajo mednarodne organizacije ter iz primerijalno pravne analize ureditve držav članic EU, ki so na tem področju uspešne, izhaja, da morajo biti znotraj nacionalnega pravnega reda vse faze postavljene sistematično in mora celoten postopek biti istočasno podprt z ustreznimi centraliziranimi organizacijskimi strukturami. V empiričnem delu smo izvedli anketo med slovenskimi policisti in tožilci. Na podlagi analize njihovih odgovorov smo ugotovili, da policisti in tožilci načeloma podpirajo odvzem premoženja nezakonitega izvora. Hkrati jih velika večina meni da slovenska zakonodaja ni sistematična in da ne daje dobre podlage za učinkovito izpeljavo postopka v kazenskem ali v civilnem okvirju. V povezavi z ustreznostjo slovenske organizacijske strukture na področju odvzema premoženja tako policisti in tožilci močno podpirajo ustanovitev dveh centraliziranih organov, prvega za izvajanje finančnih preiskav in postopka odvzema in drugega za upravljanje z zavarovanim in odvzetim premoženjem. Natančna analiza določb slovenske zakonodaje, ki ureja odvzem premoženja v kazenskem in civilnem postopku ter odsotnost centraliziranih organziacijskih struktur pritrjujeta stališčem slovenskih policistov in tožilcev. Na podlagi ugotvoljenih standardov, ki zagotavljajo učinkovitost postopka oidzvema premoženja, tj sistematična urejenost vseh faz ter centralizirana organizacijska struktura, smo izdelali priporočila za vzpostavitev odvzema premoženja v Sloveniji, ki so uporabna tudi za druge države s kontinentalnim pravnim sistemom.In recent years the American idea that criminal asset recovery is the most effective tool in the fight against organized and economic crime, also slowly crept into Europe. With the rise of organized crime in modern societies the organized criminal groups got to a considerable financial strength, and started using dirty money to to penetrate the licit economies. Consequentially, the prison sentences were no longer sufficient, particularly as criminal groups used substantial financial resources for trying to influence the decision-makers, law enforcement and the judiciary as well as financial institutions and even legislators through corruption. Therefore, the tools to combat organized crime needed to be adapted, and one of the most effective among them is undoubtedly the introduction of criminal asset recovery into the legal system. In the theoretical part of this dissertation we defined the concept of criminal assets recovery and presented the critical views on it. We found that assets recovery ia a much broader term than confiscation itself and comprises five phases: 1. financial investigation 2. freezing and seizure, 3. confiscation, 4. The execution of the decision on the confiscation and 5. disposal of property On this basis, we analysed the acts of international organizations and made a comparative legal analysis of the systems of asset recovery in four different EU Member States that we found successful in this field, and compared their systems to the Slovenian. Based on our analysis of the commitments and recommendations imposed on Member States by international organizations and on the comparative legal analysis of the systems of EU Member States we concluded that all phases of the asset recovery procedure must be arranged systematically and must be at the same time supported by an appropriate centralized organizational structure. In the empirical part we carried out a survey among the Slovenian police officers and prosecutors. Based on the analysis of their responses, we found that police officers and prosecutors in principle support assets recovery. At the same time the vast majority of them believes that Slovenian legislation is not systematic and does not provide a good basis for an effective assets recovery procedure in either, the criminal or civil frame. Furthermore, with regard to the organizational structure both, police officers and prosecutors, strongly support the creation of two centralized bodies, one for carrying out financial investigations and freezing or seizing of assets and another for the management of seized and confiscated assets. Precise analysis of the provisions of the Slovenian legislation dealing with asset recovery within criminal and civil proceedings and the lack of centralized organisational structures fully support the positions of the police and the prosecutors. Based on the standards that ensure the effectiveness of the asset recovery procedure, ie the systematic arrangement of all phases and the setting up of centralized organizational structure, we drew up recommendations for establishing an effective asset recovery system in Slovenia. The recommendations could be useful also for other countries within the continental legal system