<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>In this article, the author highlights the connection between using lower standard of proof in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property and the possible risk of forfeiture of a person's legally acquired property. Loopholes in the legal regulation allow the possibility of unreasonably restricting property rights of a person without establishing whether such a restriction is justified and proportionate. This study analyses the Latvian and foreign literature to understand the true reason for having lower standard of proof in respect of figuring out the nature of criminally acquired property and also analyses certain Latvian court decisions to subject property of unknown origin to confiscation in the absence of evidence of a direct connection between property and illicit action. The aim of this study is to analyse the negative impact of lower standard of proof on protection of property right in specific criminal procedure cases. The main methods used in this study were analytical, comparative, inductive and deductive methods. The result of this study shows how legally acquired property may be put under doubt and be confiscated by the State under lower standard of proof without specific guarantees.</p>
</abstract>

In this article, the author highlights the connection between using lower standard of proof in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property and the possible risk of forfeiture of a person's legally acquired property. Loopholes in the legal regulation allow the possibility of unreasonably restricting property rights of a person without establishing whether such a restriction is justified and proportionate. This study analyses the Latvian and foreign literature to understand the true reason for having lower standard of proof in respect of figuring out the nature of criminally acquired property and also analyses certain Latvian court decisions to subject property of unknown origin to confiscation in the absence of evidence of a direct connection between property and illicit action. The aim of this study is to analyse the negative impact of lower standard of proof on protection of property right in specific criminal procedure cases. The main methods used in this study were analytical, comparative, inductive and deductive methods. The result of this study shows how legally acquired property may be put under doubt and be confiscated by the State under lower standard of proof without specific guarantees.

The impact of Lower Standard of Proof in Proceedings Regarding Criminally Acquired Property

Socrates. Rīga Stradiņš University Faculty of Law Electronic Scientific Journal of Law.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

In this article, the author highlights the connection between using lower standard of proof in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property and the...

The impact of Lower Standard of Proof in Proceedings Regarding Criminally Acquired Property

Article Category: Research Article

Pubblicato online: 31 ott 2023

Pagine: 43 - 50

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.26.2023.2.43-50

Parole chiave
proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, confiscation, property, standard of proof

© 2023 Andrejs Ņikiforovs et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The impact of Lower Standard of Proof in Proceedings Regarding Criminally Acquired Property

Article Category: Research Article

Pubblicato online: 31 ott 2023

Pagine: 43 - 50

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.26.2023.2.43-50

Parole chiaveproceedings regarding criminally acquired property, confiscation, property, standard of proof

© 2023 Andrejs Ņikiforovs et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Parole chiave
proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, confiscation, property, standard of proof