[Draft 1] - Asset Forfeiture Regulations

[Simone]

Unrevised for Kenmoria and other changes.

The World Assembly (WA),

Note that some WA states adopt the practice of civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement officers to take property from crime suspects without necessarily charging (or convicting) owners with any wrongdoing;

Believing this administrative (or judicial) process contravenes the spirit of assuming that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and creates perverse incentives to seize assets, sometimes to enrich the law enforcement agencies themselves;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   1. "Asset" means any item of value, whether physical or otherwise.
   2. "Court" means any judicial venue in a WA state. This includes administrative tribunals, lay magistrates, and other judicial or juridical agencies of a WA state.
   3. "LEA" means any law enforcement authority in a WA state.
2. In rem jurisdiction.
   1. No court in a WA state may assert in rem jurisdiction on an asset where an assertion of ownership on the said property has been made by an individual. This is regardless of the status of the individual in that WA state.
   2. Any property claimed by an individual must be subject to in personam jurisdiction and a criminal forfeiture procedure, defined in clause 4, shall be adopted.
   3. This resolution does not govern the case if an LEA applies for, or for a court to grant, permission to freeze or prohibit the sale or transfer of any assets held by an individual, subject to due process.
3. Unclaimed property.
   1. If an LEA decides to seize an asset where no ownership has been asserted by any particular individual, or that the ownership of the said asset cannot be ascertained prior to trial, the court may grant jurisdiction for temporary seizure of the property an on in rem basis pending trial, subject the court:
      1. accepting that a prima facie case exists for a potential charge against individuals associated with the said asset; and
      2. adjudicating on a burden of proof that is no less than a preponderance of evidence basis.
   2. Any temporary seizure of assets, including the potential disposal of such assets as well as any income from such assets, shall first be used to satisfy any bail requirements for any suspects subject to criminal investigation.
4. Preservation.
   1. Any assets temporarily seized by a Court or an LEA (depending on the legal procedures of the WA state) shall be held in trust pending the outcome of any criminal procedures or litigation.
   2. Due care shall be taken by a court or LEA to preserve the value of the property temporarily seized.
5. Criminal forfeiture. No court may permit criminal forfeiture unless, subject to due process:
   1. jurisdiction is asserted on an in personam basis; and
   2. the individual whose ownership of the property is asserted has been convicted of an offence on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" and has exhausted all avenues to appeal;
   3. the court has exhausted all avenues of appeal regarding multiple individuals asserting ownership of the said assets subject to due process;
   4. the forfeiture is part of the penalty imposed by the court.
6. Use of proceeds.
   1. Any assets forfeited from anyone convicted of a criminal offence who has exhausted all appeals shall first be used to pay for any penalties imposed.
   2. No WA state may use the proceeds of any assets forfeited directly to fund the operations of their courts and LEAs.
   3. No assets belonging to the WA or any of the committees of the WA may be forfeited even if they were used in crimes against a WA state, without the approval of the WA or the said committee.
7. Exclusions. This resolution does not govern:
   1. the behavior of diplomats;
   2. the behavior of any officers of the WA or WA organs;
   3. customs officials from seizing any assets pursuant to local laws or extant resolutions;
   4. the seizure of any asset where possession thereof contravenes local laws or extant WA resolutions.