Dissertation committee:
Ηλίας Αναγνωστόπουλος, Καθηγητής Νομικής Σχολής ΕΚΠΑ,
Αριστομένης Τζαννετής, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής Νομικής Σχολής ΕΚΠΑ,
Ιωάννης Ανδρουλάκης, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής Νομικής Σχολής ΕΚΠΑ,
Δημήτριος Κιούπης, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής Νομικής Σχολής ΕΚΠΑ,
Αλέξανδρος Δημάκης, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής Νομικής Σχολής ΕΚΠΑ,
Αθανασία Διονυσοπούλου, Επίκουρη Καθηγήτρια Νομικής Σχολής ΕΚΠΑ,
Βασίλειος Πετρόπουλος, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής Νομικής ΕΚΠΑ
Summary:
Freezing of assets is the second step of the asset recovery process. In order to determine the scope and the limits of the freezing provisions, it is required to analyse the relevant confiscation measures for which freezing is imposed.
This PhD thesis begins by analysing the crime prevention approach that “crime does not pay” in the context of which freezing mechanisms were first developed. To this end, the UN and CoE international instruments are analysed, such as the UN international convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (Vienna, 1988), the Convention against transnational organised crime (Palermo, 2000), the Convention against corruption (Merida, 2003), as well as the Council of Europe International Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (Strasburg, 1990), the Convention against Corruption (Strasburg, 1999), the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (Warsaw, 2005). In particular, the relevant chapter is focused on the freezing and confiscation provisions of said international conventions.
Furthermore, the abovementioned measures are also analyzed on EU level. In particular, following a brief description of the six anti-money laundering Directives, this PhD thesis presents all the European initiatives in the field of asset recovery, from the Action Plan against Organised Crime of 1997 to the Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters of 2001. Special mention is also made on the Conclusions of the European Council of Tampere, according to which “Money laundering is at the very heart of organised crime. It should be rooted out wherever it occurs”. Finally, reference is also made to the establishment of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal decisions within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and how this was used to achieve the Union's goals.
The next chapter of the PhD focuses on the first generation of the European asset recovery measures, such as the Framework-Decision 2001/500/JHA on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime, the Framework-Decision 2003/577/JHA on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, the Framework-Decision 2005/212/JHA on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property and Framework-Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders. Moreover, Greek Law 4478/2017, which transposed the abovementioned framework decisions, is analysed.
The second generation of the European asset recovery instruments begins with Directive 2014/42/EU on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union. The said directive is thoroughly examined in the relevant chapter of this thesis. In particular, some aspects include a) the subject matter and the scope of the Directive, b) the confiscation provisions, which include direct and value confiscation, confiscation without conviction, extended confiscation and third-party confiscation, c) the rights of the affected persons and d) the provisions in relation to the freezing of assets.
The above Directive was accompanied by Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 regarding the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, an analysis of the provisions of which is provided in the present thesis. Amongst other matters, this thesis examines a) the legislative procedure that led to the final version of the Regulation, b) its legal basis and scope, c) the procedure of transmission of freezing and confiscation orders, d) the procedure of recognition and enforcement of said orders, e) the grounds of non-recognition and non-execution, f) the rights of the affected persons, g) the restitution of frozen property to the victim and the disposal of confiscated assets and h) the implementation of the Regulation in Greece.
Finally, this thesis analyzes the asset freezing provisions found in Law 4557/2018 against money laundering and in the Code of Criminal Procedure Criminal Code.
Keywords:
freezing, freezing of assets, Directive 2014/42/EU, Regulation (EU) 2018/1805, seizure, money laundering, confiscation, Law 4557/2018
