The data above on the amounts of property seized, confiscated and recovered show an improving trend. According to the 2014 Moneyval Report, and subsequent follow-up reports, mechanisms to allow for the confiscation of assets of corresponding value held by a defendant (and which may have been legally obtained), had been deficient, but were largely resolved.84
Positive Steps with Respect to Reconciliation, Accelerated Resolution of Cases and Return of Assets
As of the drafting of this report, no data was available to indicate that long-term sustainable mechanisms were in place (e.g., internal policies within law enforcement institutions, the prosecutorial service or the judiciary) to ensure that extended confiscation – while maintaining due process – is applied as the norm, rather than the exception, in all cases involving serious income-generating criminality, or that sufficient mechanisms are in place for non-penal-forfeiture of assets. Information was also limited with respect to how recovered assets are managed and distributed, if at all, for social re-use or high-priority development needs.
In May 2020, Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code was amended (Articles 73-1 and 73-2) as part of broader reforms to encourage individuals accused of certain crimes (such as Fraud, Embezzlement and Plundering of Natural Gas, Water, Electricity and Plumbing, as well as other Economic Crimes) to return assets. Such individuals may be considered exempt if they compensate victims for these crimes. The extent and availability of exemption from criminal liability for these crimes is dependent on whether, for example, such fraud or embezzlement included or not aggravating circumstances, and the amount returned to victims or the State budget.
22
Illicit Financial Flows and Asset Recovery In The Republic of Azerbaijan
