Seizure of Assets

is the adoption and effective use of relational database software. Such software (e.g., Analyst’s Notebook and many others), and training on it, produce more successful outcomes in analysing hundreds or thousands of financial or related transactions, as well as producing visualised graphics showing transactions between bank accounts – this in turn leads to comprehensive tracing of assets, as well as the possible identification of other suspects involved in criminal operations. Modern practice clearly shows that for police, prosecutors and judges to understand a case – and its nefarious financial transactions – by reviewing a visual graphic showing connections and transactions. It is easier to review and understand a graphic than to read a 200-page case file. In this context, the use of graphic visualisation software (by FIUs and by LEAs) clearly aids in the tracing and identification process.

1.2.5 Phase 2: Freezing and seizure of assets

The second step concerns the freezing and seizure of assets.39 Freezing and seizure are defined as “temporarily prohibiting the transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property or temporarily assuming custody or control of property on the basis of an order issued by a court or other competent authority”.40 While obtaining a court order might take some time and the illicitly-obtained assets may vanish, some States have ensured that emergency freezing / seizure can be allowed; in Ukraine, for example, the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and prosecutors can carry out emergency seizures (valid for 48 hours), after which a court order is needed. Whether through freezing or seizure, the owner cannot dispose of their assets before the case is closed; timely seizure of assets is often critical, as recovery of such assets can be rendered significantly more difficult if the defendant is allowed the opportunity to move or convert such assets.

During this phase, a number of practical inhibitors exist. Eurojust identifies a series of challenges that national authorities face during this stage of the asset recovery cycle.41 First, differences in national implementation procedures or interpretation of legislation may provoke uncertainties with regards to the requirements for issuing an order to freeze or seize assets. This can lead to delays, during which the defendant or his/her associates can transfer, convert, move or dispose of suspect assets. Confusion may also arise from identifying the relevant counterparts or competent national authorities outside of one’s jurisdiction,42 but also from issues linked to grounds for refusing the execution of freezing orders, which may vary.

With regard to the latter point, a ground for non-execution could be that, in the foreign jurisdiction, a different level of evidence needs to be demonstrated that the asset is linked to criminality, or that the order for freezing or seizure handed down in the Requesting State (from which the assets have been stolen) may