Repository logo
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Srpski (lat)
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Српски
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register. Have you forgotten your password?
Repository logo
  • Communities & Collections
  • Browse UWCScholar
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Srpski (lat)
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Српски
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register. Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Author

Browsing by Author "Makhanu, Titus Barasa"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Recovering the Proceeds of Corruption: Why Kenya Should Foreground Civil Forfeiture
    (University of the Western Cape, 2012) Makhanu, Titus Barasa; Koen, R
    Today corruption is a major concern for most countries.1 Civil forfeiture of the proceeds of corruption has been embraced as a key strategy by many states in recovering public funds lost through corruption.2 It may be defined as a remedial statutory device designed to recover the proceeds of a crime as well as its instrumentalities.3 Originally, asset recovery regimes adopted by most states were predominantly criminal forfeiture. This mode of forfeiture is preceded by a conviction, after which the state takes possession of the proceeds of the crime from a convicted individual.4 Its proceedings are in personam and the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, actual forfeiture only takes place after the issue of a conviction order. As a consequence, it is always lengthy and often results in delayed realisation of the proceeds of crime. 5 The inherent weaknesses of criminal forfeiture gave birth to the idea of developing a civil forfeiture system.6 This mode is different from the former in that its proceedings are in rem. Hence the standard of proof is proof on a balance of probabilities and a conviction order is not required.7

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2025 LYRASIS

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback