Odwrócenie ciężaru dowodu w przedmiocie odebrania mienia uzyskanego z przestępstwa w ujęciu prawnoporównawczym i międzynarodowym
Reversal of the burden of proof on the seizure of criminally obtained property in a comparative and international legal perspective

Summary/Abstract: As evidenced by the above comparative legal considerations, Article 45 § 2-3 of the Polish Penal Code is intended to be a hitherto unknown, neither in the Common Law system nor even less in the Statute law system, regulation of the so-called reversal of the burden of proof on the subject of the seizure of the offender's property. Moreover, these provisions call into question the existence of certain universal values, which certainly include the principle of the presumption of innocence as expressed in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.The German concept, while undoubtedly the most in line with the basic principles of law compared to the solutions presented, is unlikely to be adequate for the new challenges of fighting crime in the age of globalisation. The Swiss and Austrian solution goes further. This is aboutArticle 53 (3) of the Swiss Penal Code and Article 20b(1) of the Austrian Penal Code Nevertheless, it is very difficult to establish that the property in question is at the “disposal” of criminal organisations. Even the US concept of criminal forfeiture, which advocates some evidentiary relief in 21 U.S.C. § 853(d), does not provide for the so-called reversal of the burden of proof with regard to the issue at stake.Article 5(7) of the Vienna Convention, like Article 12(7) of the 2000 Convention, provides for the possibility of a so-called reversal of the burden of proof on the subject of asset forfeiture. However, it should be noted that these provisions of international agreements, on the one hand, bind the parties only relatively, i.e. they provide a certain possibility, but do not create any obligation. On the other hand, they require that the basis of the legal orders of the parties to the convention be taken into account.They do not appear to have played a major role in either the common law or the statute law systems. While in the first system of law the issue raised took permanent root much earlier in civil law alone, in the second it is unacceptable in its pure form.

• Details
• Contents