As explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Nice,1 and preceded by a provisional unit (“pro-Eurojust”),2 Eurojust was established through a Decision of 28 February 2002.3 The latter was amended by the Decision of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust.4 Shortly after the celebration of its 10th birthday in 2012, Eurojust became the subject of a new reform. On the 17th of July 2013, the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), based on Art. 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU).5 This initiative was... Read more

Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (hereinafter called Directive 2003/6/EC)1 was enacted to combat these two most dangerous threats to capital markets.2 The directive has been the subject of examination by the ECJ several times.3 The point of my interest will be the judgment relating to the nature of the conduct constituting insider dealing. It was rendered on 23 December 2009 (C-45/08), to the effect of the reference made by the Belgian court in the course of proceedings between Spector Photo Group and one of its... Read more

I. The Financial Execution Inquiry As already stated, the FEI is conducted by the Belgian Prosecution Service after a confiscation order has become peremptory. We will examine the purpose of and the reason for establishment of the investigation, and we will examine the role of the actors who take part in the investigation. 1. Purpose and Reason for Establishment a) Purpose The aim of the FEI is to inquire into the assets of convicted criminals who have been sentenced to the confiscation of, in principle, a sum of money that cannot be recovered by means of civil law. Besides confiscated... Read more

In the United States, federal prosecutors routinely employ asset recovery as a tool of law enforcement. The approach takes two forms. In criminal cases, the prosecutor may seek to recover or “forfeit” property as part of the defendant’s sentence, if the defendant is convicted. Alternatively, the prosecutor may commence a civil proceeding, naming the property as the defendant and seeking to forfeit the property independent of any criminal proceeding. This article discusses the American experience with civil, or non-conviction-based, asset recovery. It discusses the prosecutor’s motivations for seeking to forfeit assets, the types of property that may be forfeited, the procedures that govern civil asset forfeiture, the advantages of civil or non-conviction-based asset forfeiture over criminal forfeiture, and the ways in which the United States, through judicial decisions and legislation, has reconciled the non-conviction-based approach with the requirements of basic human rights and civil liberties.