Increasing dependency of the society on the information technologies raises concerns over vulnerabilities in cyberspace and the “dark side” of the information networks. The growth of digital operations in legitimate markets is one of the vital factors for the economic development. However, as markets and trading themselves have always attracted criminals seeking benefits from illegal activities, digital networks become a key enabler for the growth of cybercrime, both with regard to committing traditional crimes in the Internet and to developing new types of computer misuse. Cybercrime has been evolving in line with how society uses digital networks, reacting to every… Read more

The initial source of the money laundering legislation that is still in full development is Directive 1991/308/EU (also known as the “first directive”) on prevention of the financial system from laundering the proceeds of criminal activities. Directive 2001/97/EU (the “second directive”) on the subject of prevention of employment of the financial system for laundering the proceeds of illicit activities demands a higher standard of obligations on the part of the Member States and extends the scope of the subjects upon whom such obligations are imposed. Italian Legislative Order 231/2007 brings into effect the Directive 2005/60/EU (the “third directive”). It introduces… Read more

The article analyses the ECJ’s judgment in Bonda (C-489/10), which addressed whether exclusions and reductions of agricultural aid under EU law constitute criminal penalties. The Court confirmed that such measures are specific administrative instruments linked to participation in aid schemes and aimed at protecting the EU budget, not criminal sanctions. Consequently, the ne bis in idem principle does not preclude subsequent criminal proceedings for the same conduct. The authors discuss the reasoning of the ECJ, its reference to ECtHR case law on the notion of “criminal proceedings,” and the implications for applying ne bis in idem under both the Charter and the ECHR in national proceedings.

By law of 27 March 2003, the Central Office for Seizure and Confiscation (COSC) was created in Belgium. The new institution, established within the Office of Public Prosecutors, assists the judicial authorities in criminal matters in the areas of seizure of assets, the implementation of criminal procedure with a view to the confiscation of assets, and the enforcement of final and conclusive sentences and orders involving confiscation of assets.1 One of the forms of assistance consists of the management of all cash, seized in criminal matters all over the country. By law of 20 July 2005, a new provision was… Read more

Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties was implemented into German law in October 2010. With this instrument, it is for the first time possible to enforce financial penalties in all Member States of the European Union using a uniform procedure, provided that the Member States have adopted the necessary implementation laws. FD 2005/214/JHA is governed by the principle of mutual recognition, which became a cornerstone of cooperation both in civil and in criminal matters at the Council meeting in Tampere in 1999. In particular, the concept of list offences under Art 5 of the FD, where double criminality is not verified by the executing State, is based upon this principle.
In Germany, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz) in Bonn has been designated as the competent authority for incoming and outgoing requests under FD 2005/214/JHA. The following article gives … Read more

The article traces the genesis and content of Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings – the first criminal law measure adopted under the Lisbon Treaty and the initial step in the Council’s Roadmap on procedural rights. It outlines the background of failed earlier initiatives, the political dynamics between the Commission, Member States, and the European Parliament, and the negotiations that led to the final text. The Directive sets common minimum standards for interpretation and translation, including communication between defendants and their lawyers, translation of essential documents, and quality assurance. It represents a landmark in strengthening fair trial rights and an early test case for post-Lisbon EU criminal law legislation.