Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Utvidgat förverkande & Europadomstolen – En autonom tolkning

Andsberg, Adam LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
My graduate essay deals with the Swedish provision of extended confiscation in article 1 b, chapter 36 of the Swedish penal code. In the event that an offender commits one of the stipulated crimes in article 1 b chapter 36, the state may with a lower burden of proof then beyond reasonable doubt, confiscate profits from criminal activities, which do not stem from the perpetratory crime itself. There is no external time limit for what property may be confiscated, which means that there may be a time span of, for example, 15 years between when the offender commits one of the stipulated crimes mentioned in the article 1 b and the property was acquired by the perpetrator. This is a state effective remedy in the fight against organized crime.... (More)
My graduate essay deals with the Swedish provision of extended confiscation in article 1 b, chapter 36 of the Swedish penal code. In the event that an offender commits one of the stipulated crimes in article 1 b chapter 36, the state may with a lower burden of proof then beyond reasonable doubt, confiscate profits from criminal activities, which do not stem from the perpetratory crime itself. There is no external time limit for what property may be confiscated, which means that there may be a time span of, for example, 15 years between when the offender commits one of the stipulated crimes mentioned in the article 1 b and the property was acquired by the perpetrator. This is a state effective remedy in the fight against organized crime. Against this background, I have analysed whether the Swedish provision is in conflict with the article 6(1) and (2) and article 7 of the ECHR, and how extended confiscation is applied by the ECtHR, with focus on the provisions in article 6(1) and (2) and article 7 of the ECHR.

Conclusively the member states of the ECHR are given quite an extensive independence regarding the regulation of extended confiscation by the ECtHR. This puts the individuals safeguards in, what I regard, as quite a desperate state. An interesting observation is that article 7 ECHR could possibly conflict with the Swedish regulation, since the Swedish regulation in that the ECtHR hasn’t tried that specific area. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Min rättsvetenskapliga uppsats behandlar den svenska bestämmelsen om utvidgat förverkande i 36 kap. 1 b § BrB. I händelse av att en gärningsperson begår ett av de i 36 kap. 1 b § BrB nämnda förverkandeutlösande brott, kan staten genom beviskravet klart mera sannolikt komma åt vinster från brottslig verksamhet som inte härrör från det förverkandeutlösande brottet i sig. Det finns ingen yttre tidsgräns för vilken egendom som man får förverka, vilket innebär att det kan vara ett tidsspann på exempelvis 15 år mellan det förverkandeutlösande brottet och att egendomen införskaffades. Detta är ett för staten effektivt rättsmedel i kampen mot den organiserade brottsligheten. Mot denna bakgrund har jag analyserat huruvida den svenska bestämmelsen... (More)
Min rättsvetenskapliga uppsats behandlar den svenska bestämmelsen om utvidgat förverkande i 36 kap. 1 b § BrB. I händelse av att en gärningsperson begår ett av de i 36 kap. 1 b § BrB nämnda förverkandeutlösande brott, kan staten genom beviskravet klart mera sannolikt komma åt vinster från brottslig verksamhet som inte härrör från det förverkandeutlösande brottet i sig. Det finns ingen yttre tidsgräns för vilken egendom som man får förverka, vilket innebär att det kan vara ett tidsspann på exempelvis 15 år mellan det förverkandeutlösande brottet och att egendomen införskaffades. Detta är ett för staten effektivt rättsmedel i kampen mot den organiserade brottsligheten. Mot denna bakgrund har jag analyserat huruvida den svenska bestämmelsen strider mot EKMR, samt hur utvidgat förverkande tillämpas av Europadomstolen med fokus på art. 6(1) och (2) samt art. 7 i EKMR.

Sammanfattningsvis ledde min utredning fram till slutsatsen att medlemsstaterna till Europakonventionen ges en hög grad av att självständigt utforma regleringen av utvidgat förverkande. En intressant observation är att det finns en möjlighet att det svenska systemet strider mot art. 7 i EKMR, eftersom just detta område inte prövats av Europadomstolen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Andsberg, Adam LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Utvidgat förverkande, EKMR, Europadomstolen, Retroaktivitetsförbudet, Rätten till en rättvis rättegång, Oskyldighetspresumtionen, Ekonomisk brottslighet, Straffrätt, Autonom tolkning, Brott och Straff
language
Swedish
id
8930619
date added to LUP
2018-02-07 11:06:44
date last changed
2018-02-07 11:06:44
@misc{8930619,
  abstract     = {{My graduate essay deals with the Swedish provision of extended confiscation in article 1 b, chapter 36 of the Swedish penal code. In the event that an offender commits one of the stipulated crimes in article 1 b chapter 36, the state may with a lower burden of proof then beyond reasonable doubt, confiscate profits from criminal activities, which do not stem from the perpetratory crime itself. There is no external time limit for what property may be confiscated, which means that there may be a time span of, for example, 15 years between when the offender commits one of the stipulated crimes mentioned in the article 1 b and the property was acquired by the perpetrator. This is a state effective remedy in the fight against organized crime. Against this background, I have analysed whether the Swedish provision is in conflict with the article 6(1) and (2) and article 7 of the ECHR, and how extended confiscation is applied by the ECtHR, with focus on the provisions in article 6(1) and (2) and article 7 of the ECHR. 

Conclusively the member states of the ECHR are given quite an extensive independence regarding the regulation of extended confiscation by the ECtHR. This puts the individuals safeguards in, what I regard, as quite a desperate state. An interesting observation is that article 7 ECHR could possibly conflict with the Swedish regulation, since the Swedish regulation in that the ECtHR hasn’t tried that specific area.}},
  author       = {{Andsberg, Adam}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Utvidgat förverkande & Europadomstolen – En autonom tolkning}},
  year         = {{2017}},
}