| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 656.29 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
O interesse particular em se aumentarem as possibilidades de confisco – seja pela perigosidade inerente aos bens em questão, seja pela cumulação de riqueza ilícita que pode ser reinvestida – tem levado a que, nos últimos anos, a ideia da perda não baseada numa condenação tenha adquirido especial destaque na política europeia de combate à criminalidade organizada. O exponencial crescimento do crime organizado, a utilização de métodos mais sofisticados e difíceis de serem percecionados, bem como a intensificação do crime altamente lucrativo para o seus agentes, forçaram uma regulamentação mais criteriosa da União Europeia sobre o congelamento e a perda dos instrumentos e produtos do crime – a Diretiva 2014/42/UE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 3 de abril de 2014 – na qual passou a configurar, como muitos já desejavam, um exemplo de PNBC. Se tivéssemos de contar a história de vida de uma figura como esta, julgamos que esta Dissertação seria um ponto de partida bem interessante. Num primeiro momento, porque procura nas suas raízes históricas a explicação do seu surgimento. Em segundo lugar, porque explora a sua verdadeira caracterização, não obstante as dificuldades associadas à sua ampla terminologia. Depois, porque relata os avanços e recuos da sua consagração legislativa na União Europeia. Por fim, porque à luz da transposição da Diretiva comunitária (realizada pela Lei n.º 30/2017, de 30 de maio) procura dar a conhecer a sua consagração no sistema jurídico nacional, refletindo sobre a sua regulação material e processual. Por ser um mecanismo facilmente reconfigurável e com capacidade para enfrentar os desafios do contexto criminal onde tem que intervir, não pensar no seu futuro torna-se um pecado demasiado tentador. Ainda assim, a tentação nunca poderá desconsiderar a proteção de direitos humanos e das garantias processuais dos visados. Encontrar o equilíbrio e a proporcionalidade entre essa duas realidades é sem o dúvida o maior desafio.
The particular interest in increasing the possibilities of confiscation - due to the inherent danger of the assets in question, or to the accumulation of illicit wealth that can be reinvested - has led, in recent years, to a non-conviction based confiscation acquired particular emphasis on European policy to combat organized crime. The exponential growth of organized crime, the use of more sophisticated and difficult to perceive methods, as well as the intensification of highly profitable crime for its agents, forced a more careful regulation of the European Union on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime – Directive 2014/42/UE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 – in which it started to configure, as many already wished, an example of NCBC. If we had to tell the story of a subject like this, we think that this Dissertation would be a very interesting starting point. At first, because it seeks in its historical roots the explanation of its emergence. Secondly, because it explores its true characterization, despite the difficulties associated with its broad terminology. Then, because it reports the breakthroughs and setbacks of its legislative consecration in the European Union. Finally, because in the light of the transposition of the Community Directive (carried out by Law no. 30/2017, of 30 May), it seeks to demonstrate its consecration in the national legal system, reflecting on its material and procedural regulation. As it is an easily reconfigurable mechanism with the capacity to face the challenges of the criminal context in which it must intervene, not thinking about its future becomes a too tempting sin. Nevertheless, the temptation can never disregard the protection of human rights and procedural guarantees of those targeted. Finding balance and proportionality between these two realities is undoubtedly the biggest challenge.
The particular interest in increasing the possibilities of confiscation - due to the inherent danger of the assets in question, or to the accumulation of illicit wealth that can be reinvested - has led, in recent years, to a non-conviction based confiscation acquired particular emphasis on European policy to combat organized crime. The exponential growth of organized crime, the use of more sophisticated and difficult to perceive methods, as well as the intensification of highly profitable crime for its agents, forced a more careful regulation of the European Union on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime – Directive 2014/42/UE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 – in which it started to configure, as many already wished, an example of NCBC. If we had to tell the story of a subject like this, we think that this Dissertation would be a very interesting starting point. At first, because it seeks in its historical roots the explanation of its emergence. Secondly, because it explores its true characterization, despite the difficulties associated with its broad terminology. Then, because it reports the breakthroughs and setbacks of its legislative consecration in the European Union. Finally, because in the light of the transposition of the Community Directive (carried out by Law no. 30/2017, of 30 May), it seeks to demonstrate its consecration in the national legal system, reflecting on its material and procedural regulation. As it is an easily reconfigurable mechanism with the capacity to face the challenges of the criminal context in which it must intervene, not thinking about its future becomes a too tempting sin. Nevertheless, the temptation can never disregard the protection of human rights and procedural guarantees of those targeted. Finding balance and proportionality between these two realities is undoubtedly the biggest challenge.
Description
Keywords
Confisco Perigosidade Riqueza ilícita Perda não baseada numa condenação União Europeia Diretiva 2014/42/UE Desafios Direitos humanos Garantias processuais Confiscation Danger Illicit wealth Non-conviction based confiscation European Union Directive 2014/42/EU Challenges Human rights Procedural guarantees