English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The article discusses the shortcomings of EU policy regarding cross-border asset recovery. The identified problem is a disjointed approach to the overlapping objectives of criminal proceedings: gathering evidence and securing assets for future confiscation. In the current EU legal framework, the process of recovery of assets, understood as a sequence of functionally related activities, lacks the continuity necessary to be effective. EU cross-border cooperation instruments in criminal matters do not meet the needs of this process, as they relate to separate investigative measures. Problems in this field have been indirectly reflected in the practice of Eurojust and the  ejn . The article proposes a change in the perception of the initial phase of the asset recovery process, where the objectives of identifying and locating financial assets are combined with their provisional securing. This takes place under one mechanism of cross-border cooperation (an  eio ), prior to issuing a regular freeze or seizure order.

The Tangled Path From Identifying Financial Assets to Cross-Border Confiscation. Deficiencies in EU Asset Recovery Policy