[小威]“妈妈选手”小威廉姆斯赢得产后复出首秀

Corruption deepens inequality and weakens economic growth, as well as reduces trust in government, undermining the sustainability and proper functioning of the democratic foundations of society and the state. Corruption is estimated to cost the European Union between EUR?179 billion and EUR?990 billion per year, accounting for up to 6% of its GDP (European Union, 2023[1]). Corruption is committed primarily for economic gain, and allows corrupt public officials, their relatives and affiliates to supplement their wealth with public funds.

The fight against corruption is a multifaceted challenge, requiring robust legal frameworks, effective enforcement and sanctioning mechanisms. Confiscation of profits gained through criminal activity is one of the most effective tools and strategies for tackling corruption offenses. It not only ensures that no one benefits from criminal activities and provides justice for the wronged party; it also discourages individuals and companies from engaging in corrupt activities, particularly when penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, are consistently enforced and are made public.

Improving the implementation of confiscation measures is an important step towards a more comprehensive and effective approach to dealing with corruption offenses. In a recent report, the OECD recognised that enhancing national confiscation regimes is a complex issue (OECD, 2024[2]), though comprehensive and efficient regimes have an important role in countering corruption offenses.

Several international legal instruments, such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) (2004[3]) and Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instruments and proceeds of crime in the European Union (European Union, 2014[4]) set standards and best practices in this area. These include the direct confiscation of instruments and proceeds from corruption crimes, as well as the seizure and confiscation of criminal proceeds transformed into derivative property, commingled with legal assets, and registered or transferred to informed third parties. Modern confiscation tools include value-based, extended and non-conviction?based confiscation regimes. Investigations and prosecutions of corruption offenses may encounter legal challenges, such as keeping up with the period of limitations or necessity to seek the lifting of the immunity against prosecution. Both legal concepts assure fair legal processes and protect individual rights within the judicial system, though they need to be balanced with any legal limitations placed on law enforcement to not cause unreasonable impediments to investigating and prosecuting corruption.

In recent years, Kazakhstan has taken steps to reinforce its confiscation regime by enhancing available confiscation tools, which includes introducing a legal framework for civil confiscation. However, there is still substantial potential for improving the relevant legislative framework. Improvements can still be made to confiscation practices under the current confiscation regime, which would contribute to making the implementation of confiscation measures more effective.

The report advocates for a reform of Kazakhstan’s confiscation framework to strengthen anti-corruption efforts. The key recommendations focus on shifting from the current hybrid model to a more robust and clear legal structure that emphasizes both the confiscation of instruments and proceeds from criminal activities, distinct from material evidence. It underscores the need for legislation to explicitly define and treat assets such as instruments (tools and means) of committing crimes as mandatory objects of confiscation, ensuring consistency across all corruption offenses. Moreover, it is recommended that Kazakhstan clearly differentiates between the confiscation of material evidence and the confiscation of proceeds from crime, thereby streamlining law enforcement and judicial processes.

Further, the report emphasizes the importance of enhancing the capacity of investigators, prosecutors, and judges involved in corruption cases through targeted training aligned with the new confiscation model. It suggests that proceedings for non-conviction-based confiscation should be conducted independently of the underlying criminal case, advocating for a “balance of probabilities” standard of proof to facilitate asset confiscation, including assets held in third-party names. This approach aims to broaden the scope of assets subject to confiscation and strengthen enforcement.

In terms of investigative practices, the report highlights the importance of systematically identifying and confiscating instruments and proceeds during investigations. It recommends shifting the focus from damages caused by corruption to the proceeds from corruption offenses itself, providing a more effective basis for confiscation. The confiscation framework should also extend to mixed proceeds and clarify procedures for confiscating assets from informed third parties, ensuring sufficient protection of property rights of bona fide owners. The introduction of extended confiscation measures, inspired by European Union directives, is suggested as a way to enhance asset recovery efforts.

The report stresses the need for stricter sentencing guidelines for severe corruption offenses, advocating for mandatory custodial sentences and the exemption of such offenses from leniency provisions unless justified by exceptional circumstances. It also recommends introducing corporate criminal liability for corruption.

Finally, the current system for collecting and analysing confiscation data requires improvement; collected data should specify the types, values, and total amounts of assets confiscated to enable better monitoring and policy development. Overall, these reforms aim to make Kazakhstan’s anti-corruption measures more effective, transparent, and aligned with international best practices.