Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Human Rights as a Basis for Recovering the Proceeds of Grand Corruption

Human Rights as a Basis for Recovering the Proceeds of Grand Corruption This article examines the problem associated with the reluctance of public officials of states victimised by grand corruption (victim states) to diligently pursue the recovery of plundered national assets located abroad. Traditionally, only the victim state can initiate processes for assets recovery. However, it cannot do so due to the complicity of its public officials in the commission of the underlying predicate and money laundering offences. Consequently, the victim state is deprived of the fair opportunity to recover assets derived from such offences and, ipso facto, such deprivation worsens the inability of the victim state to realise the second-generation rights of its citizens. Relying on the jurisprudence of international human rights, the article argues for the establishment of an alternative assets recovery mechanism. Specifically, it advocates the unilateral participation of states other than victim states (and other entities) in recovering those assets on behalf of the victim state despite the discordance of its officials. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png African Journal of International and Comparative Law Edinburgh University Press

Human Rights as a Basis for Recovering the Proceeds of Grand Corruption

Loading next page...
 
/lp/edinburgh-university-press/human-rights-as-a-basis-for-recovering-the-proceeds-of-grand-KUpQq6Grsl
Publisher
Edinburgh University Press
Copyright
Copyright © American Meteorological Society
ISSN
0954-8890
eISSN
1755-1609
DOI
10.3366/ajicl.2018.0245
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article examines the problem associated with the reluctance of public officials of states victimised by grand corruption (victim states) to diligently pursue the recovery of plundered national assets located abroad. Traditionally, only the victim state can initiate processes for assets recovery. However, it cannot do so due to the complicity of its public officials in the commission of the underlying predicate and money laundering offences. Consequently, the victim state is deprived of the fair opportunity to recover assets derived from such offences and, ipso facto, such deprivation worsens the inability of the victim state to realise the second-generation rights of its citizens. Relying on the jurisprudence of international human rights, the article argues for the establishment of an alternative assets recovery mechanism. Specifically, it advocates the unilateral participation of states other than victim states (and other entities) in recovering those assets on behalf of the victim state despite the discordance of its officials.

Journal

African Journal of International and Comparative LawEdinburgh University Press

Published: Nov 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.