Confiscation orders: procedures against drug trafficking offences

Taking the profit out of crime' has been considered as one of the effective countermeasures to drug traffickers in the last decade. A growing interest in various approaches taken to secure the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking offences in order to combat drug trafficking more effectively has resulted in the development of different national and international perspectives. Despite the acknowledgement of the United Nations of the provisions and proceedings for confiscation in late 1980s, some countries have adopted enforcement provisions and powers which are extraordinary wide, considered as either draconian and trespassing with the rights of citizens. At the other end some regard them as weak, inefficient, and lacking effective strength. Unlike many developed countries, Britain has a specific confiscation system for drug trafficking offences (DTA 1994). Some of the provisions of the British confiscation proceedings have been seen as invading individual freedoms and rights. Therefore, the thesis is devoted to examining the British concept and values of confiscation order, highlighting the principles and critiques accompanying its various provisions' development at different stages of the British political, juridical and law enforcement systems. The thesis advances and assesses the similarities and dissimilarities among different systems of confiscation beyond the borders of English and Wales. The aim is to determine the definitions, limitations, credibility and legality of principles, application and practices of confiscation laws perceived by different systems. The American, the Kuwaiti and the Egyptian systems are also chosen as relevant points of variability with respect to the British system. It is within this framework, that the British confiscation system is scrutinised. There is an attempt to expose the strains existing in the system and also finding the best way forward. The current oscillation between either reparation or punishment which seems to occur regularly is believed to be a critical stake and a crucial problem for producing a better understanding of the implications of confiscation orders. Interviews conducted in England and Wales, United States (Washington DC), Kuwait and Egypt have provided a background to confiscation enforcement, revealing the extent of powers, restrictions and difficulties in implementing the order in line with its current principles.