Recital 30

(30) Confiscation should be possible where a final conviction is not possible because of the illness, absconding or death of the suspected or accused person. Confiscation should also be possible where the limitation periods prescribed under national law for the relevant criminal offences are below 15 years and have expired after the criminal proceedings have been initiated. Confiscation in such cases should only be allowed where it would have been possible for the criminal proceedings to lead to a final conviction for a criminal offence in the absence of such circumstances, at least for offences liable to give rise, directly or indirectly, to substantial economic benefit, and where the court is satisfied that the instrumentalities, proceeds or property to be confiscated are derived from or directly or indirectly linked to the criminal offence. In cases of illness and absconding, the existence of proceedings in absentia in Member States should be sufficient to comply with the obligation to enable such confiscation. It is important to recall that international bodies have indicated the potential of confiscation in the absence of a conviction to address the obstacles to confiscation of illicit gains due to immunity and amnesty.

← Recital 29 · All articles · Recital 31 →

Source: EUR-Lex CELLAR · retrieved 2026-09-04 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.