Abstract
This article considers whether statutes providing for confiscation of unexplained wealth and similar civil forfeiture schemes might be constitutionally challenged. One possible basis would be the so-called Kable principle, providing for a strict separation of powers between different arms of government. It might be argued that a court ordering that a person's property be confiscated based on suspected (but unproven) wrongdoing is not a traditional exercise of judicial power.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 18-35 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2012 |
| Externally published | Yes |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The Compatibility of Unexplained Wealth Provisions and Civil Forfeiture Regimes With Kable'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver