Article
Mar 31
Back

WHETHER THE RIGHT OF PURSUIT IS CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY INTEREST PROTECTIBLE AGAINST THE STATE I PART

Nenad Tešić

10.5937/AnaliPFB1801159T
ABSTRACT /

The author, in this paper, is looking for Ariadne’s thread, which would help us to find the way through the lеgal labyrinth composed of justified reaction of the state in the war against organized crime, from one side and what is considered an appropriate protection of secured creditors subjective rights, from the other side.

He points out that in resolving a dilemma, does the mortgagee have the right to enforce its debt against the Republic of Serbia (right of pursuit), in case if the extended confiscation of property (proceeds of crime) includes subject-matter of mortgage, the court should take into account does the mortgagee know or should know about criminal origins of encumbered assets.

The court should evaluate a good faith of the mortgagee, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case, especially:

1)  The moment of a mortgage establishment, i.e. whether the registration of mortgage is prior in time to the initiation of a property freezing procedure;

2)  Overall business and other relations between mortgagee and mortgagor, i.e. are these parties associated in any other way?

3)  Objective changes in the economic position of mortgagee and mortgagor, i.e. is the security agreement true or simulated, in particular, whether the value of the secured claim actually enhanced the property of the mortgagor and at what consideration.

DOWNLOAD COMPLETE ARTICLE /
Serbian (cyr)  
REFERENCES /
  • Gluščević, J., Oduzimanje imovine stečene krivičnim delom, doktorska disertacija) Beograd 2015.
  • Govedarica, M., Vujić, D., „Uporednopravni sistemi oduzimanja nezakonite imovine sagledani kroz odluke Evropskog suda za ljudska prava“, Pravna riječ 33/2012.
  • Hart, P. G., „International asset of corruption related asset recovery, Switzerland“, Recovering Stolen Assets (ed. M. Pieth), Peter Lang, Bern 2008.
  • Henzelin, M., Giroud, S., Rordorf, H., „Switzerland“, Getting the Deal Through, Asset Recovery 2015 (eds. J. Tic-kner, S. Gabriel), Law Business Research Ltd, London 2014.
  • Kilchling, M., „Finance – orientied strategies of organized crime control“, The Oxford Handbook of Organized Crime (ed. L. Paoli), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014.
  • Kokolj, M., Lazin, Đ., Imovinske krivične sankcije i mere u jugoslovenskom krivičnom pravu, Beograd 1986.
  • Lajić, O., „O pravnoj prirodi instituta oduzimanja imovine pro-
  • istekle iz krivičnog dela“, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakul­teta u Novom Sadu 2/2010.
  • Lajić, O., „Uporedni pregled sistema za istraživanje i oduzimanje imovine stečene kriminalom“, Zbornik radova Pravnog fa­kulteta u Novom Sadu 2/2012.
  • Lajić, O., „Ima li alternativu oduzimanje imovine stečene krimi­nalom koje se sprovodi u krivičnom postupku?“, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu 2/2013.
  • Levi, M., „Taking the Profit Out of Crime: The UK Experience, Cardiff: University of Wales“, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 5, 3/1997.
  • Lukić, R., Košutić, B., Uvod u pravo, Beograd 2004. (Lukić, R., Košutić, B., Uvod u pravo, Beograd 2004)
  • Lukić, N., Suzbijanje organizovanog kriminaliteta, Komparativni pristup, Beograd 2014.
  • Matthews, M., „Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Constitution“, Institu­te for Policy Innovation Ideas 70/2016, http://www.ipi.org/docLib/20160218_CivilAssetForfeitureFinal.pdf, 28. jun 2017.
  • Nikšić, S., „Imovina u građanskom pravu“, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 62, 5–6/2012.
  • Petrou, P., „Note, Due Process Implications of Shifting the Burden of Proof in Forfeiture Proceedings Arising out of Illegal Drug Transactions“, Duke Law Journal 4/1984.
  • Perišić, J., „Oduzimanje imovine stečene krivičnim delom sa posebnim osvrtom na uticaj odluke o oduzimanju imovine na porodicu okrivljenog“, Pravo – teorija i praksa 28, 1–3/2011.
  • Phelps, B. K., Rhode, S., „The battle over forfeited assets: Third party claims and cooperation agreements“, The Ponzi Book: A Legal resourse for unraveling Ponzi Shemes, LexisNexis, 2012.
  • Popović, D., Ilić Popov, G., „Odnos poreskog i privatnog prava“, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 1/2016.
  • Pradel, Ž., Komparativno krivično pravo, Sankcije, Pravni fa­kultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd 2009.
  • Sackett, R. M., „The Impact of Austin v. United States: Extending Constitutional Protections to Claimants in Civil Forfeiture Proceedings“, Golden Gate University Law Review 24, 2/1994.
  • Simović, M. N., Jovašević, D., „Pojam, vrste i svrha kazni u Re­publici Srpskoj“, Pravne teme 2, 3/2014.
  • Stahl, M. B., „Asset Forfeiture, Burdens of Proof and the War on Drugs“, Journal of Criminal Law and Crimino-logy 83, 2/1992.
  • Stojanović, D., Antić, O., Uvod u građansko pravo, Beograd 2004.
  • Stojanović, Z., Kolarić, D., Krivičnopravno suzbijanje organizovanog kriminaliteta terorizma i korupcije, Beograd 2014.
  • Stojanović, Z., Krivično pravo, Beograd 2015.
  • Stone, J. R., The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations: The Illitera­ti’s Guide to Latin Maxims, Mottoes, Pro-verbs, and Sayings, Routledge, New York  London 2005.
  • Tanjević, N., „Reformisanje mere oduzimanja imovinske koristi“, Bezbednost 52, 3/2010.
  • Škulić, M., Organizovani kriminalitet, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd 2002.
  • Vićentijević, M., „Zakon o oduzimanju imovine proistekle iz krivičnih dela i razlika u odnosu na prethodni sistem oduzimanja imovine stečene kriminalom“, Bilten sudske prakse Vrhovnog suda Srbije 3/2009.
  • Vodinelić, V., Građansko pravo, Uvod u građansko pravo i Opšti deo građanskog prava, Beograd 2012.
  • Vrekić, D., Mera oduzimanja imovinske koristi u krivičnom pravu, Novi Sad 1997.