Search results

Cover -- Title Page -- Contents -- List of Contributors -- Introduction: Criminal versus Quasi-criminal Enforcement - Setting the Scene -- PART I: THE ORIGINS OF QUASI-CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS: A COMPARATIVE JOURNEY THROUGH EUROPE -- 1. The Origin and Development of Quasi-criminal Enforcement Mechanisms in Europe: Nordic Perspective -- 2. Swiss Peculiarities of the Enforcement Mechanisms in Core, Secondary and Administrative Criminal Law -- 3. Quasi-criminal Enforcement Mechanisms in Germany: Past and Present -- 4. Quasi-criminal Sanctions in Central Europe - Their Origins and Evolution -- 5. The Interplay between Criminal and Quasi-criminal Enforcement Mechanisms in the UK Context Explored through the Prism of 'Market Abuse': Current Approaches and Historical Perspectives -- PART II: CRIMINAL, CIVIL, ADMINISTRATIVE … WHAT'S IN A NAME? DISENTANGLING CONCEPTS, SELECTED TOPICS -- A. General Part of Criminal Law -- 6. Quasi-criminal Enforcement in Criminal Law and Penal Theory: What Would Herbert Packer Say? -- 7. Four Dimensions of Nulla Poena Sine Culpa: The Principle of Individual Culpability in Contexts of Criminal and Quasi-criminal Law Enforcement in Europe -- 8. Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Moving the Confiscation of Criminal Proceeds from the Criminal to the 'Civil' Sphere: Benefits, Issues and Two Procedural Aspects -- B. Special Part of Criminal Law -- 9. 'Crimmigration' and Human Rights: Immigration Detention at the European Court of Human Rights -- 10. Cartel Offences: Quasi-criminal Enforcement for Criminal Behaviour? -- 11. Protection of Procedural Rights in Administrative and Criminal Proceedings: The Case of the Privilege against Self-incrimination in Belgian Customs Law -- PART III: TOWARD A MORE COHERENT TERMINOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK IN EUROPE.

La procédure pénale est actuellement prise d?une frénésie de changements dont les meilleures pages sont encore à écrire. Il demeure que les modifications se sont déjà multipliées, tous azimuts, et que le temps est venu, au milieu du gué, de s?arrêter pour examiner, expliquer, commenter et synthétiser ce grand balancier. La présente CUP a décidé de mettre le justiciable au centre des préoccupations. Le voilà ce justiciable, tantôt suspect, tantôt victime, tantôt précarisé pour se défendre à devoir se mouvoir dans un maquis de normes, en prise avec diverses institutions: la loi ± Salduz ? appelle des commentaires, la loi transposant la directive victimes a bien digéré l?impératif européen, l?aide juridique dans ses applications en matière pénale constitue plus une régression qu?une progression. Certaines procédures pénales posent problème: la détention préventive reste un caillou dans la chaussure du système pénal, la loi ± pot-pourri II ? a secoué l?information et l?instruction, les nouvelles mesures d'enquête concernant internet introduites par la loi du 25 décembre 2016 donnent le tournis et la loi ± pot-pourri II ? dans la matière des voies de recours réduit les garanties comme peau de chagrin

Current challenges in economic and financial criminal law in Europe and the US / Katalin Ligeti and Vanessa Franssen -- Prosecutors and judges as corporate monitors? the US experience / Bruce Zagaris -- The necessity of compliance programmes under German law : burden or blessing / Alexander Cappel -- Detecting economic and financial crime : a special toolkit of investigation techniques in Luxembourg / Jeannot Nies -- The role of whistleblowing and leniency in detecting and preventing economic and financial crime : a game of give and take? / Christopher Harding -- Negotiated justice : balancing efficiency and procedural safeguards / Sabine Gless and Nadine Zurkinden -- Cooperation between administrative authorities in transnational multi-agency investigations in the EU: still a long road ahead to mutual recognition? / Lothar Kuhl -- Jurisdictional issues in transnational multi-agency and multi-disciplinary investigations of economic and financial crimes / John Vervaele -- Transnational multi-disciplinary investigations and the quest for compatible procedural safeguards / Michiel Luchtman -- The consecutive application of different types of sanctions and the principle of Ne bis in idem : the EU and the US on different tracks? / Martin base -- Challenges in the field of economic and financial crime from a European perspective / Jeroen Blomsma -- Enforcing prudential banking regulations in the Eurozone : a reading from the viewpoint of criminal law / Silvia Allegrezza and Ioannis Rodopoulos -- Strategy of integrated enforcement : the UK competition and markets authority / Stephen Blake

The European Public Prosecutor's Office (hereafter EPPO) was established by way of enhanced cooperation, with the adoption of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (hereafter EPPO Regulation). It has the power to conduct criminal investigations and to directly act as the prosecuting authority before national criminal courts, which is revolutionary. Interestingly, the EPPO Regulation does not explicitly regulate the relation between the EPPO and national judges at the pre-trial stage, who may intervene punctually or, in some cases, even conduct the investigation. Indeed, some civil law systems have a system of shared investigative competences between the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, meaning that the latter conducts a judicial inquiry, while the former is responsible for the prosecution. This raises the delicate question whether a judicial inquiry is compatible with the EPPO Regulation. This article analyses this question, which hugely impacts the implementation of the EPPO, with respect to the Belgian legal system, based on a close reading of the EPPO Regulation and taking into account its drafting history. It will argue that the EPPO Regulation is not per se irreconcilable with a judicial inquiry as the Member States did not wish the EPPO Regulation to alter the way in which criminal investigations are organised at national level. Subsequently, it will examine how an EPPO investigation conducted by an investigating judge can practically function. While the analysis concentrates on Belgium, the underlying reasoning may also be useful for other Member States with a similar legal system. ; Peer reviewed