Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>
Sender:
Steve Hedley
Date:
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:25:27 +0100
Re:
Tracing Into Proceeds of Illegal Investments

 

At 18:30 23/04/2003 +0100, Andrew Tettenborn wrote:

Isn't one answer to Steve this: the policy against allowing me to benefit from my own sin is (or should be) stronger than that against allowing me to benefit from someone else's? I know most confiscation legislation doesn't accept this & says that no-one is allowed to possess property that they know has ever been involved in illegality by anyone: but instinctively there's a good deal to be said for the distinction. For instance, we often say criminals shouldn't be allowed to cash in by writing books about their misdoings: but presumably we don't say the same about crime writers. If so, it begins to look a good deal less odd that I should have a claim against the coke-dealer for his ill-gotten gains.

Well, this has nothing to do with the point I raised -- My point was rather the lack of a positive reason why the claimant should be able to get the money. It doesn't matter how badly the defendant deserves to lose it, if there is no reason why the claimant should get it. Public policy only comes into the matter once we have established some such reason.

But it's an interesting question anyway, of who we regard as "profiting from the crime of another". Insurance companies, police officers, criminal barristers, and crime writers all make their money from the crime of others -- if there were no crime, they would all have to take up quite different jobs. Yet we don't regard them as "profiting from the crime of another" for legal purposes, whereas (say) the recipient of a gift from a career criminal probably would be. This distinction is intuitively appealing, but I'm finding it hard to put into words, and Andrew's formulation certainly doesn't explain it. How would someone else put it?

 

Steve Hedley

=============================================
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

ansaphone : +44 1223 334931
www.stevehedley.com
fax : +44 1223 334967

Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU
=============================================


<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !