EU Asset Recovery: Successes and Challenges in Malta

Malta has made significant strides in implementing EU asset recovery measures, but the process is not without its challenges. This article will highlight both the benefits and limitations of these instruments, as well as the key issues that arise when confiscation orders are issued against individuals who have not been tried or found guilty of any offense.

Successes and Limitations

Malta’s experience with mutual recognition of confiscation orders and exchange of information between national Asset Recovery Offices has shown both the benefits and limitations of these instruments. The country’s Customs Ordinance provides for automatic forfeiture of criminal assets, regardless of whether the proprietor is involved in the offense or not.

Challenges in Implementing EU Asset Recovery Measures

However, practical difficulties arise when implementing and applying asset recovery instruments at the domestic level. Language barriers and translation difficulties can hinder the execution of mutual recognition between member states. Clearer definitions and judicial training are essential to reduce errors in the application of local norms giving effect to Malta’s international obligations.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

The EAW has been successful in achieving notable results, but further action is needed to address legal issues. The EAW raises concerns about proportionality and fair trials. Rules must be streamlined to ensure that this procedure is reserved for serious offenses, and individuals surrendered under the EAW should be guaranteed a fair trial.

Challenges with European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

From a domestic perspective, Maltese cases have shown that executing an EAW can lead to unnecessary delays and physical overstay in Malta, causing distress to individuals subject to the warrant. Possible solutions include introducing an obligation for authorities to declare reasons for returning an individual where the facts for which they were requested have been remedied or where the punishment would be disproportionate.

European Evidence Warrant (EEW)

The EEW has also faced challenges, with few countries implementing it due to concerns about sovereignty and control over things and persons. Political mistrust of other member states’ judicial systems and practical considerations have hindered its successful application.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Malta has made progress in asset recovery, the process is complex and fraught with challenges. Addressing these issues will require a balance between sanctioning criminal offenses and protecting citizens from the overwhelming effects of EAWs and similar instruments.

Key Points:

• Malta’s experience with mutual recognition of confiscation orders highlights both benefits and limitations.
• Language barriers and translation difficulties can hinder the execution of mutual recognition between member states.
• Clearer definitions and judicial training are essential to reduce errors in applying local norms giving effect to Malta’s international obligations.
• The EAW raises concerns about proportionality and fair trials.
• Rules must be streamlined to ensure that the EAW is reserved for serious offenses, and individuals surrendered under the EAW should be guaranteed a fair trial.