Unexplained wealth order

Capital suggestion

An unexplained wealth order (UWO) is an “order requiring a person to surrender to the State the amount of unexplained wealth of the person.” The seven countries that have adopted UWOs (or some version of it) are Australia, Colombia, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, France and some provinces in Canada.

Australia, Colombia, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, France and some provinces in Canada enacted amendments in their respective criminal codes under which burden of proof was reversed and the state was not required to prove a criminal charge. Some other countries, “under the umbrella of the United Nations Conventions against Corruption (UNCAC), enacted illicit enrichment offenses targeting the proceeds of corruption where the reversed burden of proof is part of the offense but yet apply only to political officials and not to all crimes and individuals…..”

Under UWOs, the burden of proof is shifted to the property owner “who must prove a legitimate source for his wealth.” Under Australia’s Unexplained Wealth Act of 2009, the crown solicitor, upon request of the director of public prosecutions, may apply to the district court for a declaration that a person or an incorporated body has unexplained wealth (appeals against UWO can be made to the Supreme Court). Under the act, “wealth includes all property a person owns or controls, or has previously owned or controlled, and this extends to property acquired before the commencement of the legislation.”

According to Nick Maxwell, head of advocacy and research at Transparency International-United Kingdom, a state using UWO “does not have to first prove a criminal charge, as is the case with conviction-based forfeiture. Likewise, the state does not have to first prove that the property in question is the instrument or proceed of a crime, as is generally the case in rem asset forfeiture. UWO power differs from traditional forfeiture powers in another important respect: they shift the burden of proof to the asset owner who must prove a legitimate source for his or her wealth.”

PM David Cameron, entangled in his own cobweb, announced the launching of “the Global Forum for Asset Recovery bringing together governments and law enforcement agencies to discuss retuning assets to Nigeria, Ukraine, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.”

More recently, there’s been a lot of concern that the “UK, particularly London, had become a place where rich foreigners could buy properties but hide their true ownership.” PM Cameron said that to “stop that [from] happening, foreign firms which own property in the UK must declare their assets in a public register.”

France, Kenya, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Afghanistan, New Zealand, Australia, Jordan, Indonesia, Ireland and Georgia have also “pledged to launch public registers of true company ownership.” Among the tax havens, Jersey, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Anguilla and the Isle of Man have “agreed to join a group of several dozen nations that share their registers with on another (British Virgin Islands has rebuffed Cameron’s calls to publish details of who owns offshore firms).”

Theresa May, UK home secretary, is reportedly going over “changes to the UK’s regulatory regime” that may include “new powers to issue Unexplained Wealth Orders.”

“It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed”– Kim Hubbard

The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad.

Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com Twitter: @saleemfarrukh