View/save PDF version of this document - La Strada International

126 Travaux préparatoires: United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized CrimeRolling text (A/AC.254/4/Rev.5)“Article 7 ter“Disposal of confiscated assets“1. Proceeds of crime or property confiscated by a State Party pursuant toparagraph 1 of article 7 or paragraph 1 of article 7 bis shall be disposed of by thatState Party in accordance with its domestic law and administrative procedures.“[1 bis. When acting on the request made by another State Party in accordancewith article 7 bis of this Convention, States Parties shall, if so requested, give priorityconsideration to returning the confiscated assets to the requesting State Party sothat it can give compensation to the victims of the crime or return such assets to theirlegitimate owners, in accordance with its domestic law.] 1“2. When acting on the request of another State Party in accordance with articles7 and 7 bis, a State Party may give special consideration to concluding agreementson:“(a) Contributing the value of such proceeds and property, or funds derivedfrom the sale of such proceeds or property or a substantial part thereof to intergovernmentalbodies specializing in the fight against organized crime;“(b) Sharing with other States Parties, on a regular or case-by-case basis, suchproceeds or property, or funds derived from the sale of such proceeds or property,in accordance with its domestic law, administrative procedures or bilateral or multilateralagreements entered into for this purpose.”Seventh session: 17-28 January 2000Notes by the Secretariat3. Delegations based their comments on the text of article 7 ter of the revised draftconvention contained in document A/AC.254/4/Rev.6, which was the same as that containedin document A/AC.254/4/Rev.5.1Paragraph 1 bis was proposed by China at the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee (A/AC.254/L.79) and receivedwide support. Japan proposed the addition of the phrase “to the extent permitted by domestic law” at the end of the paragraph.Some delegations proposed inserting the text of this paragraph as subparagraph 2 (c). The Netherlands suggested thatthe purpose of returning the assets should be more general and not necessarily limited to those included in the proposal.China undertook to consider the various comments made on the proposal with a view to reformulating it. Cuba suggestedthat this paragraph should be drafted in a non-mandatory fashion to accommodate countries whose legislation did not permitthe use of confiscated assets for the compensation of victims.