Abstract
Aim: As a starting point of our investigation, we chose a real case, which included confiscation of assets and a civil law claim defined by criminal procedural law. This case is unique in a sense that the civil law claim of the aggrieved party, ‘a state institution’ arouse only after the final decision on the confiscation of assets.
Methodology: Our choice fell on this case, because we intend to investigate whether the prohibition of double confiscation, the right for just procedure and the due process of law were violated by the confiscation of assets and the satisfaction of civil law claim.
Findings: In our study we describe the functions and main characteristics of confiscation of assets and civil law claims and we outline the former and actual regulations of these two legal institutions as codified in substantial and procedural law. The examination of the punitive power of Hungarian constitutional state is a topical issue in contemporary research concerning legal literature and jurisprudence. Our examination – as a topical issue – focusses on the question whether there can be any doubt concerning the punitive power of a constitutional state in the 21st century. We examine the collision between the confiscation of assets and civil law claims and – if there any – its influence on legislation and judicature.
Value: Our conclusion is that in a constitutional state – as a result of the prohibition of double confiscation – the detriment of the accused cannot be increased by a dual confiscation, partly to the benefit of the state in the form of confiscation of assets, and partly to the benefit of a so called ’state’ fiscal institution by a civil law claim. The examined legal case illustrates that the basic elements of a constitutional state – especially the due process of law, the right for just procedure – have to be provided by legislation and judicature. This possibility has to be codified in actual Hungarian legal regulations, but its content is the topic of future research.