New Zealand government withdraws asset forfeiture bill
{{date|July 17, 2006}}
{{New Zealand}}

The New Zealand government has withdrawn its [http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/bills/20052791.txt Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill] from Parliament, putting on hold its plans to introduce a non-conviction-based [[w:Asset forfeiture|asset forfeiture]] regime.

The bill was introduced to [[w:Parliament of New Zealand|Parliament]] in June last year, and was removed from the Parliamentary [http://publications.clerk.parliament.govt.nz.clients.intergen.net.nz/Attachments/OrderPaper.pdf Order Paper] in the last week, before it had even received a first reading vote.

A spokesperson for the Minister of Justice refused to give a reason for the bill's withdrawal, saying only that there were "a couple of procedural issues that need to be dealt with". 

The bill would establish a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture regime, which would allow the government to confiscate the assets of those suspected of involvement in serious crime. Suspected criminals would be required to prove on the balance of probabilities that their assets were legally acquired or else forfeit them to the crown. No criminal conviction would be required. 

The scheme has attracted criticism from both sides of the House, with the [[w:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand|Green Party]] calling it "an affront to the principles of justice and law", and the [[w:New Zealand National Party|National Party]] demanding a much tougher regime. Given the stated positions of parties on the bill, the most likely reason for its withdrawal is that the government does not have a majority to pass it in its present form.

== Sources ==

*{{source|url=http://publications.clerk.parliament.govt.nz.clients.intergen.net.nz/Attachments/OrderPaper.pdf | title=Order Paper | author= |pub=NZ House of Representatives |date=July 18, 2006}}
*{{source|url=http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=23431 | title=New Bill will reap millions from gangs | author= |pub=New Zealand Government |date=June 21, 2005}}
*{{source|url=http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR8845.html | title=Criminal Proceeds Bill draconian and dangerous | author= |pub=Green Party |date=June 21, 2005}}
*{{source|url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3613402 | title=Assets seizure plan undermines justice, say Greens | author= |pub=New Zealand Herald |date=November 24, 2004}}
*{{source|url=http://www.policeassn.org.nz/communications/newspdf/aug05.pdf | title=What the political parties say about police numbers and where they feel asset seizure should be vested | author= |pub=Police News |date=August, 2005}}

{{Original}}
{{Publish}}
{{Archive-unreviewed}}

[[Category:New Zealand]]
[[category:Oceania]]
[[category:Crime and law]]
[[category:Politics and conflicts]]
The New Zealand government has withdrawn its  Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill from Parliament, putting on hold its plans to introduce a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture regime.

The bill was introduced to Parliament in June last year, and was removed from the Parliamentary  Order Paper in the last week, before it had even received a first reading vote.

A spokesperson for the Minister of Justice refused to give a reason for the bill's withdrawal, saying only that there were "a couple of procedural issues that need to be dealt with". 

The bill would establish a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture regime, which would allow the government to confiscate the assets of those suspected of involvement in serious crime. Suspected criminals would be required to prove on the balance of probabilities that their assets were legally acquired or else forfeit them to the crown. No criminal conviction would be required. 

The scheme has attracted criticism from both sides of the House, with the Green Party calling it "an affront to the principles of justice and law", and the National Party demanding a much tougher regime. Given the stated positions of parties on the bill, the most likely reason for its withdrawal is that the government does not have a majority to pass it in its present form.
New Zealand