Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2017 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Vieira, Roberto D???Oliveira
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Cordeiro, Nefi
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Cat??lica de Bras??lia
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa Strictu Sensu em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Escola de Humanidade e Direito
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Resumo em Inglês: |
This study aims to make an analysis of the extended confiscation pending in Congress. To face that issue, the structure of the Draft Law n?? 4.850/2016 (DL) and the evolution of the institute in comparative law from de Merida and Palermo Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances to the current consolidation with the Directive 2014/42/EU are presented. Portugal was selected as parameters for analyzes the draft because of the similarity. The conclusion, in the view of the study, indicates some imperfect approach on DL 4.850/2016 regarding the definition of the evidential standard, the reversal of the burden of proof, the negative points of the proceeds chosen burden of proof and finally to forecast state agency specialized for the specific purpose of performing equity research. The Draft is in line with international guidance when presenting the list of crimes that allow extended confiscation application. |
| Link de acesso: |
https://bdtd.ucb.br:8443/jspui/handle/tede/2337
|
Resumo: |
This study aims to make an analysis of the extended confiscation pending in Congress. To face that issue, the structure of the Draft Law n?? 4.850/2016 (DL) and the evolution of the institute in comparative law from de Merida and Palermo Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances to the current consolidation with the Directive 2014/42/EU are presented. Portugal was selected as parameters for analyzes the draft because of the similarity. The conclusion, in the view of the study, indicates some imperfect approach on DL 4.850/2016 regarding the definition of the evidential standard, the reversal of the burden of proof, the negative points of the proceeds chosen burden of proof and finally to forecast state agency specialized for the specific purpose of performing equity research. The Draft is in line with international guidance when presenting the list of crimes that allow extended confiscation application. |
