Confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of corruption crimes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

beneficial property
, although in the context of the duty to declare assets by persons authorised 
to perform functions of the state and of local self-government. 
Extremely narrow definition for ‘beneficial owner’ is set forth in the Law of 
Kyrgyzstan
on Anti-Money 
Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing dated 31 July 2006, which provides the following definition: 
beneficial owner (the beneficiary) - a person who has the right of ownership of cash assets or property on 
behalf and / or on account of which the client performs operation (transaction) with cash assets or property, 
or in accordance with the agreement between such person and the client has may directly or indirectly 
influence the commission of client operations (transactions) with cash assets or property. 
Predominantly, the legislation of the ACN countries does not separately regulate the grounds and procedure 
for applying confiscation with respect to beneficiary property. As part of questionnaire survey, a number of 
countries noted that, according to their legislation, beneficial owner’s right to derive benefits from securities 
or other financial instrument may not be the object of confiscation (Latvia, Slovenia, and others). Some 
countries indicated that such confiscation is possible based on the general provisions for confiscation of the 
instrumentalities and proceeds of corruption offences and profits thereof. For example, in 
Lithuania
, 
beneficial owner’s right may be the object of confiscation, subject to adherence to the general conditions of 
confiscation envisaged in Articles 72, 72-3 and part 6 of Article 230 (for cases of bribery) of the Criminal 
Code of Lithuania.
F. Third-party property 
The instrumentalities used to commit offences and the proceeds derived from corruption offences that belong 
to 
third parties
, who usually act as the 
nominal owners
, may be objects of confiscation. 
The Directive 2014/42/EU lays a special emphasis on the confiscation of items from the nominal owners. In 
particular, according to paragraph 24 of the Preamble, the practice by a suspected or accused person of 
transferring property to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and 
increasingly widespread.
The current EU legal framework does not contain binding rules on the confiscation of property transferred 
to third parties. It is therefore becoming increasingly necessary to allow for the confiscation of property 
transferred to or acquired by third parties. Acquisition by a third party refers to situations where, for example, 
property has been acquired, directly or indirectly (for example through an intermediary), by the third party 
from a suspected or accused person, including when the criminal offence has been committed on their behalf 
or for their benefit, and when an accused person does not have property that can be confiscated.
The rules on third party confiscation should extend to both