(Adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 8, 2010)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
HAVING SEEN the Final Report of the Forty-Sixth Regular Session of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), held in Miami, Florida, from November 18 to 20, 2009 (CICAD/doc.1780/09); and
That the CICAD Model Regulations on Money Laundering Offenses Connected to Illicit Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Offenses are an important document in the development of a coordinated response to illicit drug trafficking and related offenses;
That the CICAD Model Regulations depend on the contribution of the member states to continue to be a dynamic, current, and relevant document; and
That the Commission has approved the above-mentioned amendments to the Model Regulations,
1. To take note with satisfaction of the Final Report of the Forty-Sixth Regular Session of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), held in Miami, Florida, from November 18 to 20, 2009 (CICAD/doc.1780/09), which approves amendments to the Model Regulations on Money Laundering Offenses Connected to Illicit Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Offenses.
2. To adopt the amendments to the Model Regulations on Money Laundering Offenses Connected to Illicit Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Offenses approved by the Commission at its forty-sixth regular session concerning the measures related to Seizure of Abandoned or Unclaimed Assets in the Process, as follows:
“Article 9. FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY, PROCEEDS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES
1. When a person is convicted of a money laundering offense, the financing of terrorism, or an offense included in the definition of serious criminal activity, the court or competent authority shall order that the property, proceeds or instrumentalities connected to such an offense be forfeited and disposed of in accordance with the law.
2. When the objective circumstances of the case permit the competent authority to reasonably infer the illicit origin or destination of assets, it shall also order in the sentence of conviction the forfeiture of such assets, unless the convicted person has demonstrated their legal origin.
3. Objective circumstances of the case shall include, among others, those circumstances relating to the time or manner of acquisition, personal characteristics, economic characteristics, the convicted person’s ordinary sphere of activities, or any other circumstances deemed relevant.
4. When, as a result of any act or omission of the person convicted, any of the property, proceeds or instrumentalities described in this Article cannot be forfeited, the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the person convicted, for an equivalent value or shall order the person convicted to pay a fine of such value. States should establish clear legal procedures to order forfeiture if, after appropriate notice, a person fails to claim the assets within the time period to protect his interest in the property. The competent authority may issue a final decision ordering definitive forfeiture when: (a) if after a reasonable period of time from the seizure of the asset, it has not been possible to identify the owner of the assets or the author or perpetrator of the act, or that person has abandoned the assets; (b) if after a reasonable period of time from the end of the criminal proceeding persons who might have a legitimate legal interest in the assets have made no effort to claim the assets. In any of these cases, due process of law should be followed in order to guarantee rights of persons with an interest in the property.”