New Bill in Costa Rica Targets Seizing Assets from Suspected Illegal Activities
The legislation enables prosecution to freeze financial assets with reasonable suspicion of illicit origin, following modifications in the Legislative Assembly.
A recent legislative initiative in Costa Rica has advanced through the Assembly, proposing significant measures for the seizure of assets identified as having no apparent legitimate origin.
This bill empowers the Ministry of Public Prosecutions to request the freezing of financial assets when there is reasonable suspicion that individuals have acquired them through illegal activities.
The Ministry of Public Prosecutions can now petition the Administrative Contentious Court for a preliminary precautionary measure aimed at securing, confiscating, preserving, or verifying goods and financial products deemed suspicious in origin.
This applies to public officials, private individuals, and legal entities.
Such legal provisions can be invoked when investigators identify sufficient elements indicating that the assets of interest in judicial investigations may be concealed or diverted from authorities.
The law stipulates that only the Public Prosecutor's Office may request these precautionary measures, following alterations in the Assembly that removed the ability for the General Comptroller of the Republic and the Costa Rican Drug Institute to make such requests.
However, both agencies retain the capacity to participate in judicial processes as auxiliary parties.
Notably, the legislation removed a previous threshold of $50,000 for initiating asset freezes, thus granting investigators discretion to proceed with asset seizures based solely on the suspicion of unexplained capital accumulation.
In October 2024, members of parliament consulted the Constitutional Court regarding potential infringements on fundamental rights, including the presumption of innocence and property rights.
The Court identified a constitutional flaw in one specific article, which lacked adequate provisions for the right to defense and due process.
This provision allowed notifications regarding the transfer of complaints to be made through any means established by the affected parties, even before formal legal proceedings commenced, leading to concerns regarding the effective communication of pertinent asset questions.
With respect to other aspects of the bill, no constitutional issues were detected.
Upon the approval and freezing of contested assets, a three-day period is mandated for a hearing involving all parties, wherein a judge will decide based on evidence whether to maintain, modify, or revoke the precautionary measure.
Additionally, the Public Prosecutor's Office is required to file the corresponding complaint against the public official or private individual within one calendar month.
Notification of the complaint will be delivered either through the individual’s representative, personally at their residence, or at the actual address of the concerned party.
If necessary, the judicial authority may request assistance from the Judicial Investigation Agency to facilitate the notification process and may order the detention and appearance of the individual to conduct judicial proceedings.
The Assembly narrowly voted to amend the bill to rectify the identified constitutional issue, facilitating its progression towards final approval.
This bill empowers the Ministry of Public Prosecutions to request the freezing of financial assets when there is reasonable suspicion that individuals have acquired them through illegal activities.
The Ministry of Public Prosecutions can now petition the Administrative Contentious Court for a preliminary precautionary measure aimed at securing, confiscating, preserving, or verifying goods and financial products deemed suspicious in origin.
This applies to public officials, private individuals, and legal entities.
Such legal provisions can be invoked when investigators identify sufficient elements indicating that the assets of interest in judicial investigations may be concealed or diverted from authorities.
The law stipulates that only the Public Prosecutor's Office may request these precautionary measures, following alterations in the Assembly that removed the ability for the General Comptroller of the Republic and the Costa Rican Drug Institute to make such requests.
However, both agencies retain the capacity to participate in judicial processes as auxiliary parties.
Notably, the legislation removed a previous threshold of $50,000 for initiating asset freezes, thus granting investigators discretion to proceed with asset seizures based solely on the suspicion of unexplained capital accumulation.
In October 2024, members of parliament consulted the Constitutional Court regarding potential infringements on fundamental rights, including the presumption of innocence and property rights.
The Court identified a constitutional flaw in one specific article, which lacked adequate provisions for the right to defense and due process.
This provision allowed notifications regarding the transfer of complaints to be made through any means established by the affected parties, even before formal legal proceedings commenced, leading to concerns regarding the effective communication of pertinent asset questions.
With respect to other aspects of the bill, no constitutional issues were detected.
Upon the approval and freezing of contested assets, a three-day period is mandated for a hearing involving all parties, wherein a judge will decide based on evidence whether to maintain, modify, or revoke the precautionary measure.
Additionally, the Public Prosecutor's Office is required to file the corresponding complaint against the public official or private individual within one calendar month.
Notification of the complaint will be delivered either through the individual’s representative, personally at their residence, or at the actual address of the concerned party.
If necessary, the judicial authority may request assistance from the Judicial Investigation Agency to facilitate the notification process and may order the detention and appearance of the individual to conduct judicial proceedings.
The Assembly narrowly voted to amend the bill to rectify the identified constitutional issue, facilitating its progression towards final approval.
