Law enforcement of the institution of special confiscation: the experience of Europe and North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article gives a comparative legal analysis of the definitions of "confiscation", "special confiscation". Special confiscation means the compulsory free confiscation of certain property by a court decision in the cases specified by law, subject to the commission of a certain criminal offense or socially dangerous act. The introduction of special confiscation as an independent institution of criminal law of Ukraine is a natural stage in the development of domestic criminal law and, in general, is consistent with modern requirements of international law and the practice of special confiscation in foreign countries. The conditions for the application of this measure of criminal law are determined. The characteristics of legal bases and types of property subject to gratuitous confiscation from persons who have committed crimes are given. Comparing the norms on the special confiscatio in the Ukrainian legislation and codes of European countries, Canada and the United States, the most detailed model of such a measure of criminal law was identified. So in the Criminal Code of Canada everything is regulated in detail. Of practical interest is the rule that a person can be warned about the confiscation of his property, only in cases where the court is convinced that he will not transform it (destroy, divide, sell). The German Criminal Code has provisions on the confiscation of criminally obtained property. Yes, if the item cannot be confiscated because it was used or damaged - the court may decide to recover its value, or such recovery may be imposed as additional - ie the item is collected and its value (similar rules are in Ukrainian customs law - when for non-declaration of a certain object transported across the border of Ukraine - the object is confiscated and 100% of its value).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".