1997-06-06
Article 44
§ 1. The court imposes the forfeiture of items that have been derived directly from a crime.
§ 2. The court may impose, and in the situations prescribed by a statute is obliged to impose, the forfeiture of items that have served to commit a crime or have been intended to serve in the commission of a crime.
§ 3. If the imposition of the forfeiture prescribed by § 2 would be incommensurate with the gravity of the committed crime, the court may impose punitive damages for the benefit of the State Treasury instead of the forfeiture.
§ 4. If the imposition of the forfeiture prescribed by § 1 or 2 is not possible, the court may impose the forfeiture of the equivalent-in-value of the items that have been derived directly from a crime, have served to commit a crime or have been intended to serve in the commission of a crime.
§ 5. Forfeiture of the items referred to in § 1 or 2 is not imposed if they are to be returned to a harmed party or another entitled entity.
§ 6. While sentencing for a crime consisting in violation of prohibition of producing, possession, distribution, transferring, carrying or transportation of specific items, the court may impose their forfeiture, and in the situations prescribed by a statute is obliged to impose their forfeiture.
§ 7. If the items referred to in § 2 or § 6 are not the property of the perpetrator, their forfeiture may be imposed only in situations prescribed by a statute; in case of a joint ownership, the forfeiture applies to a share belonging to the perpetrator or its equivalent-in-value.
Article 44a
§ 1. While sentencing for a crime from the commission of which the perpetrator has even indirectly gained a material benefit of substantial value, the court may impose the forfeiture of a business organisation that is the property of the perpetrator, or of its equivalent-in-value, if the business organisation has served to commit the crime or to conceal a material benefit gained from the crime.
§ 2. While sentencing for a crime from the commission of which the perpetrator has even indirectly gained a material benefit of substantial value, the court may impose the forfeiture of business organisation that is not the property of the perpetrator but of another individual, or of its equivalent-in-value, if the business organisation has served to commit the crime or to conceal a material benefit gained from the crime, and the owner had wanted the business organisation to serve in committing the crime or concealing a material benefit gained from the crime or, foreseeing such possibility, had accepted it.
§ 3. In case of a joint ownership, the forfeiture provided for in § 1 and 2 is imposed by taking into account and within the limits of the will and awareness of each co-owner.
§ 4. The forfeiture provided for in § 1 and 2 is not imposed if it would be incommensurate with the gravity of the committed crime, the perpetrator's degree of fault or the motivation and manner of conduct of the owner of the business organisation.
§ 5. The forfeiture provided for in § 1 and 2 is not imposed if the value of the damage inflicted by a crime or concealed benefit is not substantial in comparison to scale of operation of the business organisation.
§ 6. The court may waive the imposition of the forfeiture provided for in § 2 also in other exceptional situations when the forfeiture would be incommensurately onerous for the owner of the business organisation.
Article 45
§ 1. If the perpetrator has even indirectly gained a material benefit from committing a crime that is not subject to the forfeiture of the items referred to in art. 44 § 1 or § 6, the court imposes the forfeiture of such benefit or of its equivalent-in-value. Forfeiture is not imposed with regard to the full benefit or with regard to a part of it, if the benefit or its equivalent-in-value is to be returned to a harmed party or another entity.
§ 1a. It is deemed that proceeds from the items and rights composing a material benefit gained from a crime also constitute a material benefit gained from a crime.
§ 2. While sentencing for a crime from the commission of which a material benefit of substantial value has been even indirectly gained, or for a crime subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty with an upper limit of at least 5 years, from commission of which a material benefit has been or may have been even indirectly gained, or for a crime committed in an organised criminal group or organised criminal association aiming at perpetrating crimes, it is deemed that the property which the perpetrator has taken possession of, or has acquired entitlement to, within a period of 5 years before committing a crime until the moment of passing of even a non-final sentence, constitutes a benefit derived from the commission of the crime, unless the perpetrator or another interested person proves otherwise.
§ 3. If a property constituting a benefit derived from committing a crime referred to in § 2 has been, effectively or under any legal title, transferred to another natural person, juridical person or organisational entity without a legal personality, it is deemed that the items remaining in the autonomous possession of that person or organisational entity, and other property rights that person is entitled to, belong to the perpetrator, unless the circumstances attendant to the acquisition of such property could not have given rise to the assumption that it has been even indirectly obtained by means of a prohibited act
§ 4. (repealed).
§ 5. In case of a joint ownership, the forfeiture applies to a share belonging to the perpetrator or its equivalent-in-value.
Article 45a
§ 1. The court may impose the forfeiture when the social harmfulness of an act is negligible, and also while conditionally discontinuing the criminal proceedings or establishing that the perpetrator has committed a prohibited act in a state of insanity referred to in art. 31 § 1, (Art. 31. § 1.Whoever, while committing an act, was incapable of either recognising the significance of his act, or controlling his conduct due to a mental illness, mental impairment or other disturbance of mental functions, does not commit a crime) or when the circumstances excluding the imposition of punishment upon the perpetrator of a prohibited act have been established.
§ 2. If the gathered evidence indicate that in case of conviction the forfeiture would have been imposed, the court may impose it also in case of the death of the perpetrator, discontinuation of the proceedings due to failure to detect the perpetrator, and also in case of suspension of the proceedings due to failure to apprehend the perpetrator or the perpetrator's inability to participate in the proceedings resulting from a mental illness or another serious illness.
