aazad.mubassir
Minister (2k+ posts)
LAHORE: During the last 15 years, Switzerland has repatriated $1.7 billion (or more than one-third of the $5 billion amount deposited within its banking system) to the countries of origin, reveals the website of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
The website of this key Swiss state department further reads: “Internationally renowned experts acknowledge that a few other countries have contributed as much to this cause in recent years. Although Switzerland’s financial centre only ranks seventh in the world, Switzerland is a leader when it comes to the restitution of stolen assets. No other country has done as much as Switzerland in this field in recent years. For the last 20 years, the Federal Council has taken care, as a matter of principle, to systematically exclude assets of illicit origin from the Swiss financial centre. If, despite the various precautionary measures, illicit assets do arrive in Switzerland, they must be identified by the relevant judicial authorities and returned to their country of origin.”
The website goes on to contend: “Some cases are especially difficult to resolve, notably due to the failure of the relevant institutions of the state from which the funds originate. For cases such as these, Switzerland recently enacted a new law, the Restitution of Illicit Assets Act (RIAA, SR 196.1), which sets out the procedures for freezing, forfeiture and restitution of the assets of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and is intended to apply when a request for international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters cannot succeed owing to lack of action on the part of the state in which the PEP performs, or has performed, his public functions.”
The website of this vital Swiss government department explains that the objective of the Federal Council in this regard is to ensure that the legitimate owners of these assets are discovered by the judge and that any eventual unlawfully acquired assets could be returned to the state in question. The idea is to encourage the countries of asset origin to submit their requests for legal assistance. The freezing of assets immediately follows the promulgation of an ordinance and then, these ordinances enacted by the Swiss Federal Council are accompanied by an appendix containing the names of the individuals, companies and organisations subject to the freeze order.
However, the appendices to these ordinances are established on the basis of the information available at the time the ordinances were promulgated and can be amended in accordance with the changing situation, such as in the case of requests for mutual legal assistance from Egypt and Tunisia, or if the United Nations or the European Union decide to impose sanctions, as in the case of Ivory Coast.
The Swiss government had gone on to freeze the potentially illegal assets belonging to members of former regimes in Ivory Coast, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt for a period of three years in 2011 under the “Embargos Act” due to violence and popular uprisings in those nations.
According to Switzerland’s Department of Foreign Affairs, which is currently headed by eminent politician Didier Burkhalter, the country’s Federal Council is empowered to freeze the assets of Politically Exposed Persons such as head of states, high public officials and their entourage, on the basis of Article 184, paragraph 3 of the Swiss Constitution, whenever it is required to do so in order to safeguard the interests of the country.
The website states: “The Swiss government (Federal Council) is entitled to take such measures in specific situations – for example in times of political upheaval – so as to preserve assets that may have been deposited in Switzerland and to prevent them from being transferred elsewhere. In this way, Switzerland provides support to the judicial authorities of the states concerned, which are thus able to initiate criminal proceedings and – in this framework – request mutual legal assistance from Switzerland.”
The Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs website has a bit more to say: “The relevant judicial authorities of the country in question are responsible for conducting the procedures necessary to demonstrate the illicit origin of the frozen assets. So it is that the Federal Council froze the assets of Marcos in 1986, assets that in the follow-up to a criminal procedure in 2003 were able to be returned to the Philippines. This is also the legal basis on which the possible assets of several personalities linked to regimes which have recently been toppled in various African countries have been frozen since the beginning of 2011.”
The website of this key Swiss state department further reads: “Internationally renowned experts acknowledge that a few other countries have contributed as much to this cause in recent years. Although Switzerland’s financial centre only ranks seventh in the world, Switzerland is a leader when it comes to the restitution of stolen assets. No other country has done as much as Switzerland in this field in recent years. For the last 20 years, the Federal Council has taken care, as a matter of principle, to systematically exclude assets of illicit origin from the Swiss financial centre. If, despite the various precautionary measures, illicit assets do arrive in Switzerland, they must be identified by the relevant judicial authorities and returned to their country of origin.”
The website goes on to contend: “Some cases are especially difficult to resolve, notably due to the failure of the relevant institutions of the state from which the funds originate. For cases such as these, Switzerland recently enacted a new law, the Restitution of Illicit Assets Act (RIAA, SR 196.1), which sets out the procedures for freezing, forfeiture and restitution of the assets of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and is intended to apply when a request for international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters cannot succeed owing to lack of action on the part of the state in which the PEP performs, or has performed, his public functions.”
The website of this vital Swiss government department explains that the objective of the Federal Council in this regard is to ensure that the legitimate owners of these assets are discovered by the judge and that any eventual unlawfully acquired assets could be returned to the state in question. The idea is to encourage the countries of asset origin to submit their requests for legal assistance. The freezing of assets immediately follows the promulgation of an ordinance and then, these ordinances enacted by the Swiss Federal Council are accompanied by an appendix containing the names of the individuals, companies and organisations subject to the freeze order.
However, the appendices to these ordinances are established on the basis of the information available at the time the ordinances were promulgated and can be amended in accordance with the changing situation, such as in the case of requests for mutual legal assistance from Egypt and Tunisia, or if the United Nations or the European Union decide to impose sanctions, as in the case of Ivory Coast.
The Swiss government had gone on to freeze the potentially illegal assets belonging to members of former regimes in Ivory Coast, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt for a period of three years in 2011 under the “Embargos Act” due to violence and popular uprisings in those nations.
According to Switzerland’s Department of Foreign Affairs, which is currently headed by eminent politician Didier Burkhalter, the country’s Federal Council is empowered to freeze the assets of Politically Exposed Persons such as head of states, high public officials and their entourage, on the basis of Article 184, paragraph 3 of the Swiss Constitution, whenever it is required to do so in order to safeguard the interests of the country.
The website states: “The Swiss government (Federal Council) is entitled to take such measures in specific situations – for example in times of political upheaval – so as to preserve assets that may have been deposited in Switzerland and to prevent them from being transferred elsewhere. In this way, Switzerland provides support to the judicial authorities of the states concerned, which are thus able to initiate criminal proceedings and – in this framework – request mutual legal assistance from Switzerland.”
The Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs website has a bit more to say: “The relevant judicial authorities of the country in question are responsible for conducting the procedures necessary to demonstrate the illicit origin of the frozen assets. So it is that the Federal Council froze the assets of Marcos in 1986, assets that in the follow-up to a criminal procedure in 2003 were able to be returned to the Philippines. This is also the legal basis on which the possible assets of several personalities linked to regimes which have recently been toppled in various African countries have been frozen since the beginning of 2011.”
- Featured Thumbs
- http://swisswatchwire.com/images/2013/06/swiss-flag.jpg
