By
Bhushan Akolkar
June 30th, 2020
The CCC in Queensland wants more power to seize crypto assets and exclusive authority to do so for better law enforcement.
A law enforcement agency in Australia’s second-largest state of Queensland has requested a modification of the state’s law on crypto assets like Bitcoin (BTC). The Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) identified loopholes in the current law that allow illicit use of cryptocurrencies and wants more power to effect confiscations.
Reformation of CPCA Law to Seize Crypto Assets
An official CCC publication is requesting to reform the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act of 2002 (CPCA). In the release, the CCC highlights the frequent use of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets for organized crime, via decentralized financial transactions that are difficult to trace. The Commission states that between 2022 and 2023, funds laundered in Queensland through several means were between $10 and $25 billion.
The CCC identified the need for reform in “7 priority areas”, and has made 10 recommendations to “modernise Queensland’s asset confiscation regime”. In addition to clarifying the offense of money laundering because it is “in a legal sense, not functional”, the CCC recommends that money laundering must cover offenses involving cryptocurrencies. The Commission believes that the power to seize cryptocurrencies is necessary to gather evidence, attribute ownership and control to easily identify criminals, and preserve them for evidentiary purposes.
According to the CCC, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA) and the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (CC Act) currently do not allow law enforcement agents to effectively seize digital assets as evidence. This is because there is no clear definition of a “digital asset,” and there is “no ability to seize a digital asset (in a way that takes…control over it)”.
Sole Authority to Seize Crypto in Australia’s Queensland
The CCC also wants to change the way confiscated assets are used. The Commission states that while other jurisdictions allow for repurposing confiscated assets to causes such as victim compensation and offender rehabilitation, no such provisions are available in Queensland. In the state, the CPCA requires that confiscated assets are deposited with Queensland’s consolidated revenue, which does not allow for the effective use of these assets.
Another recommendation from the CCC is exclusive authority to confiscate digital assets. The current rules share the responsibility of confiscation between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the CCC. The Commission sees the current rules for conducting confiscation proceedings as ineffectual for several reasons. Firstly, it does not allow for quick expert legal advice for confiscation investigations.
Also, the CCC worries that it increases the DPP’s risk because the Office is expected to handle civil litigation and prosecutorial responsibilities. The CCC’s recommendation here is to receive “sole responsibility for administering and conducting all confiscation proceedings, and the required resources for these new responsibilities.
“Meeting the challenge of serious and organised crime requires innovation, cross-agency collaboration, and significant investment. It also requires legislation that is fit-for-purpose and flexible enough to respond to the changing nature of the crimes it deals with,” writes the CCC.
