SUSPECTED CRIMINALS FACE SEIZURE OF ASSETS

THE Government plans to set up a powerful agency to seize the assets of
suspected criminals.

Drug barons or gang leaders could have their homes and cars confiscated
without having been convicted of the crime through which police believe that
they acquired them. A report from the Performance and Innovation Unit next
month will recommend that the law should be changed to allow the authorities
to seize assets if they can show that they were "probably" acquired
illegally, even if they did not have enough evidence to secure conviction.

It is also expected to propose the establishment of a new authority to track
and confiscate goods. Assets could also be taken from relatives or
associates of the suspected criminal if there was strong evidence that they
were profits of crime.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, will
announce sweeping changes to the confiscation and money laundering laws in a
joint White Paper in the summer. Government sources said that legislation
would be introduced "at the earliest opportunity" - probably in the next
Queen's Speech.

The proposals will infuriate civil liberties campaigners, who will see them
as an erosion of the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
However, ministers are determined to punish the criminal "Mr Bigs" who are
clever enough to keep themselves apart from the crimes from which they
benefit.

They believe that the new agency would send a powerful message that "crime
does not pay". It could also generate billions of pounds for the Treasury as
the UKP 10 million of criminal assets confiscated in England and Wales every
year is thought to be only a fraction of the total.

The PIU report, on which the White Paper will be based, will recommend that
the burden of proof required to seize the suspected profits of crime should
be reduced from the criminal to the civil level. Police would have to make a
case that goods had been acquired illegally on the "balance of
probabilities" rather than the higher standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

For example, they could show that a suspected drug trafficker had a lavish
lifestyle which could not possibly be supported by his declared legal
income. Officials were given evidence from other countries that master
criminals who went to jail for minor offences with a "smile on their face"
broke down when they learnt that their Caribbean home, Mercedes car and
wives' jewelry - acquired through more serious crimes - were to be seized.

The new system will be based on the law in Ireland where police officers are
required simply to prove that the suspect's wealth exceeds his legal income.
It will not go as far as some states in America where suspects must prove
that they earned their money legitimately.

Although the report will address the civil liberties issues in full, it is
expected to conclude that they are outweighed by the case for tougher
action. A Home Office working party and the National Criminal Intelligence
Service have already called for the powers of the courts to be widened.

However, John Wadham, the director of Liberty, said that the proposals would
"undermine the presumption of innocence". He said it was wrong that a person
should be "convicted" on the basis that they were "probably guilty".