The unlawful assets commission: the law at the time and proposed amendments

At the time discussed in this article, Bulgaria’s Commission for Counteracting Corruption and the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Assets (КПКОНПИ) had succeeded the body commonly known as КОНПИ, the Commission for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Assets. It was a specialised State body based in Sofia, with its functions and activities governed by a dedicated statute.

Its predecessor was established in 2005 as the Commission for Establishing Property Acquired through Criminal Activity. The scope of the Commission’s work at the time of the article did not differ substantially from its original remit.

The legislation provided powers involving compulsory attendance and disclosure of banking, insurance or commercial secrets, as well as applications to the competent court for interim measures, on which the court was to rule immediately. Forfeiture proceedings could concern the investigated person’s own property, property acquired jointly by spouses or cohabiting partners, and property acquired by minor children through their legal representatives. They could also extend to property of the investigated person’s cohabiting partner and property transferred to another person during the period under investigation.

The Commission was responsible for managing and safeguarding property taken under the Act. Exceptionally, a sale could be ordered for movable assets likely to depreciate considerably in storage and costly to preserve, as well as for perishable goods.

The powers provided by the legislature also included financial penalties on individuals and legal entities. Fines ranged from BGN 1,000 to BGN 50,000. Examples of infringements included a senior public officeholder failing to declare information or making a false declaration, failure to assist the Commission, and failure to produce requested documents, including electronic documents. Repeat offences attracted higher penalties.

The amending bill submitted to the National Assembly proposed new provisions, including a fine of BGN 100 to BGN 2,000 for failure to appear following a duly served summons or failure to supply information. It also proposed higher penalties for repeat infringements: a repeated failure to supply information would attract a penalty of BGN 500 to BGN 5,000.

Another proposal would allow Commission officers to use protective equipment for personal safety and to conceal their identities. The bill also envisaged allowing officers to summon citizens to Commission premises in the exercise of statutory powers, under a procedure to be laid down in regulations. The compulsory attendance already provided for in the legislation would be accompanied under the bill by a fine of BGN 100 to BGN 2,000, or BGN 500 to BGN 5,000 for a repeat offence. The proposals would nearly double the time limits for checks but tighten their effect: instead of being merely directory, the limits would be preclusive and could not be extended.