How is it that Gaddafi's assets can be frozen?

juggler7

So basically they are freezing Gaddafi's assets..in both the UK and USA..ok yes I know he is a big evil dictator..but how is any of this legal?

I don't understand how on one hand, for individuals like us, the law is absolute, and unflinching. I MUST pay bill X or I will be summoned to court...yet the law seems to bend in the most flexible ways in other instances, such as this..

suddenly without any proof, and some vague reports about people being killed, a person's assets can be frozen..Never mind evidence, just do it..it seems like the right thing to do..those poor Libyans...but IS IT LEGAL?

I just hate the way it seems that the law is fixed when it comes to us lowly commoners, but then flexes in the most incredible ways when it is a dictator or rich celebrity involved

dmg24

The freezing of assets where they are reasonably believed to be from the proceeds of crime is pretty common, both for dictators and lowly commoners. I'll look up the relevant SI when I've had some sleep!

Edit: I forgot the possibility of seizure under the Terrorism Act, which is more likely here.

trumpton

I can see what you mean. We happily let him move his assets out of Libya to the UK, knowing full well what kind of regime he runs, but now all of a sudden we are freezing his assets.

juggler7

trumpton wrote: »

I can see what you mean. We happily let him move his assets out of Libya to the UK, knowing full well what kind of regime he runs, but now all of a sudden we are freezing his assets.

yes bingo..suddenly in the last two weeks his regime is not OK...it's funny how when politicians get together the law can suddenly be changed...

MrsManda

juggler7 wrote: »

yes bingo..suddenly in the last two weeks his regime is not OK...it's funny how when politicians get together the law can suddenly be changed...

The law hasn't changed, it's been applied.
The Terrorist Asset Freezing Act 2010 allows for the assets of anyone suspected of terrorist activity to have their assets frozen.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/38/section/3

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allows for the confiscation of assets which may be been obtained as a result of crime or which is expected to be used in unlawful conduct. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/contents

Plus as a permanent member of the UN security council we make and abide by rulings by the council. A recent ruling is to freeze the overseas assets of Gaddafi and his family.

nexus2011

So do the US and UK have their assets frozen for invading Iraq and afghan without any proof of WMD ?

vyle

nexus2011 wrote: »

So do the US and UK have their assets frozen for invading Iraq and afghan without any proof of WMD ?

I wonder if england and america allowed him to move his assets here and there, so that they could be frozen when it was time to oust him?

And if we had assets in a country that opposed the war in iraq strongly enough, I guess they could freeze them.

bargainbetty

Since under international law no nation has specifically accused the UK, USA or any of the other countries that provided supporting military actions (of which there were several) of an act of international or national terrorism, then there is no reason to freeze the assets abroad.

He has the right to buy assets in any country he chooses, subject to its investment and purchase laws, just as anyone else can. If you bought a property in the USA and then committed an act of terrorism, your assets could also be frozen.

In this case, there is the possibility that the assets can or would be sold to purchase arms that would be used illegally under trade agreements (internal suppression of protest). Another reason to stop them being sold.

I've got to ask, Juggler, exactly what kind of proof do you need? Journalistic evidence, film, audio and written accounts have been sufficient for the UN - do you have a higher standard of reasonable doubt?

CoolHotCold

Ahh the UK froze his assets after the UN Security Council (which of course the US and Uk are a part of, along with 13 other member states (15 to 0 vote) to ensure that he cannot hire mercenaries or buy support to brutally murder the citizens in Libya.

Seems fair to me.

The UNSC coincidently consists of 5 perminimant members (UK, Russia, China, US & France) which are the 5 victorious parties of WWII, along with 10 elected states over 2 years.

The UNSC has the ability to "Police the world" though power given by the UN and in this case the UNSC can freeze Libyan assets in UN member countries as they adopted Security Council Resolution 1674 "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"



Any country would be Mad (and theres a few out there) to deny Gadaffi is acting properly, even Italy has had to admit he has "gone off the rails a little". If Gadaffi starts using Mustard Gas on his own people or destroying towns and cities held by oppressors than the UNSC will affirm military action (and you can bet theres already talk and plans drawn up regarding this)

grimsalve

I think we should give him his own late night chat show on Channel 4.

missile

I don't like Gaddafi either but this does seem rather unfair and perhaps shortsighted.

There are many very rich dictators who have invested heavily in the UK. By acting in this way we may find that a.n.others decide to invest their wealth in other countries.