the possibility of extending the right to realize forfeiture orders to the entire property of the offender. One representative observed that it would be difficult to implement such a provision under his country's legal system where the court decided the extent of the property to be forfeited and he consequently suggested the deletion of the last sentence of subparagraph (d).
105. Commenting on paragraph 4, one representative suggested that it might be preferable to speak of "bona fide" third parties rather than of "legitimate" third parties. It was however pointed out by some other representatives that it was possible for a third party to be legitimate and yet not bona fide as in the case of legitimate acquisition of property which is later revealed to have been derived from illicit traffic. Some representatives were of the opinion that the paragraph would benefit from more precision if the words "legitimate third parties" were replaced by "parties not involved in the criminal act". It was generally agreed that the rights of innocent third parties should be protected but that a more appropriate formulation should be worked out for the paragraph.
106. A suggestion was made for the inclusion of a provision recommending that the requirements of bank secrecy should not obstruct investigations of drug trafficking offences.
107. Several representatives expressed the view that article 3 should include a provision dealing with the disposition of internationally forfeited property. The idea that property forfeited by one Party in connection with sentences passed by another Party should be shared between the Parties involved received considerable support.
108. It was suggested that proceeds of forfeiture should be channelled through appropriate international agencies, such as the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control (UNFDAC), to assist developing countries, particularly transit States, in combating illicit traffic. In this connection one representative proposed a new paragraph providing for the transfer to UNFDAC of the financial resources derived from property forfeited by one Party in connection with sentences passed in another Party, in accordance with agreements between interested Parties. Several representatives supported this proposition.
109. Several representatives, referring to the current practice in their countries, favoured a formula providing for the allocation of the proceeds of forfeited property to national funds for drug control programmes.
110. Several representatives expressed reservations regarding the insertion of such a provision as it fell outside the scope of a convention dealing with criminal law. It was furthermore questionable, in their opinion, whether the Group was the appropriate forum to consider matters touching upon domestic budgetary procedures.
111. Several representatives indicated that the transfer of forfeited property to an international fund, such as UNFDAC, would go counter to their constitution and legal system which provided that such property accrue to the national budget. This problem was further complicated in the case of federal States where, under the constitution, the disposition of forfeited property may not fall within the sphere of competence of the central government.