This paper examines the intersection of civil and criminal law institutes in the context of property claims and the confiscation of property benefits acquired through criminal offences. It compares the procedural and substantive nature of property claims - most commonly submitted within criminal proceedings through the adhesion procedure or separately via civil lawsuits - with the criminal law measure of confiscation. Special attention is given to the legal differences, purposes, and practical challenges of these two institutes. Although both aim to address the financial consequences of criminal conduct, a property claim focuses on compensating the injured party, while confiscation primarily seeks to deprive perpetrator of illicit gain. Through the analysis of Croatian legislation, court practice, and a detailed case study involving conflicting outcomes between criminal and civil proceedings, the paper reveals misinterpretations of legal principles such as ne bis in idem, res judicata, and double recovery. The analysis highlights that, following the repeal of the Act on the Procedure for the Confiscation of Property Benefits in 2017, there is currently no legal framework enabling compensation of injured parties from confiscated assets. Consequently, both the state and the injured party may seek recovery from the same asset pool, potentially leading to unjust enrichment, legal uncertainty and double recovery problem.
Silvija Tripalo (Wed,) studied this question.