This paper analyzes the scope and impact of the novel unexplained wealth order (UWO) in Mauritius and highlights potential issues and challenges arising from the recent enactment of a law providing for UWOs. The recent enactment of The Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Act 2015 (‘GGIR’ or ‘Act’) in Mauritius has been hailed by many as a ‘step in the right direction’ in the fight against white-collar crime both internationally and at home.1 Despite its commendable objectives, the Act underscores the tension between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community. Most notably, the GGIR raises the following three key concerns: first, the prospect of forced property deprivation, which is the essential feature of UWOs, may conflict with constitutionally protected rights of citizens and their civil liberties. Secondly, although focused on the recovery of presumed ‘ill-gotten gains’, UWOs are categorized as civil, and not criminal, law measures, thus enabling authorities to conveniently circumvent, and indeed undermine, due process rights which only apply in the criminal realm. Thirdly and last, UWOs have the effect of reversing the burden of proof by requiring the individual to prove the legitimacy of his ownership, possession, or control of property, and relieving the State of any requirement to prove wrongdoing. This paper posits that, given the quasi-criminal nature of UWOs, due process rights enshrined in the constitution and relied upon in the conventional criminal process should continue to apply in civil unexplained wealth forfeiture.

中文翻译：

---

解释不明财富令：（毛里求斯）良好治理和诚信报告法

本文分析了毛里求斯新的无法解释的财富秩序 (UWO) 的范围和影响，并重点介绍了最近颁布的有关 UWO 的法律所带来的潜在问题和挑战。毛里求斯最近颁布的《2015 年良好治理和诚信报告法》（“GGIR”或“法案”）被许多人称赞为在国际和国内打击白领犯罪的“正确方向上的一步” .1 尽管其目标值得称道，但该法案强调了个人权利与社区利益之间的紧张关系。最值得注意的是，GGIR 提出了以下三个关键问题：首先，作为 UWO 的基本特征的强制剥夺财产的前景可能与受宪法保护的公民权利及其公民自由发生冲突。第二，尽管专注于追回假定的“不义之财”，UWO 被归类为民事而非刑事法律措施，从而使当局能够方便地规避甚至破坏仅适用于刑事领域的正当程序权利。第三，也是最后一点，UWO 具有逆转举证责任的效果，它要求个人证明其对财产的所有权、占有或控制权的合法性，并免除国家证明不法行为的任何要求。本文假设，鉴于 UWO 的准犯罪性质，宪法所载并依赖于传统刑事程序的正当程序权利应继续适用于民事原因不明的财产没收。从而使当局能够方便地规避甚至破坏仅适用于刑事领域的正当程序权利。第三，也是最后一点，UWO 具有逆转举证责任的效果，它要求个人证明其对财产的所有权、占有或控制权的合法性，并免除国家证明不法行为的任何要求。本文假设，鉴于 UWO 的准犯罪性质，宪法所载并依赖于传统刑事程序的正当程序权利应继续适用于民事原因不明的财产没收。从而使当局能够方便地规避甚至破坏仅适用于刑事领域的正当程序权利。第三，也是最后一点，UWO 具有逆转举证责任的效果，要求个人证明其对财产的所有权、占有或控制权的合法性，并免除国家证明不法行为的任何要求。本文假设，鉴于 UWO 的准犯罪性质，宪法所载并依赖于传统刑事程序的正当程序权利应继续适用于民事原因不明的财产没收。UWO 通过要求个人证明其对财产的所有权、占有或控制权的合法性，并免除国家证明不法行为的任何要求，具有逆转举证责任的效果。本文假设，鉴于 UWO 的准犯罪性质，宪法所载并依赖于传统刑事程序的正当程序权利应继续适用于民事原因不明的财产没收。UWO 通过要求个人证明其对财产的所有权、占有或控制权的合法性，并免除国家证明不法行为的任何要求，具有逆转举证责任的效果。本文假设，鉴于 UWO 的准犯罪性质，宪法所载并依赖于传统刑事程序的正当程序权利应继续适用于民事原因不明的财产没收。