Basic condition for extended confiscation
Supreme Court judgment judgment 17 December 2020, HR-2020-2442-A, (case no. 20-127566STR-HRET), criminal case, appeal against judgment.
The Public Prosecution Authority (Counsel Kari Hangeland Buvik) v. A (Counsel Øivind Sterri)
Justices: Skoghøy, Falkanger, Bull, Østensen Berglund, Thyness
In a criminal case on storage of drugs, the prosecution authority requested extended confiscation, see section 68 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court found that, when considering whether the criminal act in question may, by its nature, give considerable proceeds, it is not just the proceeds from that particular act that must be taken into account. One must also consider the proceeds that could have been acquired with similar forms of crime. If the conviction concerns storage of drugs, one must also emphasise the proceeds that could have been acquired in a sale. The upper limit for whether the criminal act, by its nature, may give considerable proceeds, is constituted by the potential for proceeds that lies in the possibility of selling the specific batch the conviction concerns, not in the fact that drug offences, by their nature, may give a considerable profit. Since the total street value of the batch was below the threshold for "considerable profit", the basic condition was not met. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment, which dismissed the prosecution authority's appeal against the District Court's judgment acquitting the defendant on this point, was dismissed.