Ochnio, Ariadna H.2024-02-272024-02-272021A.H. Ochnio, The Tangled Path From Identifying Financial Assets to Cross-Border Confiscation. Deficiencies in EU Asset Recovery Policy, "European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice" 2021, vol. 29, iss.3-4, pp. 218-240. [AAM, ID: ECCL-1202R1].Mansucript number: ECCL-1202R1https://e-bp.inp.pan.pl/handle/123456789/898This paper was written within a research project No 2019/33/B/HS5/01617, founded by the National Science Centre, Poland. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submissionThe article discusses the shortcomings of EU policy regarding cross-border asset recovery. The identified problem is a disjointed approach to the overlapping objectives of criminal proceedings: gathering evidence and securing assets for future confiscation. In the current EU legal framework, the process of recovery of assets, understood as a sequence of functionally related activities, lacks the continuity necessary to be effective. EU cross-border cooperation instruments in criminal matters do not meet the needs of this process, as they relate to separate investigative measures. Problems in this field have been indirectly reflected in the practice of Eurojust and the EJN. The article proposes a change in the perception of the initial phase of the asset recovery process, where the objectives of identifying and locating financial assets are combined with their provisional securing. This takes place under one mechanism of crossborder cooperation (an EIO), prior to issuing a regular freeze or seizure order.encross-border confiscationasset recoveryproceeds of crimeEuropean Investigation Order (EIO)freezing and seizure of assetsmutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orderscross-border cooperation in criminal mattersArticle10.1163/15718174-bja10024