சொத்து முடிவுWhere did the money go?
Nine democracies used counter-terrorist-financing powers against LTTE-linked funds. Every one of them publishes that assets were frozen. Not one of them publishes what happened to those assets afterwards. This page is that ledger.
The finding
Across 9 jurisdictions, 9 publish a freezing or forfeiture record that a member of the public can retrieve. 0 publish a disposition record — a statement of where the money ultimately went, who received it, or whether it was returned to anyone.
That is not an allegation of misappropriation. It is a statement about the completeness of the public record, and nothing more. States may hold full internal accounts. The point is that the people whose money it may have been cannot see them.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Freeze record | Disposition record | Restitution route |
|---|---|---|---|---|
United Kingdom Tier A | Terrorism Act 2000 (Sch. 4) · Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 · Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 | Published HM Treasury OFSI publishes the consolidated asset-freeze list and an annual review; Home Office publishes operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act quarterly. | No public record found No public record found of the final disposition of funds frozen or forfeited in connection with LTTE-related proceedings — no published destination, no published beneficiary, no published return. | Narrow / untested POCA 2002 provides for compensation and for victims to assert an interest in confiscated property, but the route is offence-specific and no published case shows it applied to a coerced diaspora contributor. |
Canada Tier A | Criminal Code s.83.05 listing · Anti-terrorism Act | Published Public Safety Canada publishes the listed-entities register; the LTTE listing and its reviews are on the public record. | No public record found No public record found setting out where seized or forfeited funds went after proceedings concluded. | None found No published mechanism by which a person who was coerced into paying can apply for the return of those funds. |
France Tier A | EU Reg. 2580/2001 implementation · Code monétaire et financier | Published Trésor publishes the national asset-freeze register (registre national des gels). | No public record found The register records that a freeze exists. It does not record what subsequently happened to the assets. | None found No published victim-return route identified for this class of funds. |
Switzerland Tier A | Swiss Criminal Code Art. 260ter (criminal organisation) · federal criminal proceedings | Published Federal criminal proceedings concerning LTTE-related fundraising are on the public record. | Partial In 2019 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that the LTTE did not meet the Art. 260ter definition of a criminal organisation, materially narrowing the basis for the prosecution — an outcome that itself changes what could lawfully be forfeited. Downstream disposition remains unpublished. | Narrow / untested Swiss law recognises restitution to injured parties in criminal proceedings, but no published decision applies it to coerced diaspora contributors. |
Netherlands Tier A | Sanctiewet 1977 · Wetboek van Strafrecht terrorist-financing provisions | Published Dutch terrorist-financing prosecutions concerning LTTE fundraising are reported in published judgments. | No public record found Judgments record conviction and confiscation orders; no published record of final destination of funds. | None found No published route for coerced contributors. |
Germany Tier A | Vereinsgesetz · StGB §129b (foreign criminal/terrorist organisation) | Published §129b prosecutions concerning LTTE structures in Germany are reported. | No public record found No published record of asset destination following those proceedings. | None found No published route for coerced contributors. |
Norway Tier A | Straffeloven terrorist-financing provisions | Published Norwegian prosecutions concerning LTTE fundraising are on the public record. | No public record found No published record of final disposition. | None found No published route for coerced contributors. |
Australia Tier A | Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 · Criminal Code Act 1995 Div. 102 | Published DFAT publishes the consolidated sanctions list; listing decisions are public. | No public record found No public record found of what happened to funds after freezing. | None found No published victim-return route identified. |
United States Tier A | 8 U.S.C. §1189 FTO designation · Executive Order 13224 · 18 U.S.C. §2339B | Published OFAC publishes the SDN list; DOJ publishes indictments and convictions in LTTE-related material-support prosecutions. | Partial Forfeiture orders appear in court records. The general federal framework permits remission or restoration to victims, but no published record shows it applied to coerced diaspora contributors in these matters. | Narrow / untested DOJ remission/restoration exists in principle for forfeited property; no published application to this victim class was found. |
A return machine already exists — elsewhere
The objection that returning frozen funds to individuals is administratively impossible does not survive contact with the record. It has been done, at scale, more than once.
- UN Compensation Commission (UNSCR 692, 1991)
A UN-created claims body that processed millions of individual claims and paid compensation to natural persons.
Individual-level claims processing at scale is administratively solved, not theoretical.
- UNCAC Chapter V + StAR Initiative
Treaty obligation to return corruption proceeds to the state of origin, with a public knowledge base of returns.
A mandated return duty plus public reporting already exists — in the adjacent regime.
- UK Assets Recovery Agency / POCA compensation provisions
Domestic machinery for civil recovery with statutory compensation routes.
Domestic return machinery exists; it has simply not been pointed at this victim class.
- — Static, versioned ledger built only from publicly retrievable sources.
- — Statutory transparency requests filed through the ordinary public channels.
- — Every 'no public record found' row is a standing invitation to any state to correct it.
- — No estimate of any sum. No naming of any account holder.
- — A live disposition register updated as each transparency response lands.
- — A model restitution instrument drafted against UNCAC Chapter V as the template.
- — Submission of the gap analysis to the appropriate treaty-review processes.