《刑法》第 106 条第 1 款规定，没收是指“将用于实施犯罪或通过犯罪所得的 财产或货物强行和无偿地转为国家所有”。关于可没收货物的范围，由《刑法》 第 106 条第 2 款来界定，该定义符合《公约》第三十一条。 如果犯罪所得在被定罪人的资产中已无迹可寻，则可予没收价值与这些所得相 当的财产。在未定罪的情况下，也可以破例责令进行没收（《刑法》第 106 条 第 4 款）。《刑事诉讼法》规定了扣押资产（第 202 至 210 条）。扣押令旨在确保所有物 品俱在以备调查之用。《刑法》第 106 条第 3 款授权没收属于第三方但曾用于实施犯罪或系犯罪所得 的财产，但此种没收仅适用于第三方对财产的非法性质知情的情况。该国没有专门的机构负责处理冻结、扣押或没收财产。被扣押和被没收财产的登记、价值评估和出售事宜由税务机关负责。《刑法》第 106 条第 1 款规定对于在合法手段之外取得且通常可归因于非法来源的资产扩大没收范围。第 106 条第 1 款确定对被告财产的非法来源可做出可 予以反驳的推论，这与《宪法》第 46 条第 3 款并不抵触。审议人员欢迎该领域的立法进展，特别是扩大没收范围的工具，但注意到缺少 执行法律规定方面的信息，而且，被没收财产数量与定罪案件数目相比偏低。
Section 106, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code defines confiscation as “the forced and free transfer to the state of property or goods used in the commission of a crime or that resulted from crimes”. The scope of goods that can be confiscated is defined in section 106, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code and is in line with article 31 of the Convention. Subject to confiscation also is property equivalent to the proceeds of crime when such proceeds can no longer be found in the assets of the convicted person.Confiscation may exceptionally be ordered in the absence of conviction (section 106, paragraph 4, of the Criminal Code). The Criminal Procedure Code provides for the seizure of assets (sections 202-210). Seizure orders are intended to secure items for the purposes of the investigation. Section 106, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code authorizes the confiscation of property that belongs to third parties and has been used for, or resulted from, the commission of an offence, but only when the third parties are aware of the illegal nature of the property. There is no specialized body to deal with the management of frozen, seized or confiscated property. However, the tax authorities are responsible for registering, assessing the value of and selling seized and confiscated property. Section 106/1 of the Criminal Code regulates the extended confiscation of assets that go beyond the legal means and which can be generally attributed to illicit sources. Section 106/1 establishes a rebuttable presumption of the illicit origin of the property of the defendant which does not contradict article 46, paragraph 3, of the Constitution. The reviewers welcomed the legislative developments in that area, especially the tool of extended confiscation, but noted the lack of information on the enforcement of the legal provisions and the fact that the volume of confiscated property is low in comparison with the number of convictions.