{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015315315315315315, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.005405405405406, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Between the medium and the minimum options to regulate mutual recognition of confiscation orders

The proposal for a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders is aimed at solving the problems of criminal asset recovery in cross-border cases. The policy option adopted is in fact an alternative to a deeper harmonization of national confiscation systems, accordingly the Member States may view it as an attempt to impact their internal legal systems by the so-called side door, with the mutual recognition principle and the idea of combatting terrorism being, respectively, the key and password to unlock It. If this strategy is successful, it can be anticipated that it will become in the future a model for regulation of non-confiscation issues at the European Union level for which deeper harmonization has proved too difficult. Among the four regulatory options discussed in the legislative process, there are good reasons in support of an evolutionary approach, which is reflected in the option referred to as the ‘minimum’, based on the use of the legal form of a directive.