I have developed an interest over issues pertaining to recovery of misappropriated property everrnsince I took a job as a prosecutor. In my early first two years in the profession, I came to sensernsomething unsound and unjust in the asset recovery realm which I later realized it to be thernabsence of a non-conviction based civil asset forfeiture laws. This fortunately became the centralrntenet of this research. Save the exceptions, normally asset recovery is a post-conviction basedrnprocess that comes after the accused is convicted. Hence, for a criminal confiscation to takerneffect a case has to pass through the cumbersome criminal procedure. Even if such rigorousrncriminal procedure is just and quite from the point of view of protection of human liberty, it isrnnot without downsides from the perspective of the misappropriated property. This is because,rndespite the presence of an evidence which implicate the commission of crime a suspect or anrnaccused that has succeeded in casting doubt in the case can avoid prosecution or conviction andrnthe attendant confiscation of the fruit of crime.rnSimilarly, factors like death before investigation, prosecution and conviction, absence (unlessrntrial in absentia is allowed) and immunity are barriers which prevent conviction andrnconfiscation of the ill-gained property. To remedy these deficiencies, states have seriouslyrnexpressed the need for a new approach to fight crime and recover proceeds of crime by adoptingrna new non-conviction based civil confiscation system.rnCivil confiscation is a hybrid asset forfeiture system that shares the characteristics of both civilrnand criminal law. This system particularly targets the embezzled property by using a lesserrnstandard of evidence regardless of the conviction of the accused. As an actor in the internationalrnarena, the Ethiopia legal system has belatedly introduced civil forfeiture laws in piece meal inrnthe Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering and Financing Terrorism ProclamationrnNo. 718/2013 and in the Revised Anti-Corruption Special Procedure and Rules of EvidencernProclamation No. 882/2015. The main objective of this Thesis is appraising these civil forfeiturernlaws and the practice on the ground by employing both doctrinal and non-doctrinal methods.rnAccordingly the research has found out that the recently introduced civil forfeiture laws fail tornexploit hindsight advantage and still manifest limitations content and scope wise. Similarly duernto dearth of awareness the civil forfeiture laws are almost neglected and the asset recovery isrnstill fettered with the conviction based confiscation mentality. Another major finding is thernvagueness and absence of a clear procedure law that befits the hybrid nature of civil forfeiturernlaws.rnBased on these findings, the Thesis has suggested the need for an amendment of the civilrnforfeiture law so as to mend its deficiencies, the enactment of a self-standing civil forfeiture lawrnand a procedural law that can accommodate its peculiar features. The Thesis has alsornunderscored the potential susceptibility of civil forfeiture law to abuse and the need to enforce itrnwith the highest ethical standard.