Legislation introduced into Victoria's parliament on Tuesday would make it harder for criminals to enjoy their unexplained wealth without losing it.
Authorities can already confiscate wealth when police and prosecutors believe it has been illegally acquired.
But the changes capture assets bought in a partner or relative's name, along with gifts, consumable wealth and wealth that has been gifted, disposed of or expended.
"Organised crime bosses think they can have the fancy cars, flash yachts, spend their money on hotels and strippers," Police Minister Anthony Carbines said.
"If you draw attention to yourself, Victoria Police will be after you and will be able to use their laws to crack down and reclaim those ... ill-gotten gains."
Illicit wealth that was gifted to others could also be confiscated. (HANDOUT/AFP)
Under the reforms, prosecutors could apply to a court for an unexplained wealth order if there are "reasonable grounds" to suspect a person's total wealth exceeded what they had lawfully acquired by at least $200,000.
Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes said Victoria Police had complained about barriers to demonstrating a known crook's wealth was directly connected to criminal activity.
"You will have to demonstrate that you obtained it by legal means," she said.
"It's very likely, unless they won TattsLotto and they can show their winning ticket, they probably were doing illegal activities to obtain their wealth."
Victoria's existing laws typically arise after other criminal charges are laid and police look through finances, with the defendants then having to prove their assets are legitimate.
"(With) this, the only difference appears to be that they're facing this outside the realm of an offender or an owner of property having to be subject to a criminal charge," prominent Melbourne barrister Zarah Garde-Wilson told AAP.
"It's a way to access (a) partner's income (and) family members' incomes, because a lot of income is siphoned out of their own personal name to protect it."
The laws would allow a broader range of property to be seized and appeared to be in the public interest, Ms Garde-Wilson said.
However, she cautioned defendants should not be liable for court costs on unsuccessful applications and anticipated prosecutors could have a tough time chasing money that was already spent.
"If the money is not there, the money is not there," she said.
Monash University faculty of law professor Liz Campbell, an expert in organised crime and corruption, said police could opt to pursue unexplained wealth orders against people instead of criminal charges.
"It ostensibly (would be) more straightforward to go down this route due to the burden of proof on the individual and the standard of proof required," Prof Campbell told AAP.
"(They would) still need to obtain adequate evidence, though, which isn't always straightforward."
The government said a court could order offenders to pay the state the value of anything they cannot prove was lawfully acquired.
Criminals who do not pay in time would not be arrested as it is a civil scheme.
But the state can still take measures to recover the amount, including selling off property and assets restrained under existing powers.
Victoria has modelled the laws on those in Western Australia and they are similar to NSW, which last year boosted police powers to seize and freeze wealth and assets without a specific offence.
Opposition Leader John Pesutto indicated in-principle coalition support for the changes but questioned why the crackdown had taken so long when the government had been in power for 10 years.
10°C