Search results

The issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes has become common in a globalizing world, while the rigid compliance with territoriality and active personality jurisdiction has created a legal vacuum for cross-border crimes in many situations. The jurisdiction dispute between mainland China and Taiwan over cross-border telecom fraud crimes is a good example. In recent years, the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China cracked down a series of cross-border telecom fraud crimes against mainland residents and extradited suspects to mainland China. Given a certain proportion of Taiwan residents in criminal gangs, the Taiwan side raised jurisdiction objections, arguing that mainland China had no right to exercise jurisdiction over Taiwanese criminals. The essence of the jurisdiction dispute between two sides is the concurrence of Taiwan’s right to exercise active personality jurisdiction and the mainland’s right to exercise passive personality jurisdiction. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the connotation of different jurisdiction principles (namely, territorial, active personality, protective and passive personality jurisdiction) and reinterpret their prioritization of applicability from a jurisprudential perspective, and thus, enhance the theoretical basis for resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes.

By reviewing the historical trajectory of major jurisdiction principles since the 1920s, and studying the specificities of the case in this context, this paper argues that territorial jurisdiction and active personality jurisdiction have presumed priority but not an absolute priority for resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction. The applicability of protective and passive personality jurisdiction could precede the former provided the jurisdictions of territoriality or active personality are inadequate, incompetent or lack of motivation to combat crimes, which harm other jurisdictions.

The developmental trajectory and contemporary connotation of major jurisdiction principles suggests that the legitimacy of the mainland’s exercise of passive personality jurisdiction over Taiwan criminal suspects lies in the urgent need to recover mainland victims’ significant property loss, the incompetence of Taiwan in detecting and prosecuting telecom fraud crimes committed by Taiwanese residents and targeting mainland victims and that the mainland has guaranteed the Taiwan side’s right to be timely informed and fully participate in its exercise of criminal jurisdiction over crimes involving Taiwan suspects.

Current literature on jurisdiction doctrines mainly uses a historical or descriptive approach to reveal the attitudes of different countries toward jurisdiction principles, which helps little in resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes in an era of globalization. This paper uses an interpretative approach, reinterprets the contemporary connotation of different jurisdiction principles and redefines the criteria for determining their prioritization in the context of the specificities of a case. It is expected to update the academic literature for resolving concurrent jurisdiction, fill the legal vacuum for combating cross-border crimes created by rigid compliance with territorial jurisdiction, and meanwhile relieve concerns about abuse of extraterritorial jurisdiction as it provides concrete standards for weighting the applicability of jurisdiction principles.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the international standards for establishing national jurisdiction over the transnational crimes of money laundering and bribery and identify challenges to the adoption of those standards by different states in practice.

This paper, first, defines transnational money laundering and transnational bribery; then, it examines the legal bases and principles on which a state can claim criminal jurisdiction over these offences. This paper also discusses the application of jurisdictional conditions in a transnational context and how to deal with the problems arising from national claim of jurisdiction over these offences, for example, jurisdictional concurrence.

This paper argues that when the jurisdictional concurrence occurs, the involved states should consult one another by taking into account a number of relevant factors and take the “centre of gravity” approach to deciding which state or forum should prosecute eventually. States less able to establish jurisdiction over the offences are often those which have a weak legal basis and/or insufficient resources.

To the authors’ knowledge, this article would be the good guidance on how a state could claim jurisdiction over the offences of transnational money laundering and transnational bribery.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Traditionally the application of national criminal law is limited to national territory. According to the territorial principle — which takes a central place in most jurisdictions — the active corruption of national officials or public officers, provided it is committed on national territory, can give rise to prosecution, irrespective of the question whether the offender is a national or a foreigner. As for acts of passive corruption committed on national territory the same principle applies: as a rule, prosecution of the corrupted national official will be possible by virtue of the national provisions concerning criminal proceedings and the determination of the competent court.

This chapter aims to advance economic development theory through the concept of jurisdictional advantage; demonstrating how places might strategically position themselves to gain economic advantage; then considering how this place-specific advantage might be constructed. We choose the term “jurisdiction” to define the set of actors that have a common interest in a spatially bound community. Jurisdictions are entities with a legitimate political ability to influence social and economic outcomes within their boundaries. Borrowing from the literature on corporate strategy, the uniqueness of local capabilities becomes a source of advantage for jurisdictions. We consider how to measure and construct jurisdictional advantage.

Presents an updated version of a paper given by the author at an international conference in Athens 2000. Briefly outlines the development of the internet and e‐commerce and the effect of globalization. Considers the potential for the EU to standardize rules and advance its economic integration agenda. Looks at present EU laws in this area. Covers the unicitral model law on electronic commerce, its merits and its problems. Discusses personal jurisdiction under traditional rules and cyberspace transactions. Concludes that existing legislation must be re‐evaluated in the light of technological advances, the need for a more mobile kind of legal person and the worldwide nature of transactions across territorial boundaries, paperless contracts and digital signatures and the use of self‐regulation are also covered.

In a period of profound crisis for professions, this paper aims to develop knowledge about the role of proactive personality in the relationship between accountants’ occupational prestige and goal orientation.

The study draws upon the literature on professions and employs a multiple linear regression analysis to test the mediating role of proactive personality when accountants challenge external events threatening their profession. The study focuses on Italy, an area characterized by a high degree of precariousness where, over the past 30 years, accountants have been facing many threats undermining their occupational prestige.

The findings show that proactive accountants are more goal-oriented, unless they perceive that others consider their career to be prestigious. Therefore, the study demonstrates that occupational prestige – more volatile and subject to external forces– can shape proactive personality – usually internally determined and more stable – insofar a perceived low occupational prestige can be mediated by a proactive personality towards goal orientation.

The study has both academic and practical implications, showing that context-related factors are buffered by personal characteristics when professionals react to external events affecting their prestige.

The paper sheds lights on the critical issues of setting and achieving goals in uncertain situations, and enhances our understanding of the accounting profession, by identifying new reactions and behaviours based on personal factors as well as exogenous and contextual factors.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

The purpose of this paper is to construct a profile of a financial criminal, with special emphasis on their psychological attributes. The objective is to determine if such a profile can provide a valuable tool for detecting perpetrators of financial crime and for implementing risk-reduction strategies.

The approach involved a review of various personality disorders and other mental health issues, as well as an analysis of a number of cases involving serious financial crime, to ascertain whether the behaviour of the perpetrators was consistent with certain psychological challenges. In addition, the study examined various motivators for the commission of the financial crime.

The research revealed some key commonalities among the perpetrators of financial crime and that their behaviour was often consistent with that of a person afflicted with a personality or other psychological disorder.

The study provides a comprehensive analysis of various personality and other psychological challenges afflicting a number of offenders involved in financial crime. It also provides some critical findings that could be valuable for those charged with establishing measures to prevent and detect financial crime.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of the common law test for asserting criminal jurisdiction over financial crimes. Historically, the British courts at the turn of the twentieth century strongly advocated the territoriality principle to strictly limit the assumption of criminal jurisdiction to crimes which occurred entirely within the jurisdiction. With the rapid advance of telecommunications technologies during the latter half of the century, such a narrow approach to jurisdiction became unworkable, as the majority of financial crimes assumed multi‐jurisdictional aspects.

This paper traces the gradual liberalization of criminal jurisdiction over financial crime within the common law until the eventual emergence of the much more permissive comity theory of jurisdiction, which sanctions the assumption of criminal jurisdiction over any conduct which causes harmful consequences or effects in the territory of the country seeking to prosecute an accused.

While this is a welcome and necessary development in an age of global money laundering and organized crime, it is argued in this paper that unless a consistent and rational manner of prioritizing the claims of competing jurisdictions over the same criminal conduct is adopted, there is a risk that the first jurisdiction to be in a position to make an arrest may not necessarily be the correct or most appropriate one. As the double jeopardy principle operates to bar multiple prosecutions for the same criminal conduct, it is recommended that the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a familiar and developed concept in civil law, be applied to criminal prosecutions to maximize prosecutorial efficiency.

The paper is of value in discussing factors to be considered by law enforcement agencies in determining the most prudent sequence of legal proceedings that may be brought in different jurisdictions.