Search results

This study aims to examine whether country of residence, sex trafficking attitudes, complainant gender, juror gender and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) influenced juror decision-making within a sex trafficking case.

Jury-eligible participants from the USA and the UK participated in an online juror experiment in which an independent group design was used to manipulate the complainant’s gender. Participants completed the juror decision scale, the sex trafficking attitudes scale and the RWA scale.

Sex trafficking attitudes predicted the believability of both the defendant and complainant. Greater negative beliefs about victims predicted greater defendant believability and lower complainant believability. US jurors reported greater believability of both the complainant and defendant, and RWA was associated with greater defendant believability. However, none of the other factors, including complainant and juror gender, predicted participants’ verdicts. The findings suggest juror verdicts in sex trafficking cases may be less influenced by extra-legal factors, although further research is needed, especially with a more ambiguous case.

This is one of the few cross-cultural comparison studies in the area of jury decision-making, specifically regarding sex trafficking cases. The findings indicated that US participants held more problematic attitudes about sex trafficking than their UK counterparts, although all participants held problematic attitudes about sex trafficking. However, those attitudes did not affect verdict formation about either a male or female complainant. Participants who were more knowledgeable about sex trafficking reported greater complainant believability, suggesting that educational interventions may provide greater support for victims in court.

This paper aims to elucidate the responsiveness of China’s judicial system in addressing the challenges of identifying online illegal fund-raising crimes that have emerged in recent years. This study systematically evaluates the efficacy and potential pitfalls of legal guidelines contained in judicial interpretations, such as holistic determination, sampling verification and presumption of the nature of funds. In addition, the research endeavors to propose pertinent recommendations for refining the existing judicial rules.

This research mainly uses a doctrinal methodology, focusing on the principal judicial interpretations formulated by the Supreme People’s Court and other central judicial entities in China. The scope encompasses the realm of online illegal fund-raising crimes as well as other cybercrimes. The analytical framework involves a comprehensive examination of these authoritative judicial documents, coupled with a theoretical and critical analysis of relevant academic materials.

This research underscores that while judicial interpretations serve as an effective legal strategy to confront the challenges posed by online illegal fund-raising crimes, their implementation introduces a nuanced landscape. These legal guidelines, often emanating from diverse judicial departments and tackling specific issues, carry the inherent risk of giving rise to new complexities and fostering inconsistency. Judicial authorities shall exercise prudence in both the formulation and application of these guidelines, ensuring their harmonization with existing legal norms and fundamental legal principles.

This research constitutes a critical and comprehensive examination of judicial interpretations in China pertaining to online illegal fund-raising crimes. It offers valuable insights into the country’s judicial interpretation system and its legal responses to financial crimes. The paper serves as a valuable resource for academics, law enforcement professionals, policymakers, legislators and researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the supervening loss of inter-organisational trust in long-term commercial contracts. The underlying research question is whether contract law – the legal institution regulating economic exchanges – should intervene and enable a party to a long-term commercial contract to extricate itself from a situation where a relationship of trust has broken down irretrievably.

This paper uses doctrinal methodology and theoretical conceptualisation to answer the underlying research question. The legal instrument chosen for analysis purposes is the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. This paper also draws on extant literature on inter-organisational trust (including conceptual and empirical studies) to support the arguments and propositions. Furthermore, this study proceeds to assess the substantive justifiability of the proposed remedial measure using four normative values: legal certainty and predictability, protection of the performance interest, economic efficiency and the preservation of the relation.

The central argument put forward in this paper is the reformulation of draft Article 6.3.1 proposed by the UNIDROIT Working Group on Long-Term Contracts, which confers a novel right to terminate for a compelling reason. This paper presents a multidimensional model of inter-organisational trust that would serve as the conceptual framework for the proposed reformulation of the provision and establishes a coherent juridical basis for the legal solution that would accord with the Principles of International Commercial Contracts’ general remedial scheme. As for the normative assessment, this paper demonstrates that the proposed remedial measure would significantly promote efficient outcomes and positively serve the norms of legal certainty, protection of the performance interest and the preservation of the relation.

This paper addresses the lacuna in current legal scholarship in relation to the adverse socio-economic effects following trust violation and deterioration in inter-organisational relationships. Additionally, the propositions and findings should contribute to the workings of the UNIDROIT in adopting new rules and principles that would serve the special requirements of cross-border trade.

This paper aims to analyze the legal framework of land degradation in Asia and provide market shared liability as a new theory to solve a problem regarding the difficulty for judges to determine the percentage of compensation for corporations responsible for land degradation. This paper aims also presents a theory to solve the problem of the vacuum of legal responsibility theory, which can make corporations proportionally responsible in terms of causing land degradation.

This was done through legal research methods, mainly with systematical interpretation. The approach used in this paper is conceptual, statute and comparative approach.

By analyzing the related legal norms, it can be understood that in Asian countries, such as Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, there are regulations regarding land degradation. However, the regulations in these countries are not specific and tend to focus on nature conservation, which has an impact on handling land degradation. Therefore, it needs special regulation to deal with land degradation. One of the things that need to be regulated about land degradation is a market shared liability.

This research is limited to regulation in the Asia region. By analyzing the regulation, this paper will provide an analysis about the land degradation regulation mechanism in Asia and give an analysis about market shared liability as one of the solution to handling land degradation. Having the same ground rules will create synergies between countries in Asia to handle land degradation.

This paper is the first systematic legal research comparing regulations from three nations in Asia on land degradation and the first paper to provide market shared liability as a solution to handling land degradation.

Efforts to prevent and eradicate the crime of money laundering require a strong legal basis to ensure legal certainty. This paper aims to analyse law enforcement on money launderers with juridical review perspectives.

The research method used in this study is the statute approach, which is to examine all laws and regulations related to the crime of money laundering. The writing method used is the normative method, which is a type of research that uses the analysis of certain legislation.

Three new findings were discovered. In assessing the validity or validation of a business ownership or business transaction, there are at least three pieces of evidence that need to be used, namely, presence/absence of company/business registration in an official government database; the presence/absence (including the amount) of tax reported on income tax and VAT; and the presence/absence of other legal documents relating to the existence or general licensing of a business.

The results of this study are also expected to be helpful for the community, government agencies, or institutions, such as the police, to combat corruption, and money laundering. The Prosecutor's Office and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) describe the handling of money laundering crimes originating from money laundering crimes.

This research can provide an overview and input for the broader community as an early warning so as not to commit money laundering crimes.

This is one of the pioneer studies looking into law enforcement on money launderers with comprehensive juridical review.

This paper aims to understand the involvement of women in white-collar crime (WCC) also referred to as pink-collar crimes. WCC is present around the globe and has created a word for itself.

The paper is designed by studying the WCC in the area of Iran, Portugal, Norway, India and the USA.

The paper attempts to move beyond the traditional perspectives of emancipation versus focal concern, which argue that less inequality will increase women involvement in WCC versus women socializing into accepting responsibilities for social concerns by caring for others.

As the data is restricted, this study is based on the limited data available on the internet.

This paper is an original work of the authors.

The purpose of this study is to examine accountants’ application of principles-based accounting standards to a lawsuit contingency recognition scenario and the potential role that accounting work experience plays in mitigating accountants’ aggressive financial reporting.

This study presents a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with accounting experience (measured as high vs low) and contingency type (asset vs liability) as independent variables and accountants’ lawsuit contingency conservatism likelihood judgments and US$ recognition recommendations as the dependent variables.

Consistent with expectations, findings indicate that more experienced accountants are more likely to recognize liabilities and items that decrease income and less likely to recognize assets and items that increase income than their less experienced counterparts. Accountants also recommended recognizing lower (higher) mean US$ amounts for assets (liabilities), as expected. Supplemental analyses show a significant moderated-mediated effect whereby the interactive effect of contingency type and accounting experience on individuals’ US$ recognition recommendations is partially mediated through the nature of the conservatism judgment.

The finding that less experienced accountants report more aggressively than more experienced accountants when applying a principles-based standard supports the call for using judgment frameworks in imprecise standard settings and suggests that firms may want to ensure that accountants with adequate work experience are on hand as U.S. generally accepted accounting principles become more principles-based over time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the impact of accounting work experience on the application of principles-based accounting standards and the mitigation of aggressive financial reporting. Our supplemental analyses also identify the nature of the conservatism judgment as a mediating mechanism which partially explains more experienced accountants’ US$ asset and liability recognition recommendations.

The Scottish Government hope to pilot judge only rape trials to increase the woefully low rape conviction rates in Scotland. The reasoning is that by removing jurors, the court will be attenuating the role that rape myths and other cognitive and social biases have on conviction rates. However, a plethora of research from cognitive and social psychology, legal literature and decision-making science has shown that experts, including judges and other legal professionals, may be no less biased than laypeople. This paper aims to outline the research highlighting that experts may also be biased, why biases in judges can be elicited, and potential alternative recommendations (i.e. deselecting jurors who score highly on rape myths and providing training/education for jurors). Furthermore, piloting with real judges, in real trials, may not be best practice. Therefore, the authors recommend that any piloting is preceded by experimental research.

N/A

Furthermore, piloting with real judges, in real trials, may not be best practice; therefore, the authors recommend that any piloting is preceded by experimental research.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first of its kind to directly compared the decision-making of jurors and judges within the current Scottish legal context.

The purpose of this paper is to bring to light the present civil and criminal asset forfeiture procedures within the South African context and to make suggestions for reform thereof. While there exists and is a need for constant change and reform of the law to ensure that it remains transparent, up-to-date and applicable to all means through which economic crime can be committed, South Africa lacks the necessary resources and attitudes to accomplish this essential goal.

The approach used in this paper is purely qualitative using journal articles, textbooks, reports, periodicals, speeches and legislation as its basis. It is through a consolidation of this literature that this paper was formed.

While South Africa’s present system of asset forfeiture is producing some impressive results, the process still has vast room for improvement. There are key areas which this paper outlines for reform. However, the probability of improvement is relatively low owing to the levels of corruption, illicit activities and attitudes of mistrust within the South African society at large.

The concept of asset forfeiture is not new to any international jurisdiction, let alone South Africa itself. However, this paper aims to give insight into the specific South African experience of this procedure and how it can possibly be improved within the specific context.

This study aims to use institutional and upper echelons theories to comprehensively investigate the intricate interplay between TMT legal expertise and firms' adaptive strategies in legal contexts, notably within emerging economies. It explores how upper echelons experiences shape opportunistic compliance strategies, impacting value and risk perceptions. Drawing on upper echelons theory, the research probes how TMT legal expertise molds firms’ involvement in significant lawsuits, accounting for influential roles. It scrutinizes TMT’s impact on legal strategies, positing that managerial discretion emerges from environmental factors, organizational attributes and executive traits. The study underscores TMT’s internal incentives and external factors’ interplay, molding strategic legal engagement.

To validate this framework, statistical analysis is performed on data from 2,584 Chinese-listed firms. The data set spans 2010–2015, with 5,713 material lawsuits. Chosen due to reliable institutional-level incentives data from the China Market Index Database, years 2016–2019 are excluded for methodological disparities. Moreover, 2007–2009 is omitted to mitigate the potential financial crisis impact. This study’s 11,272 observations ensure robust empirical exploration, offering insights into the interplay of TMT legal expertise, institutional factors and firms’ legal strategies.

The study reveals that firms led by executives with legal expertise are more prone to engage in significant lawsuits, indicating strategic use of legal skills. TMT age moderates this, with older teams less likely to engage. TMT tenure’s effect remains unclear due to tenure-risk preference complexity. Institutional factors matter; less legally mature regions reduce managers’ legal risk intention. Results confirm hypotheses and highlight executive human capital’s impact on firms’ legal strategies.

This study acknowledges contributions while highlighting limitations, including the need for detailed distinctions in lawsuit roles and exploration of heterogeneous TMT power dynamics. Further research is proposed for nuanced power dynamics and comprehensive TMT legal background data. The study advances upper echelons theory by introducing TMT legal expertise as a factor influencing strategic lawsuit behavior. It challenges institutional theory by showing the adaptable legal context, beyond fixed constraints. Moderating factors – group risk attitude and external knowledge – deepen understanding of upper echelons’ impact. Enhanced data collection is encouraged to address limitations and refine findings.

This study’s implications extend to managerial practices. Firms should acknowledge the dynamic legal system, using TMT legal expertise for strategic legal challenges. Executives should pragmatically approach regulations. While legal professionals enhance compliance, caution is needed in selecting TMT members with legal expertise due to the risk of misusing it for unnecessary litigation, potentially misaligned with financial performance goals.

This study combines institutional and upper echelons theories to explore TMT legal expertise’s impact on firms’ adaptive strategies in emerging economies. It challenges the idea of a universally constraining legal environment and highlights how TMT legal expertise enhances firms’ management of complex legal risks. The research introduces TMT legal expertise as an influencing factor in strategic lawsuits, revealing nuanced relationships between legal contexts and strategic decisions. The findings enrich upper echelons theory, challenge conventional institutional views and identify moderating factors that deepen the understanding of upper echelons’ influence in legal landscapes.