Search results

A major source of external funding for US airports comes from issuing municipal bonds. Credit rating agencies evaluate the bonds using multiple factors, but the judgments behind the ratings are not well understood. This paper examines if airport rate-setting methods affect the bond ratings of US airports.

Using a set of unbalanced panel data for 58 hub airports from 2010 to 2019, we examine the effect of the rate-setting methods and other airport characteristics on Fitch’s airport bond rating.

We find that compensatory airports consistently receive a very high bond rating from Fitch. The probability of getting a very high Fitch rating increases by ∼28 percentage points for a compensatory airport. Additionally, the probability of getting a very high rating is about 33 percentage points higher for a legacy hub.

The study uses Fitch bond ratings. Future studies could examine if S&P’s and Moody’s ratings are also influenced by airport rate-setting methods and legacy hub status.

The results uncover the linkage between bond ratings and their determinants for US airports. This information is important for investors when assessing airport creditworthiness and for airport operators as they manage capital project financing.

This is the first study to evaluate the effects of rate-setting methods on airport bond rating and also the first to document a statistically significant relationship between airports’ legacy hub status and bond ratings.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and evaluate the current legal position on the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases.

A thorough exploratory analytical analysis signifies that such illegally obtained evidence from money laundering offences is admissible, provided it does not undermine the administration of justice or the right to a fair trial.

By virtue of the lack of written or codified rules governing the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in cases involving money laundering, the rule of admissibility remains the primary foundational principle for the governance of the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases.

The Malaysian Criminal Justice System has historically relied on the long-standing admissibility principles to admit and exclude illegally obtained evidence. For decades, courts have used their discretion to admit illegally obtained evidence based on the relevancy test, and they have further demonstrated to use the same discretion to exclude gravely prejudicial evidence. Evidence obtained illegally but if relevant to the matter in issue is deemed admissible. Evidence derived from an act associated with unlawful activities or a predicate offence in money laundering may be obtained illegally, which may influence the prosecution case and conversely, defend the accused’s rights to a fair trial.