Search results

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.

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 explain the impact of the incentives of competition authorities concerning antitrust enforcement on the structure of enforcement and understanding of the substantive norms and welfare standards in Russia using case-level evidence.

The study is based on a unique data set of appeals to infringement decisions in 2008-2012. Quantitative and qualitative analyses are applied to derive an understanding of the targets of competition policy in the practice of enforcement.

The analysis reveals that the majority of cases would never be investigated under conventional understanding of the goals of antitrust enforcement. It is also shown that antitrust authorities tend to investigate cases that require less input but result in infringement decisions with lower probability of being annulled and lower cost to proceed. Structure of enforcement is skewed toward cases where harm serves as independent and sufficient evidence of competition law violation.

The results show that it is dangerous to motivate authority and public servants based either on number of tasks completed or completeness of tasks when they are heterogeneous in terms of difficulty and where easier ones provide lower positive effects on welfare. Judicial reviews may poorly contribute to performance measurement under a discretionary choice of enforcement targets.

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the various means available to US authorities for obtaining foreign evidence and other types of international assistance in money laundering cases. The means analysed here include mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) and similar processes; multilateral treaties; tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) and tax treaties (for a narrow range of money laundering offences); court‐sponsored procedures for taking foreign depositions, including letters rogatory; the use of unilateral compulsory measures, such as subpoenas, for obtaining foreign evidence, and the use of FinCEN and Interpol resources. The initiatives of the G7, the Financial Action Task Force and the OECD regarding international cooperation in money laundering matters are also briefly treated.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the June 24, 2010 decision of the US Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd concerning the territorial scope of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

The paper describes the complaint, the reasoning of the earlier lower court decision, the reasoning of the Supreme Court decision, and the practical effects of the Supreme Court decision.

Addressing the territorial scope of the Exchange Act for the first time, the Court rejected the widely applied “conduct” and “effects” tests and instead prescribed a new “transactional” test. Finding no affirmative indication that §10(b) of the Act applies extraterritorially; the Court found that its application depends on whether the purchases and sales of securities were made specifically in the USA, and not upon the place where a deception may have originated.

The paper provides expert guidance from financial services lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to explain and analyze recent US Congressional, Obama Administration, and financial services industry initiatives to reform and regulate the market for OTC derivatives.

The paper outlines Congressional committee bills, other Obama Administration initiatives, and industry self‐regulatory initiatives and discusses underlying current issues such as which derivatives would and would not have to be cleared through central counterparties (CCPs); how standardized and customized derivatives would be distinguished from each other; potential margin, business conduct, reporting, and recordkeeping standards for OTC derivatives dealers; how fraud, market manipulation, and other market abuses would be policed; possible limitations on the types of parties that may participate in unregulated derivatives; possible resolution of the sometimes confusing and overlapping authority of the SEC and CFTC over OTC derivatives; how and by which federal or state authority credit default swaps (CDS) might be regulated; the potential for regulatory arbitrage; and the danger that stringent regulation in the USA will drive OTC derivatives business offshore.

Unlike markets for other financial instruments, derivatives market participants, largely through ISDA, have for some time cooperated closely with the New York Fed and engaged in a myriad self‐policing activities. Time will tell whether this existing framework, combined with the redoubled self‐policing efforts of market participants, will cause policymakers to seek appropriate legislation that will not threaten the preservation of the OTC derivatives market in the USA.

The paper presents a clear and detailed guide and explanation of recent regulatory initiatives and underlying issues.

Countries have differences in competition policies, which are cause for friction in international trade and investment. This paper discusses those issues and develops a model to try to explain the willingness of countries to participate in a cooperative competition policy. The model suggests that countries which are economically advanced, active in trade, and already involved in trade regimes are most likely to cooperate in competition policy.

The practice of civil in rem forfeiture has roots in ancient codes and commandments. It is found in the common law doctrine of deodand and in the laws of the nomadic agricultural Israelites. In the second section of the Torah or Book of the Law known as the Book of Exodus there are three groups of laws: (1) the Ten Commandments or Decalogue; (2) Ritual Decalogue; and (3) the Book of the Covenant or the Covenant Code. The Covenant Code is thought to be the earliest lengthy codification of primitive law among the Hebrews; it contains detailed laws for all phases of ancient Israelite life: religious, moral, commercial and humanitarian and crime and penalties. Chapter 21 includes the lex talionis or law of retaliation, a stipulated legal punishment appropriate to the injury, and the assignment of in rem.