Search results

Money laundering is a crime. However, to date, it has been poorly prosecuted for a number of reasons such as the higher standard of proof that is required as well as procedural protection that the criminal law correctly bestows. These, in combination make it extremely difficult for the prosecuting authorities to bring a successful prosecution. Moreover, since the criminal law is only effective as a deterrent when a sentence is imposed, it has been rendered ineffective.

The purpose of this paper is to report research which led to the realization of a robot for miniaturized assembly endowed with high‐accuracy and high‐operative flexibility.

The proposed solution is a microassembly system composed of a Cartesian parallel robot with flexure revolute joints and a modular gripper with metamorphic fingertips, capable of adapting their shape to different micro‐objects. The fingertips are realized by electro‐discharge machining from a sheet of superelastic alloy. Thanks to its modularity, the gripper can be arranged with two opposite fingers or three fingers placed at 120°. The fingers are actuated by a piezoelectric linear motor with nanometric accuracy.

The experimental results on the prototype are very interesting. The measured positioning accuracy of the linear motors is 0.5 μm; the end‐effector positioning accuracy is lower, due to the non‐perfect kinematics and hysteresis of the flexure joints; however, these effects can be compensated by the direct measurement of the end effector position or by visual feedback. The metamorphic design of the fingertips remarkably increases the grasping force; moreover, the grasping is more stable and reliable.

The introduction of this microassembly system can fulfil the needs of a wide range of industrial applications, thanks to its accurate positioning in a relatively large workspace. The cost of the machine is relatively low, thanks to its modularity.

The combination of Cartesian parallel kinematics, cog‐free linear motors and superelastic flexure revolute joints allows one to obtain high‐positioning accuracy; the metamorphic fingertips enhance the grasping effectiveness and flexibility.

This study aims to understand the member countries’ current asset recovery mechanism based on two elements, namely, confiscation policy and asset recovery management framework.

Content analysis was performed on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Mutual Evaluation Report (MER) of eight countries.

The result showed that only a few countries established a centralised asset recovery centre or special task force to manage recovered assets.

This study is limited to information mentioned in the FATF MER.

This study highlights the need to have a centralised asset recovery management centre as an initiative to improve the outcome of money laundering investigations. The study findings will benefit regulators to understand further the practical challenges of the asset recovery mechanism for future improvement.

FATF recommends that each country establish a centralised asset recovery centre and work closely with the investigating officers and prosecutors in deciding on assets confiscation. However, the implementation is contingent on their local environment and resources at the member countries’ discretion. Therefore, this study aimed to understand the member countries’ current asset recovery mechanism based on two elements, namely confiscation policy and asset recovery management framework.

The paper describes a prototype robot which due to its serial‐parallel structure exhibits, high stiffness and has a large work envelope. These features make this robot suitable for relatively high precision machining operations on large workpieces. The conroller for this robot was based on MRROC++, which is a robot programming framework. Thus the controller could be tailored to the tasks at hand, including the capability of in‐program switching of kinematic model parameters. To obtain those parameters for different locations in the work‐space a calibration procedure using linear measurement guides has been devised.

This paper examines the problems of parallel proceedings against financial intermediaries, and the solutions offered by German law. The first part identifies the practical problems and principal questions of parallel proceedings. The second part describes the proceedings which can be brought against financial intermediaries in Germany. The third part provides an overview of how the fundamental problems and questions of parallel proceedings are dealt with under German law. The fourth and final part analyses special problems and constellations.

The purpose of this paper is threefold; first, to give a background to the security of payment problem in the New South Wales construction industry and the problem giving rise to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Act 2010 (NSW) (“2010 Amendment Act”); second, to provide an analysis of the operation of the 2010 Amendment Act; and finally, to address the main implications of the amendments for the three parties involved, namely the claimant, the respondent and the “Principal contractor”.

A review of the relevant literature was undertaken on the security of payment problem in the NSW construction industry and the problem giving rise to the 2010 Amendment Act. A “black‐letter” approach is adopted to analyse and explain the provisions contained in the 2010 Amendment Act. At the time of writing, no case law relevant to the amendments had been published.

The amendments brought about by the 2010 Amendment Act add appreciably to the scope of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW). The effect of the procedure under the 2010 Amendment Act is similar to that under the Contractors Debts Act 1997 (NSW). The 2010 Amendment Act enables a claimant to “freeze” money in the hands of the Principal contractor pending an adjudication, thereby increasing the chance of recovery of the adjudicated amount by the claimant. If, under this new procedure, the Principal contractor fails to “freeze” the monies, the Principal contractor will be liable (along with the respondent) for the amount owed to the claimant. There is a potential for the amendments to be used unfairly by claimants to coerce settlement of unmeritorious payment claims.

The analysis of the 2010 Amendment Act presented in this paper may be of interest in international jurisdictions where statutory adjudication for the construction industry has been introduced or is being contemplated.

To examine the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on regulated entities within the context of cybersecurity, US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) compliance, and parallel proceedings.

Describes the SEC’s ability to conduct its operations within the telework environment, its commitment and ability to monitor the securities market, its enhanced monitoring of the adverse effects of SEC-regulated companies from COVID-19, its guidance to public companies of disclosure obligations related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, the SEC Office of Compliance and Examinations’s (OCIE’s) focus on broker-dealers’ and investment advisories’ cybersecurity preparedness, the role and activities of the SEC Division of Enforcement’s Cyber Unit, and parallel proceedings on cyberbreaches and incidents by different agencies, branches of government or private litigants.

SEC-regulated entities face many challenges in trying to maintain their ongoing business operations and infrastructure due to severe financial pressures, the threat of infection to employees and customers, and cybersecurity risks posed by remote operations from hackers and fraudsters. The SEC has reemphasized that its long-standing focus on cybersecurity and resiliency within the securities industry will continue, including ongoing vigilance over companies’ efforts to identify, assess, and address the inherent, heightened cybersecurity risks of teleworking and the resource reallocation that business need to sustain their operations until a safe and effective vaccine is developed for COVID-19.

Expert analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers with expertise in securities, litigation, government enforcement, information technology, data protection, privacy and cybersecurity.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

In a high‐profile case that first drew big media headlines last February, a New York brokerage firm and a ring of eight brokers on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange were charged with perpetrating a scheme in which they made over $11.1m in illegal profits and at the same time covered their tracks with an elaborate fraud.

The applicable jurisdiction for insolvency proceedings, as provided by the Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, is the court of the Member State where the debtor's center of main interest (COMI) is located (Article 3(1)). The Regulation, however, does not provide a comprehensive definition of the COMI. This paper seeks to explore the meaning and developments behind the meaning of COMI as influenced by judicial reasoning and conflicts across Member States.

The study centres around the emerging jurisprudence and analyses case law across Member States in order to draw conclusions on the meaning of COMI and the emerging concepts. Extensive consideration of statutory interpretation, case reports and judicial comment is present in order to inform and develop conclusions.

In the absence of a definition it appears that the only relevant European guidance emerges from recital 13 and Article 3 (1). With little guidance in the Regulation, it has therefore been left to national courts to decide how the notion of COMI should be interpreted. Determining the COMI has emerged as one of the most controversial aspect and the principle point of legal conflict, with some highly debated cases within member states’ courts. On the basis of the case law, it is suggested that the interpretation of COMI is more flexible in UK and Italian courts. The approach adopted in continental Europe is referred to as the “centre of operations approach”, i.e. the debtor's COMI has to be determined by the place where he is “ascertainable by third parties”. The Anglo Saxon approach, on the other hand, is known as the “mind of management approach”, i.e. the debtor's COMI must be situated where decisions are actually made. The latter seems to enjoy a more practical and accessible approach.

Not only will the findings assist those seeking to understand the process and COMI requirements across member states but it will also assist those researchers seeking to understanding the comparative and conflict of law barriers to pan‐European insolvency proceedings.