Search results

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.

Whistleblowers are individuals who detect and report misconduct in an organization. They help to mitigate organizational misbehavior and resulting damages effectively and relatively quickly. Whistleblower protection has not been systematically required in the European Union (EU), leaving many large organizations unregulated. This study aims to get in-depth insights into how unregulated organizations design, handle and view whistleblowing with the advent of a novel EU Whistleblowing Directive.

The authors conducted 17 semistructured interviews with a diverse group of organizations headquartered in Germany and inductively analyzed them following Grounded Theory. Linking the Grounded Theory to the legal endogeneity model, they developed seven perspectives that help to explain how organizations view whistleblowing.

In trying to make sense of the role of whistleblowing in the organization’s governance, organizations and their managers assume different perspectives. These perspectives guide their approach to whistleblower protection in the context of evolving regulation with little regulatory guidance. Perspectives vary in the degree of supporting whistleblowing regulation, from viewing whistleblowing as a natural, everyday governance tool to denying it and fearing denunciation. Most organizations exhibit several perspectives.

Little is known about day-to-day whistleblowing practices from the perspective of organizations. The authors fill this research gap by providing initial evidence on how organizations approach whistleblowing and the EU Whistleblowing Directive. Identifying organizations’ perspectives may help us understand how ineffective or noncompliant whistleblowing systems emerge and how organizations can improve.