Search results

This paper aims to convict the offender of real concurrence offenses of the most severe offense and applying the most severe penalty will result in no distinction between the perpetrator who conducted more than one act and the one who conducted only one act. This approach deviates from the purpose of criminal law. The real concurrence of offenses means several offenses, the perpetrator’s dangerousness and culpability are much higher than the perpetrator who commits just one crime, so combined punishments for several offenses should be applied to the real concurrence of offenses.

If the depositors are acquaintances or relatives and friends, the relationship can be explained by “personality trust.” If the depositors are strangers, but they have complied with their duties of care, the deposit relationship can be explained by “system trust.”

The real concurrence of offenses means several offenses, the perpetrator’s dangerousness and culpability are much higher than the perpetrator who commits just one crime, so combined punishments for several offenses should be applied to the real concurrence of offenses.

The principle of choosing the most severe punishment applied to the real concurrence of offense should be abolished. As the perpetrator separately conducts two acts at different times, these acts infringe on different legal interests. Although these acts exist closely, the authors cannot deny that these acts constitute more than one offense.

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.

Many jurisdictions fine illegal cartels using penalty guidelines that presume an arbitrary 10% overcharge. This article surveys more than 700 published economic studies and judicial decisions that contain 2,041 quantitative estimates of overcharges of hard-core cartels. The primary findings are: (1) the median average long-run overcharge for all types of cartels over all time periods is 23.0%; (2) the mean average is at least 49%; (3) overcharges reached their zenith in 1891–1945 and have trended downward ever since; (4) 6% of the cartel episodes are zero; (5) median overcharges of international-membership cartels are 38% higher than those of domestic cartels; (6) convicted cartels are on average 19% more effective at raising prices as unpunished cartels; (7) bid-rigging conduct displays 25% lower markups than price-fixing cartels; (8) contemporary cartels targeted by class actions have higher overcharges; and (9) when cartels operate at peak effectiveness, price changes are 60–80% higher than the whole episode. Historical penalty guidelines aimed at optimally deterring cartels are likely to be too low.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

The purpose of this paper is to present and analyse the issues with which Lithuania is faced through its introduction of a modern legal mechanism for a more efficient confiscation of the proceeds of crime – the criminalization of illicit enrichment.

The paper analyses issues raised in the Constitutional Court of Lithuania concerning the constitutionality of the country’s Criminal Code, as amended, by means of which illicit enrichment has been criminalized. Then, developments in and statistics for prosecutions and convictions for illicit enrichment are presented, and the legal issues that have been raised in the practice of the higher courts of Lithuania are analysed.

The concept of the criminalization of illicit enrichment proves to be less promising than that of civil forfeiture. First, it is contentious in the context of proportionality and ultima ratio. Second, it may infringe upon the prohibition of self-incrimination. Third, it appears that collecting sufficient evidence of illicit enrichment on the criminal standard of proof is an extremely difficult task for the prosecution.

Lithuania was the first European Union Member State to introduce general criminal liability for illicit enrichment. This analysis of the five years since the implementation of the enabling legislation should provide useful insights for the other countries considering introducing modern legal instruments to bring about a more effective control of illicit enrichment, as well as inspire additional, vital deliberation on the matter.

By inspecting the special connection between negligence and the causes of negligence, this study evaluates the reasonableness of negligence offenses elements from the perspectives of “modes” and “rules.” This study considers that in the core concept of negligent manslaughter in the Criminal Code of Taiwan, “business” comprises an outstretched legal element; thus, “application by analogy” or “customary laws” should be prohibited as a legal basis or when applying the criminal code because those are not allowed under nulla poena sine lege. Nulla poena sine lege must be respected to release construction professionals from material risks in their judicial rights and interests.

This study used data mining analysis with a database of 204 cases where construction professionals were involved in an accusation of gross negligence manslaughter (GNM) (N = 486) between 1995 and 2021 to explore the reasons and distribution of these cases in the construction industry in Taiwan.

The results showed that the main reasons behind lawful GNM accusations against construction professionals are as follows: (1) the violation of employers' duty of care to prevent hazards caused in workplaces where falling and collapsing are concerns during construction, thus resulting in death; (2) gross negligence during design, construction and supervision, causing damages after natural disasters such as earthquakes and typhoons.

This study discusses the whole life circle of construction, starting from planning, design, construction and completion. However, the involvement of other offenses such as providing false statements, forgery, embezzlement, unjust enrichment and fraudulent tax evasion or criminal responsibilities stipulated in the Building Act or administrative punishments are beyond the scope of this study. Future studies will focus on foreign “business GNM” cases from judicial precedents with similar backgrounds to Taiwan in the construction industry to verify whether similar conclusions can be drawn and to examine their differences.

This study applied data mining and data analysis to the data and explored potential causality and patterns of GNM cases in judicial cases. The results of the analyses can be used as evidence for potential causality and thus facilitate construction professionals' self-reflection and contribute to the sustainable development of working environments for construction.

This study agrees with the removal of GNM titled “business” in the Criminal Code of Taiwan to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the building industry. By doing so, national judicial and management systems will be in line with international standards, ensuring that everyone has equal access to justice.

Goal 16 of the SDGs by the United Nations aims to promote judicial equality, peace, justice and strong institutions. With this basis, this study collected and analyzed data in the field of criminal law and applied the theory of criminal offenses committed by negligence to real construction-related cases. This study especially discusses whether construction professionals were imposed with excessive responsibilities when a court enforced the “duty of care” that asked the professionals to bear the responsibility of results for events that should be and could be foreseen.

The following is the text of Mr. JOHN BURNS' Bill for securing the purity of articles of food and preventing the misdescription thereof, which was introduced in the House of Commons on August 6:—

Managers as Actors Those of us who manage are playing on an organisational stage every day. We enter early every morning to take up our roles, whether it is as chief executive, marketing manager, personnel adviser, production executive or any of the numerous other roles that have to be performed if work is to be done effectively.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the effect of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 on the property rights of third parties, by evaluating whether the interpretation of the scheme of the PMLA, 2002 results in a deprivation of rights, by virtue of the provision for the provisional attachment of property.[AQ3] In doing so, this paper attempts to consider two sub-categories of third parties that stand affected by §5 of the PMLA, 2002.

Primarily the authors analyse diverging judgements and case law across various high courts to evaluate the position of law with regards to attachment of property. To reach a precise legal conclusion, the authors consider the composite scheme of the PMLA, 2002 in their analysis.

It has been concluded that there is a clear lack of judicial cohesion in the interpretation of the PMLA, 2002, and in the absence of a judgement by the Supreme Court of India, enforcement authorities have failed to correctly identify the boundaries of the offence of money laundering, resulting in a dangerous deprivation of rights.

This paper fills a vacuum of detailed scholarship on anti-money laundering provisions in India, while also being contemporaneously relevant, as it considers the effects of the PMLA, 2002 on bona fide economic transactions and secured creditors.