Search results

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.

The purpose of this study was to fill the gap in understanding the impact of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evidence and testimony in driving under the influence (DUI) trials. This was accomplished by documenting and analyzing the perceptions of DREs and the DRE program across different stakeholders to understand how and when this type of evidence is used in DUI trials.

The methodology is a qualitative case study of the DRE program in one police agency in Washington. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with criminal justice actors and state-level experts on their perceptions of the DRE program for the agency. Themes were developed from these interviews to analyze their perceptions of the efficacy and utility of DREs in trials.

While the courts in Washington accept DRE evidence in criminal trials, DRE evidence is largely absent in the adjudication process. Participants noted multiple reasons for this, including the lack of trials, the primacy of blood evidence and the expansion of the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) program.

Although the DRE program has been around for decades, there is a lack of peer-reviewed studies regarding DRE evidence, and no studies regarding how court actors perceive and use DRE evidence. Understanding when and how DRE evidence is utilized in DUI trials can increase its value and utility by prosecutors and the national DRE program.

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.

This study aims to investigate the potential positive effects of cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns that show evidence of commitment to espoused causes. It examines whether consumers respond positively when a CRM campaign promises to deliver proof of the espoused cause.

This study adopted the grounded theory approach to conceptualize the promised impact evidence construct. A promised impact evidence scale was developed and validated using robust qualitative and quantitative methods, including item response theory estimates.

The study provides evidence for promised impact evidence as a reflective second-order latent construct. The promised impact evidence scale demonstrates strong internal consistency, reliability and validity. In addition, this study posits that promised impact evidence is an antecedent of advertising trust, purchase intention, advertising credibility and persuasive and selling intent.

This study positioned the promised impact evidence scale against the theoretical underpinnings of the persuasion knowledge model. Specifically, this scale contributes to existing knowledge because it applies the persuasion knowledge model in CRM campaigns by adopting an acceptance focus, as opposed to the rejection focus used in developing persuasion knowledge model scales.

Face-to-face meetings between auditors and clients are becoming increasingly more difficult and expensive to arrange, due in large part to the ceaseless expansion of commerce across the globe. Relying on electronic communication media such as e-mail messaging or video-conferencing for auditor–client inquiry purposes is one way to enhance the timeliness of such communications; however, questions arise with respect to potentially biasing influences of certain technical aspects of electronic media on auditors’ judgment and decision-making processes. Drawing on information processing theories, the current study posits that media and message attributes can interact, thereby differentially affecting auditors’ belief revisions – holding information content constant. The media attributes examined in the current study are cue multiplicity (i.e., the range of central and peripheral cues a medium is capable of transmitting) and message reprocessability (i.e., the extent of archival and retrieval features a medium is capable of handling); and the message attribute studied is evidence strength (e.g., the credibility of client-provided evidence). Research findings from a laboratory experiment with 189 graduate accounting students indicate the following: (1) when client-provided evidence is strong, neither message reprocessability nor cue multiplicity significantly affect the auditors’ belief revisions; (2) when evidence is weak and reprocessability is present, higher cue multiplicity leads to significantly greater belief revision in favor of the client; (3) when evidence is weak and reprocessability is absent, lower cue multiplicity results in significantly greater belief revision in favor of the client. Study results suggest theoretical and practical implications for globally distributed auditor–client communications.

The gap between research and practice in special education places an artificial ceiling on the achievement of students with learning and behavioral disabilities. Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are instructional practices shown by bodies of sound research to be generally effective. They represent a possible means to address the research-to-practice gap by identifying, and subsequently implementing, the most effective instructional practices on the basis of reliable, scientific research. In this chapter, we provide a context for the subsequent chapters in this volume by (a) defining and describing EBPs, (b) recognizing some of important limitations to EBPs, (c) introducing a number of ongoing issues related to EBPs in the field of learning and behavioral disabilities that are addressed by chapter authors in this volume, and (d) briefly considering a few emerging issues related to EBPs that we believe will become increasingly prominent in the near future.

In the early stages of the animated film Aladdin, the main character finds himself in a hidden cave full of treasures and artefacts beyond his wildest dreams; a ‘Cave of Wonders’. This chapter explores how annotated documentary evidence collected by early childhood teachers as part of the Proficient Teacher accreditation process in New South Wales (NSW), Australia may be a ‘Cave of Wonders’ for evidence-informed practice (EIP) in the early childhood education (ECE) sector. This is needed as most evidence currently comes from academic research and big datasets. While valuable, these types of evidence do not convey the whole picture as they miss the nuances that can be captured in teacher-generated evidence – the yet untapped ‘Cave of Wonders’. The chapter begins with a discussion of the narratives influencing the NSW early childhood sector. This information is then used to classify the ECE system according to Hood's (1998) social regulation/cohesion matrix. What follows is an exploration of the role teacher accreditation can play within this fatalist system to support ECTs engage in EIP by using and generating evidence. The chapter closes with key lessons for policy and practice.

The dynamics of the physician knowledge system in the Southern California Region of Kaiser Permanente are explored. The framing and analysis use concepts from the knowledge management literature and network theory. The criticality of this issue to the establishment of sustainable healthcare relates to the lynchpin nature of embedding evidence-based knowledge in healthcare practice and the simultaneous challenge of combining this with clinical knowledge that derives from practice.

The case study is compiled from longitudinal interviews with over 40 physicians and other stakeholders and an examination of archival information including published articles generated by the learning system.

The socio-technical approach to building this learning system was critical given the expectations of physicians for autonomy in making clinical decisions with respect to their patients. This robust learning system builds on rich professional and organizational networks, is led by physicians, and builds on and extends the foundation of evidence relating to quality and value. The goals of the physician practice and a robust measurement and feedback system provide focus for the learning system.

Accelerating the incorporation of evidence-based practice and increasing the scope and reach of the learning system entails building physician networks, having a robust system for critically examining and extending evidence, and a clear linkage to valued outcomes.

This detailed examination of the dynamics of knowledge absorption extends understanding of the capacity of medical care systems to absorb evidence-based knowledge.

The very contextual nature of most mitigating evidence runs counter to America’s individualistic culture. Prior research has found that capital jurors are unreceptive to most mitigating circumstances, but no research has examined the capital sentencing decisions of trial judges. This study fills that gap through a content analysis of eight judicial sentencing opinions from Delaware. The findings indicate that judges typically dismiss contextualizing evidence in their sentencing opinions and instead focus predominately on the defendant’s culpability. This finding calls into question the ability of guided discretion statutes to ensure the consideration of mitigation and limit arbitrariness in the death penalty.