论赃物的善意取得

赃物在被善意第三人取得后,善意第三人是否能取得赃物所有权未有明确规定。本文旨在探讨确立赃物善意取得制度的必要性。     

论我国的善意取得制度

善意取得制度从保护交易安全出发,保护善意第三人的利益,对促进商品流转,稳定社会经济秩序都有着积极作用。新中国成立后,由于种种原因的影响,善意取得制度长期被忽视。十一届三中全会以后,特别是近几年来商品经济的迅速发展,终于催开了这朵璀璨的法律之花。1985年12月1日最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、财政部联合发布的《关于没收和处理赃款、赃物若干暂行规定》中提出了保护善意第三人的问题,其第6条规定:“在办案中查明被犯罪分子卖掉的赃物,应当酌情追缴。对买     

赃物的善意取得制度适用问题

善意取得制度是/《物权法》中的一项重要制度,其保障了善意第三人的合法交易权益.但我国《物权法》并未对赃物的善意取得适用问题进行明确规定,这将对市场秩序的维护和善意第三人利益的保障产生一定的影响.本文以善意取得制度的内涵为研究起点,通过对各国相关规定的理解和比较,对赃物在我国适用善意取得制度提出了一些个人的构想.     

赃物应适用善意取得制度

赃物是否适用善意取得制度,我国现行法律持否定态度。笔者认为,赃物应适用善意取得制度。这里的赃物指一切违反原权利人(所有权人或占有人)的意思而被抢夺、盗窃或用其它不正当手段而获取的物品。善意取得中的“善意”则是指第三人根据当时所处的环境无从判断该物是赃物而误信出让人为所有权人的情况。     

赃物也应适用善意取得制度

善意取得作为民法物权上的一项重要制度，对于促进和保护交易安全、维护经济秩序起着积极作用，因而，为各国民法所普遍接受。所谓善意取得，是指无权处分他人动产的占有人，将动产非法转让给第三人后，如果第三人取得该动产时出于善意，则可依法取得对该动产的所有权，动产的原所有人此时不得要求第三人返还动产，而只能请求非法转让人（占有人）赔偿损失。曾经有过这样两个案例：案例一：甲出国，将一台电视机委托已保管，后乙将电视机以市面价卖给丙。甲回国，主张该买卖无效，要求丙返还，遭拒绝，甲遂诉诸法院。法院判决此案适用善意取…     

论我国赃物善意取得的法律适用——兼论物权法第一百零六条、第一百零七条的理解

在域外法上,对赃物的善意取得及限制均设有明文,在承认赃物的善意取得前提下,通常又设置限制性规定,如赃物的原物返还。我国法律包括物权法至今未对此作出规定。物权法施行前。赃物的善意取得是通过司法解释或其他规范性文件调整的,前后经历了三个阶段,对于赃物的态度前后不一。物权法在第一百零六条设置了善意取得制度,在第一百零七条对遗失物善意取得作出限制性规定,但赃物的善意取得仍未涉及。笔者认为,对于赃物善意取得的法律适用:一方面,应当把第一百零六条与第一百零七条的关系解释为包容关系而不是并列关系,其中第一百零六条中法律另有规定应当作限缩解释,不是指赃物、遗失物善意取得(构成要件)的规定,而只是对赃物、遗失物的限制性规定。另一方面,鉴于赃物与遗失物同为脱离物,在善意取得制度上具有实质上的相类似性,对于赃物善意取得的限制性规定可以类类适用第一百零七条。     

犯罪所得之物之刑法解释与适用——以商业贿赂犯罪为视角

基于对犯罪所得之物的刑法解释,可以得出如下三个结论:一是商业贿赂犯罪中的赃款、赃物是犯罪所得之物,也可称为违法所得之物;是组成犯罪行为之物,而非犯罪行为所指向之物,质言,商业贿赂犯罪中的犯罪所得之物即赃款、赃物是行为人实施贿赂犯罪行为后所获得的物质性利益;二是商业贿赂犯罪所得数额的累加计算方法应是应当累加法+连续累加法;三是犯罪所得的赃款赃物的去向不能阻却刑事责任的承担,但在查证属实的情况下,可以影响刑事责任的程度,可以作为酌定量刑情节加以认定.     

论追赃

追赃是司法机关对与犯罪行为及其相关行为所联系并且已查明是否被相关行为“漂白”的赃款、赃物所进行的查找、控制、处理等一系列活动。追赃在实体法上的理论基础决定了追赃是为了保护受害人的利益;追赃在程序法上的理论基础决定了追赃的目的是获取证据、证实犯罪、实现普遍保护;为了平衡第三人的利益,又必须对追赃进行必要的限制。     

赃物适用善意取得的理论分析

善意取得制度涉及民法财产所有权的静的安全的保护和财产交易的动的安全的保护两个方面,其体现出两者中更注重对财产交易安全保护的结果,其出发点基于对善意第三人利益的保护。我国《物权法》未明确规定赃物是否使用善意取得制度。本文将从赃物及善意取得制度的解析、赃物适用善意取得的理论依据及现实意义的角度对此问题进行分析,以求对善意取得制度的适用有进一步的了解。     

我国应当建立善意取得制度

<正> 一、善意取得制度的产生在古代,调整无权转让关系的法律,有两种不同的立法原则。一是罗马法的“任何人不得以大于其所有的权利给予他人”的原则。依此原则,当占有人未经原所有人同意而将其财产非法转让给第三人时,第三人不能取得受让物的所有权。原所有人可径直请求第三人返还财产,第三人的损失由转让人赔偿。二是日尔曼法的“以手护手”原则。依此原则,所有人将财产让与他人占有,如占有人将财产不法转让给第三人,原所有人只能请求转让人赔偿损失,不能请求第     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.     

Monks Who Have Sex: Pārājika Penance in Indian Buddhist Monasticisms

In the study of Buddhism it is commonly accepted that a monk or nun who commits a pārājika offence is permanently and irrevocably expelled from the Buddhist monastic order. This view is based primarily on readings of the Pāli Vinaya. With the exception of the Pāli Vinaya, however, all other extant Buddhist monastic law codes (Dharmaguptaka, Mahāsāṅghika, Mahīśāsaka, Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda) contain detailed provisions for monks and nuns who commit pārājikas but nevertheless wish to remain within the saṅgha. These monastics are not expelled. Rather, they are granted a special status known as the śikṣādattaka. In this paper I explore the rules. concerning pārājika penance and the śikṣādattaka with specific regard to monastic celibacy. Given that five out of six extant law codes recognise this remarkable accommodation to the rule of celibacy, I argue that we must look to Vinayas other than the Pāli Vinaya if we are to arrive at a nuanced and representative view of Indian Buddhist monasticism.

Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.)

     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Anyathākhyāti</Emphasis>: A Critique by Appaya Dīkṣita in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Parimala</Emphasis>

In this paper, the problem of illusory perception, as approached by the Nyāya and Advaita Vedānta schools of philosophy, is discussed from the standpoint of the Parimala. This seminal work belonging to the Bhāmatī tradition of Advaita Vedānta was composed in the sixteenth century by the polymath Appaya Dīk?ita. In the context of discussing various theories of illusion, Dīk?ita dwells upon the Nyāya theory of anyathākhyāti, and its connection with jñānalak?a?apratyāsatti as a causal factor for perception, and closely examines if such an extraordinary (alaukika) perception is tenable to explain illusory perception. He then proceeds to point out the deficiencies of this model and thereby brings to the fore the anirvacanīyakhyāti of Advaitins as the only theory which stands scrutiny.