Is money laundering a true problem in China?

Money laundering was stipulated as an offense by Chinese criminal law more than 10 years ago. However, the judicial situation is such that no one has yet been prosecuted for it. This article describes the phenomena that are closely related to money laundering, namely the current situation of the predicate offences and other factors conducive to money laundering such as corruption, underground bank shops, and shell companies. Based on these facts, the article infers that money laundering is a real problem in China. Then it explores the reasons why case examples of money laundering are not available. Finally, this article presents some of the factors necessary in the investigation of money laundering.     

Is there a place for hair analysis in doping controls?

The actual antidoping control rules applied in sports (as established by the International Olympic Committee and the International Sport Federations) state that a positive case is chemically established by the unequivocal detection of a forbidden parent molecule and/or any of its metabolite(s) in urine, no matter the amounts which were administered and when the drug was taken. Screening is accomplished most of the time by using GC-MS procedures. These have been optimized to detect most if not all of the forbidden compounds which are put on a list. Recently, attempts have been made on scalp hair to demonstrate the value of this matrix as a possible means for differentiating between therapeutic use and doping abuse. In particular, GC-mass selective detector and GC-high resolution MS were successfully applied to treated animals and body-builders for anabolic agents (steroids and beta-2-agonists) at high sensitivity detection (low ng/g level). Naturally occurring molecules, like testosterone and its metabolites, could also be differentiated from their synthetic counterparts. Positive cases are more often challenged in courts and retrospectivity in time of the drug(s) intake is becoming an important issue for evaluating the responsibility of the person. This is can be based on hair analyses if the drugs have been taken at regular intervals. Stimulants and narcotics are often used in sports like drug of abuse in the ordinary social contexts. On the other hand, anabolic agents, when taken to improve the physical performances, follow complex regimens with the mixing of various formulas and dosages. Scalp hair references ranges for these as well as for endogenous substances still wait to be established statistically for competing, well-trained athletes. The incorporation rate into blond or gray hair is poorer than that of dark colored hair raising the question of individuals equality against the controls, a very important matter of concern for the sport's governing bodies. The frequency of hair cutting and short hair cuts necessary to gain speed in specific sports like swimming are other critical factors. On the other hands, irregular hair growth, associated with the washout effect through multiple washing and staining processes over expanded time intervals can cause concentrating or diluting effects. So far, a minority of prohibited substances could be detected in scalp hair with the sensitivity and specificity required in the context of the sport's activities. From the above, clear limitations of the usefulness of hair analysis in doping control analysis are obvious until a lot more data relevant to this particular field have been collected.     

Is there a Need for a European Criminology?

Readers were invited in Issue 4, 2000 to give their comments on the subject of European criminology. The Editors also invited some scholars on a personal title. The comments, ranging from 1,200 to 2,000 words are presented in alphabetical order. The comments are written by: Rosemary Barberet, Josine Junger-Tas, Martin Killias, H.-J. Schneider, Alenka élih, Henrik Tham, Bas van Stokkom and Lode Walgrave. Together they offer a view on the ideas and different views on European criminology.     

Export Cartels: Is there a need for Global Rules?

One of the reasons sometimes given in support of internationalcompetition rules is the need to curb export cartels. Exportcartels, however, are not necessarily competition or welfarereducing. They are just as likely to enhance competition andwelfare. The evidence reveals that opinions are quite divided.However, there is one constant: no country has a strong incentiveto ban export cartels unilaterally. The reason for this is thatmost of the adverse effects generated by the cartel are experiencedabroad, not locally. Therefore, if there is a case for curbingexport cartels, the alignment of incentives means that an internationalagreement is probably necessary. This article suggests one possiblearrangement.     

Is there still a hole in this bucket? Confusion and misrepresentation in passing off

Legal context. Passing off is an evolving tort. There may beopportunities to expand the scope of the tort to capture activitiesthat have not previously amounted to passing off. Key points. In Arsenal v Reed, Aldous LJ suggested that thetime has come to abandon the label "passing off" and recognisea tort of "unfair competition". The implication is that certainactivities that would not previously have been censured by thecourts might now constitute passing off. This raises the questionof what circumstances might justify giving claimants greaterrights of action. This article explores the possibility of justifyinga claim in passing off where the misrepresentation does notcause confusion, and dilution of the claimant's trade mark isthe only damage caused. Practical significance. There is no doubt that passing off willevolve still further. The English judiciary is perhaps now moreconscious of the flexibility of passing off than at any timein the recent past. Ambitious – even adventurous –claims may have a chance of success.     

Is there a “common law” of responsibility?

Contrary to common expectations and a good deal of legal folk wisdom, several surveys have failed to find group differences in the way people attribute responsibility and assign punishments. These nonfinding, suggest that there is a considerable degree of consensus about how to judge wrongdoing. The nature of this consensus is examined using survey data collected in two Japanese and one American cities. We examine the extent of group differences in the evaluation of inputs (here a set of hypothetical vignettes), decision rules, and punishments. The paper concludes with a discussion of the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues raised by these and similar findings of small group differences. Collectively, these three issues define, an agenda for future research on the nature and extent of a common law of responsibility.This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1986 meeting of the Law and Society Association. The research was supported by seed funds from the Social Science Research Council and from the University of Michigan and by N.S.F. grant No. SOC 77-242918. Japanese data were gathered and analyzed with support from the Nihon Gakujutsu Shinkokai and Mombusho to the Japanese investigators: Yoko Hosoi, Zensuke Ishimura, Nozomu Matsubara, Haruo Nishimura, Nobuho Tomita, and Kazuhiko Tokoro. They have recently published a book on the project. (Ishimura et al., 1986).