Suchergebnisse

Die Autor lenkt den Blick auf ein Beratungsfeld, das in Praxis zunehmend an Bedeutung gewinnt: "asset protection", zu deutsch "Vermögensschutz". Er untersucht mit den Asset Protection Trusts besonders auffällige rechtliche Gestaltungen, die gerade Privatpersonen einen Schutz ihres Vermögens vor Gläubigern versprechen. Dabei geht er zunächst auf den Rechtsrahmen in verschiedenen "Heimathäfen" von Asset Protection Trusts ein, insbesondere der Cook Islands und der US-Bundesstaaten Alaska und Delaware sowie auf korrespondierende Rechtsprechung. Anschließend erfolgt eine Einordnung der Ausgestaltungen in das deutsche Kollisions-, Zwangsvollstreckungs- und Insolvenzrecht. Es wird erörtert, wie das deutsche Recht der Schaffung von Haftungsexklaven durch Trustgestaltungen gegenüber steht und es werden die Grenzen ihrer Wirksamkeit zu dem Schutz von Vermögen aufgezeigt. Der Autor zieht hierzu Erkenntnisse heran, die vor allem US-amerikanische Gerichte im Umgang mit Asset Protection Trusts gewonnen haben und weist auf Herausforderungen hin, denen das deutsche Recht im Umgang mit solchen Trusts begegnet

The reliance on religion in religion-related criminal cases leads to different outcomes compared to reliance on culture in culture-related criminal cases. This is because the reliance on religion enjoys stronger protection than the reliance on culture. Freedom of religion can be relied on directly (Article 94 of the Dutch Constitution in conjunction with Article 9 of the ECHR). The freedom of culture does not have this possibility. However, in the event of both culture-related offences and religion-related offences, there appears to be little chance of success in violent offences, because the freedom of culture or religion is automatically restricted. There is a difference, though, in non-violent offences. Reliance on religion is more readily accepted than on culture because, as noted earlier, religion enjoys stronger protection. The court must nevertheless be reticent with regard to the (interpretation of the) religion of the suspect and does also in practice. In civil cases, reliance on culture or religion prompts the court to take this into account, or not, depending on the circumstances. If the act conflicts with the Dutch legal system, the Dutch legal system prevails, according to case law. Despite processes of secularization and anti-immigration movements, courts appear to be able to withstand the pressure from society and politicians to take no or less account of culture or religion in the courtroom. Both literature and case law do show that in the event of a clash between the norms and values of the culture or religion of the minority with those of the dominant society, the latter takes precedence. Courts use the Dutch legal system to consider whether or not culture or religion is admissible. A multiform society requires that the government must continue to maintain a dialogue with minorities in our society, because they too are part of the Dutch society. This could mean that minority-specific provisions are included. In addition, the judiciary (within the context of uniformity and transparency in the judiciary) should contemplate formulating guidelines on how to deal with minorities relying on culture or religion. One guideline could, for example, be the involvement of culture or religion experts in a court case who can advise the court whether the act is indeed culture-related or religion-related. It is also recommended that further research should be carried out if more judges with an ethnic background can form a part of the judiciary so that citizens with an ethnic background can identify themselves in the judiciary. This can enhance the trust and legitimacy of the judiciary.

Abstract. Cultural heritage is a corpus of tangible and intangible heritage that is inherited from pastgenerations. It includes signs and properties like places, objects, ceremonies, customs, practices, values and artistic expressions. The importance of cultural heritage is that it is not confined to a definite culture, but it belongs to the mankind as a whole. Thus, the international community has paid attention to the protection of cultural heritage all over the world. The protection has two aspects in the context of international law: humanitarian and criminal. The humanitarian protection is made during armed conflicts, whereas the criminal protection includes both peacetime and wartime. The criminalization of illicit activities against cultural heritage goes back to the Lieber Code of April 24, 1863, also known as instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States during the American Civil War. Since then, considerable developments have taken place in this regard. The two aspects of the issue are discussed in thepresent paper. The main purpose of this article is to provide a strict description of the two sorts of protection and evaluate the deficiencies and failure of the provisions on the subject.Keywords: cultural heritage, tangible heritage, intangible heritage, humanitarian protection, criminalprotection, war crime

Asset protection planning has gained in popularity and acceptance among estate planners over the past two decades, and is now a headline topic at national legal conferences and a featured subject in law school curricula. While the self-settled spendthrift trust was once considered the domain of a handful of offshore jurisdictions, sixteen American states have now enacted legislation to facilitate such planning closer to home. This article examines the historical challenges and contemporary threats to asset protection planning, including: Past use of the contempt powers of the courts to compel debtors to repatriate assets held offshore; tort liability for civil conspiracy and civil RICO claims; attorney liability and ethical considerations; and the distinction between "fraudulent transfers" and "fraud." Recent cases point to the emergence of a new doctrine – the per se fraudulent transfer rule – affecting asset protection planning even in those states that recognize self settled spendthrift trusts. Transitioning away from asset protection trusts to more modern, cutting-edge techniques – including captive insurance and LLCs – enable lawyers to offer a broader spectrum of solutions and better secure client assets from creditor threat.

Differences in the definitions of digital financial assets, digital currency and cryptocurrencies cause difficulties not only for law enforcement officers, but also in the science of Criminal Law. The author's research has shown that the term "cryptocurrency" is not included in the concept of digital currency, and moreover cryptocurrencies are not digital financial assets. Cryptocurrencies are defined by the author as a virtual asset that can be an object of financial activity and, together with digital rights and digital currency, all types of virtual assets are involved in monetary circulation, and, accordingly, the relations that develop in this area are subject to criminal protection as a type of financial activity. The author substantiates the conclusion that the list of objects protected by criminal law should include economic (financial) relations, part of which are legal relations in the sphere of turnover of virtual assets. The place of such legal relations in the section of crimes against the economy has been determined.