Dogmatics of the criminal law on the punishment for breach of trust — Focusing on the issue of double selling of real estate —

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 143-172
Author(s):  
JEONGBIN AHN
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1776
Author(s):  
Lyazzat А. TEMIRZHANOVA ◽  
Nurtai K. IMANGALIEV ◽  
Almaz Zh. SYZDYKOV ◽  
Almaz A. ESHNAZAROV ◽  
Bakhytzhan Zh. SAGYMBEKOV

The urgency of the problem stated in the article is due to the fact that the widespread digitalization of the economy leads to the fact that crimes such as theft and fraud are committed using computer tools and systems. According to statistics from Kazakhstan, as a result of fraud using computer technology, damage in the amount of more than 28 billion tenge was caused, of which individuals - 24.7 billion tenge, legal entities - 1.8 billion tenge and the state - more than 1 billion tenge. In this regard, the study touched upon issues of ensuring information security and countering cyber threats. The purpose of the article is to develop effective measures to prevent the commission of fraud with the use of information technology, since theft begins from cyber attacks on information systems. In this study, methods such as comparative legal analysis and expert evaluation were used. Amendments are proposed to the criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan regarding the jurisdiction of crimes, on the addition of qualifying signs, and on the need to adopt a new Law on real estate activity in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Amendments to the criminal law will have a positive effect on the ‘unloading’ of investigators of the internal affairs bodies, since the number of ordinary crimes related to their competence significantly exceeds the number of crimes in the sphere of economic activity. The adoption of a new law on real estate activity in the Republic of Kazakhstan will avoid the facts of re-registration of apartments for criminal purposes, the commission of fraud by realtors.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-199
Author(s):  
طارق حسن ابن عوف

       This research aims at Identifying methods of legal protection relevant to crimes offending   real estate and property in Islamic jurisprudence and Sudan criminal law of 1991 and contemporary laws, Egyptian and Anglo Saxon. Criminal offending is defined legally and clarified in its pillars, elements and the eventual penalties in Islamic legal code addition to objective laws and its effectiveness in curbing committing such crimes which impacts to extreme degree the rights of other individuals. This research recommends necessity of obedience to all noble commands of Islam and avoids offending rights of others to deprive them of their rights, terrorize and annoying them; cooperation among individual of Muslim community is the foundation which their relationships and Muslim community should be Ideal community that sustains individual rights and security prevails. 


Author(s):  
Stephen P. Garvey

Opening with the case of United States v. Campbell, a case from the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit involving a real estate broker charged with money laundering, this chapter offers two stories. The first, involving a fictional king named Rex, illustrates the extent to which criminal law theorists (and citizens more generally) disagree about what justice requires across a range of rules governing the imposition of state punishment. In light of such disagreement, how is Rex to decide what, as a matter of justice, the criminal law should be? The second story, involving an imaginary island named Anarchia, illustrates how state authority provides an important good—authoritatively resolving reasonable disagreements among free and equal democratic citizens about the requirements of justice—and explains why those subject to a democratic state’s authority are morally bound to conform their conduct to the law resolving those disagreements. It then argues that a democratic state’s authority to resolve disagegreements among its citizens over the demands of justice is nonetheless limited authority. A democratic state has wide authority, but not unlimited authority. The actus reus and mens rea requirements limit the authority of a democratic state to ascribe guilt.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malin Thunberg Schunke
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document