LEGAL CHALLENGES OF ADOPTING AGE-VERIFICATION TECHNIQUES FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS ON THE INTERNET IN MALAYSIA

Corporations in the form of Limited Liability Companies in Indonesia are regulated in Limited Liability Company Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, this Law regulates the liability of corporations and/or shareholders who commit acts against the law, but the liability that can be asked of shareholders does not exceed existing shares. This study uses normative legal research methods. The data used are secondary data consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. For data analysis, the qualitative jurisdictional analysis method was used. From this research, it can be found that law enforcement against shareholders who commit acts against the law can be upheld and the outcome is that the action against the law which was originally a civil action and then turned into a criminal act. By using the Piercing, the corporate veil doctrine, shareholders who commit acts against the law can be sentenced to criminal and all their assets to cover the financial losses of the state due to their actions. It is universally applied on the basis of fraudulent acts carried out to rake in personal profit and by implementing civil forfeiture or civil recovery, the proceeds of crimes committed by shareholders are likely to be returned.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS

Corporations in the form of Limited Liability Companies in Indonesia are regulated in Limited Liability Company Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, this Law regulates the liability of corporations and/or shareholders who commit acts against the law, but the liability that can be asked of shareholders does not exceed existing shares. This study uses normative legal research methods. The data used are secondary data consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. For data analysis, the qualitative jurisdictional analysis method was used. From this research, it can be found that law enforcement against shareholders who commit acts against the law can be upheld and the outcome is that the action against the law which was originally a civil action and then turned into a criminal act. By using the Piercing, the corporate veil doctrine, shareholders who commit acts against the law can be sentenced to criminal and all their assets to cover the financial losses of the state due to their actions. It is universally applied on the basis of fraudulent acts carried out to rake in personal profit and by implementing civil forfeiture or civil recovery, the proceeds of crimes committed by shareholders are likely to be returned.

TERMIN DO UZUPEŁNIENIA NALEŻNEJ OPŁATY PRZEZ PROFESJONALNEGO PEŁNOMOCNIKA W RAZIE WNIESIENIA ZAŻALENIA NA ZARZĄDZENIE O ZWROCIE POZWU

THE TERM IN WHICH A PROFESSIONAL PROXY MUST MAKE THE REQUIRED PAYMENT FOR AN APPEAL AGAINST A RULING DISMISSING PROCEEDINGS Summary The aim of this paper is to answer the question whether the provisions of Art. 1302 § 2 of the Polish Civil Proceedings Code (k.p.c.) are applicable in the event of an appeal against a ruling to dismiss a case on grounds of non-payment of the court fee. Doubts have been raised on the admissibility of payment by a professional attorney within a term of seven days of the service of a court’s decision to dismiss a case. Under Art. 1302 § 2 k.p.c. the legislator has allowed for payment of the court fee due within a term of one week from the day on which notice is served on the court’s decision to dismiss the case. The position of the author of this paper is that the term of seven days provided for the remittance of the court fee due in the event of an appeal, as defined in Art. 1302 § 2 k.p.c., starts on the day notice is served on the court’s decision to dismiss a case. Any other position on the matter would be in breach of the legal principles at the root of an individual’s right of access to the law and his right to appeal, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, as well as in breach of the prohibition of reformationis in peius. The lodging of an appeal cannot lead to the dismissal of the civil recovery proceedings defined in Art. 1302 § 2 k.p.c.

TRACING TO AND FRO

THE era of civil litigation to recover the proceeds of fraud continues and, with it, the elaboration of principles of judge-made law as to when defrauded persons may recover. These principles reflect a truth of human nature. Apart from the silly, reckless and brazen, those who commit fraud wish their takings to be undetectable. A crucial development in the history of English law, therefore, was to accept that, for some purposes, persons may make juridical claims not only to an asset originally taken from them, but also to other assets representing the original: Maitland, “Trust and Corporation”, in Selected Essays (Cambridge, 1936), 171–72. The concept of assets “representing” the original assets is at the heart of the equitable and common law doctrines of tracing and civil recovery for fraud.