纪律处分程序中的证明标准:律师监管局诉谢里夫(2019)

J. Hatchard
{"title":"纪律处分程序中的证明标准:律师监管局诉谢里夫(2019)","authors":"J. Hatchard","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The January 2019 ruling of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif1 highlighted the care that legal practitioners must take in order to satisfy their anti-money laundering obligations and the serious consequences of any failure to do so. This is the subject of a separate note in this issueof the Denning Law Journal.2 However, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal applied the criminal standard of proof in the case. The question as to whether this is now the appropriate approach is the subject of this note.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings: Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif (2019)\",\"authors\":\"J. Hatchard\",\"doi\":\"10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The January 2019 ruling of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif1 highlighted the care that legal practitioners must take in order to satisfy their anti-money laundering obligations and the serious consequences of any failure to do so. This is the subject of a separate note in this issueof the Denning Law Journal.2 However, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal applied the criminal standard of proof in the case. The question as to whether this is now the appropriate approach is the subject of this note.\",\"PeriodicalId\":382436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Denning Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Denning Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1795\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Denning Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2019年1月,律师纪律审裁处在律师监管局诉Sharif1案中作出裁决,强调法律从业人员必须谨慎行事,以履行反洗钱义务,以及不这样做的严重后果。这是《丹宁法律期刊》本期另一篇附注的主题。2然而,律师纪律审裁处在此案中采用了刑事举证标准。关于这是否现在是适当的方法的问题是本说明的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings: Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif (2019)
The January 2019 ruling of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif1 highlighted the care that legal practitioners must take in order to satisfy their anti-money laundering obligations and the serious consequences of any failure to do so. This is the subject of a separate note in this issueof the Denning Law Journal.2 However, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal applied the criminal standard of proof in the case. The question as to whether this is now the appropriate approach is the subject of this note.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信