|Commenced in January 2007||Frequency: Monthly||Edition: International||Paper Count: 6|
Accounting scandals and auditing frauds are perceived to be driven by aggressive companies and misrepresentation of audit reports. However, local legal systems and law enforcements may affect the services auditors provide to their ‘important’ clients. Under the civil law and common law jurisdictions, the standard setters, the government, and the regulatory bodies treat cases differently. As such, whether or not different forms of legal systems and extent of law enforcement plays an important role in auditor’s Audit Quality is a question this paper attempts to explore. The paper focuses on the investigation in Asia, where Hong Kong represents the common-law jurisdiction, while Taiwan and China represent the civil law jurisdiction. Only the ten reputable accounting firms are used in this study due to the differences in rankings and establishments of some of the small local audit firms. This will also contribute to the data collected between the years 2007-2013. By focusing on the use of multiple regression based on the dependent (Audit Quality) and independent variables (Client Importance, Law Enforcement, and Press Freedom), six different models are established. Results demonstrate that since different jurisdictions have different legal systems and market regulations, auditor’s treatment on ‘important’ clients will vary. However, with the moderators in place (law enforcement and press freedom), the relationship between client importance and audit quality may be smoothed out. With that in mind, this study contributes to local governments and standard setters’ consideration on legal reform and proper law enforcement in the market. Perhaps, with such modifications on the economic systems, collusion between companies and auditors can finally be put to a halt.
The importance of this study is to understand how Indonesian military court asserts its jurisdiction over military members who commit general crimes within the Indonesian military judiciary system in comparison to other countries. This research employs a normative-juridical approach in combination with historical and comparative-juridical approaches. The research specification is analytical-descriptive in nature, i.e. describing or outlining the principles, basic concepts, and norms related to military judiciary system, which are further analyzed within the context of implementation and as the inputs for military justice regulation under the Indonesian legal system. Main data used in this research are secondary data, including primary, secondary and tertiary legal sources. The research focuses on secondary data, while primary data are supplementary in nature. The validity of data is checked using multi-methods commonly known as triangulation, i.e. to reflect the efforts to gain an in-depth understanding of phenomena being studied. Here, the military element is kept intact in the judiciary process with due observance of the Military Criminal Justice System and the Military Command Development Principle. The Indonesian military judiciary jurisdiction over military members committing general crimes is based on national legal system and global development while taking into account the structure, composition and position of military forces within the state structure. Jurisdiction is formulated by setting forth the substantive norm of crimes that are military in nature. At the level of adjudication jurisdiction, the military court has a jurisdiction to adjudicate military personnel who commit general offences. At the level of execution jurisdiction, the military court has a jurisdiction to execute the sentence against military members who have been convicted with a final and binding judgement. Military court's jurisdiction needs to be expanded when the country is in the state of war.
Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful events occurred or may occur. For a number of years Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation has been at the centre of the debate regarding the intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet. Nothing has been done to adapt the provisions relating to non-internet cases of infringement of intellectual property rights to the context of the Internet. The author’s findings indicate that in the case of intellectual property rights infringement on the Internet, the plaintiff has the option to sue either: the court of the Member State of the event giving rise to the damage: where the publisher of the newspaper is established; the court of the Member State where the damage occurred: where defamatory article is distributed. However, it must be admitted that whilst infringement over the Internet has some similarity to multi-State defamation by means of newspapers, the position is not entirely analogous due to the cross-border nature of the Internet. A simple example which may appropriately illustrate its contentious nature is a defamatory statement published on a website accessible in different Member States, and available in different languages. Therefore, we need to answer the question: how these traditional jurisdictional rules apply in the case of intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet? Should these traditional jurisdictional rules be modified?
One of the main consequences of the ubiquitous usage of Internet as a means to conduct business has been the progressive internationalization of contracts created to support such transactions. As electronic commerce becomes International commerce, the reality is that commercial disputes will occur creating such questions as: "In which country do I bring proceedings?" and "Which law is to be applied to solve disputes?" The decentralized and global structure of the Internet and its decentralized operation have given e-commerce a transnational element that affects two questions essential to any transaction: applicable law and jurisdiction in the event of dispute. The sharing of applicable law and jurisdiction among States in respect of international transactions traditionally has been based on the use of contact factors generally of a territorial nature (the place where real estate is located, customary residence, principal establishment, place of shipping goods). The characteristics of the Internet as a new space sometimes make it difficult to apply these rules, and may make them inoperative or lead to results that are surprising or totally foreign to the contracting parties and other elements and circumstances of the case.