Purpose This study aims to compare judicial and auditor expectations of audit in the detection reporting money laundering Iran. It also assess implications gap for reliability data provided Financial Action Task Force (FATF) its blacklisting policy. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaires were administered auditors determine perceptions their anti-money (AML) obligations. These completed by ...

MuayThai is a combat sport with a growing international profile but limited research conducted into judging practices and processes. Problems with judging of other subjectively judged combat sports have caused controversy at major international tournaments that have resulted in changes to scoring methods. Nationalistic bias has been central to these problems and has been identified across a ran...

The importance of the issue of the agreement (or disagreement) between relevance judges is increasing, since new kinds of relevance judgment expression are being used (to the classical dichotomous one, various researches have added scalar, weighted, and orders of various kind) and new media are being introduced (it is far quicker to judge the relevance of an image than a text, and thus the huma...

Correlations between memories and dreaming has typically been studied by linking conscious experiences and dream reports, which has illustrated that dreaming reflects waking life events, thoughts, and emotions. As some research suggests that sleep has a function of memory consolidation, and dreams reflect this, researching this relationship further may uncover more useful insights. However, mos...

No matter what the profession, any charge that a fellow professional is guilty of malpractice is a prima facie invitation to other professionals to retreat to a guild mentality, denying that the infraction took place. The impetus to cover up is not primarily due to friendship toward the accused but rather to a general perception that disclosure would lead to public disrespect of the profession ...

Past research suggests federal judges confront incentives that undermine the speed and quality with which they resolve cases when leisure interests are particularly strong. Alternatively, the selection process for federal judges, which seeks to identify intrinsically motivated individuals, as well as judges’ own desire for prestige—commonly tied to the quality of their work—may considerably mit...

The Supreme Court's Daubert trilogy places judges in the unenviable position of assessing the reliability of often unfamiliar and complex scientific expert testimony. Over the past decade, scholars have therefore explored various ways of helping judges with their new gatekeeping responsibilities. Unfortunately, the two dominant approaches, which focus on doctrinal tests and external assistance ...

A modest, but growing, body of case law is developing around the (non-)treatment of patients in the minimally conscious state. We sought to explore the approaches that the courts take to these decisions. Using the results of a qualitative analysis, we identify five key features of the rulings to date. First, the judges appear keen to frame the cases in such a way that these are rightly matters ...

Reports about runaway jury awards have become so common that it is widely accepted that the US jury system needs to be ‘fixed.’ Proposals to limit the right to a jury trial and increase judicial discretion over awards implicitly assume that judges decide cases differently than juries. We show that there are large differences in mean awards and win rates across juries and judges. But if the type...

Most scholars focus on whether the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines effectively constrain judges or result in disparate decisions based on a court’s or defendant’s location. With few exceptions, studies of the effect of judicial attributes on federal-district-court-sentencing cases have been stymied by the United States Sentencing Commission’s refusal to release judges’ names in their databases of se...