The Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings: Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif (2019)

J. Hatchard
{"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}
引用次数: 1

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纪律处分程序中的证明标准:律师监管局诉谢里夫(2019)
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What Are the Legal Mechanisms for Seeking Solutions to Disparities in the Delivery of Care in the NHS and Where Does Liability Lie? Beneficial Ownership of the Family Home Apologies and the Legacy of an Unlawful Application of Terra Nullius in Terra Australis Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy: A Contemporary Asian Reading of a Seminal Text ‘Not My Employee, Not My Liability’
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1