Purpose The purpose of the research paper is to determine the efficiency of all crimes approach, their relationship with a risk-based approach and the consequences on regulated sector professionals. And, therefore, what is meant by suspicion, how employees follow the requirements and how it affects the quality and quantity of suspicious activity reports. It also considers the economic and legal challenges the regulated sector faces while dealing with customers or clients. All in all, this paper investigates what does the anti-money laundering (AML) regime means for legal practice and how lawyers’ responsibility is affected. Design/methodology/approach As the research is being conducted through the analytical methodology, the specific topic of “regulated sector professionals and reporting suspicion of money laundering” is analyzed. It evaluates the fact that the risk-based approach followed in Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations and its adaptation in the UK with all crimes approach caused discrepancy in the judicial system and influenced regulated sector professionals negatively. Findings The paper points out that in spite of protective amendments in terms of jurisdictional immunity, UK legislation has caused problems for regulated sector professionals, such as the potential of breaching a client confidentiality agreement and avoiding tipping-off, thus remaining under pressure by clients and facing the risk of losing their clients or obligation to record suspicions in case of court investigation. Originality/value The question of money laundering and the FATF recommendations has had a considerable scholarship. However, the proposed study intends to precisely look at the efficiency of all crime approaches, their relationship with a risk-based approach and the consequences on regulated sector professionals. The proposed research will further determine the regulated sector’s economic and legal challenges while dealing with customers or clients. Unlike the existing scholarship, the proposed thesis will focus on what the AML regime means for legal practice and how lawyers’ responsibility is affected.

Intellectual property (IP) rights have always had difficulties to cope with disruptive technologies. Development of AI-implemented works and common use of it pushes the boundaries of IP protection. Increase of machines which can independently act or create things have posed a numerous concern of patent system such as how will the inventive step, prior art, inventorship and technical contribution evaluated. Nevertheless, the grey area is how patent holders will protect their rights on products against direct and indirect infringement which can also made by 3D printers. This article analyses that the question of is the current patent regime sufficient to evaluate software-implemented works, 3D printing and Robotics to detect potential infringements and reaches the conclusion that it does not seem to be answered affirmatively based on current regulations. This article argues that some legal regulations should be done to overcome the uncertainty of AI generated works' protection scope.

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, as well as regional, national, and international collaboration to prevent and control transnational organized crime, are discussed in this paper. It investigates the transnational organized crime implementation mechanism and jurisdiction in light of international criminal law and the crimes and elements covered by the Convention. The paper recognizes that, as the importance of international criminal law in combating transnational organized crime grows, the ICC's approach to bringing transnational organized crime under its jurisdiction is gained importance. The main conclusion is that implementing the Convention's prevention and protection mechanism for transnational organized crime has been difficult; hence the ICC's jurisdiction would have an impact on the ground.

Intellectual Property (IP) rights have always had difficulties coping with disruptive technologies. The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its common use of it push the boundaries of copyright and patent protection. The interpretations of the patentability and copyrightability requirements for being protected by IP rights become ambiguous when assessing AI-generated works, due to the ability of AI to learn and generate output without human intervention. This paper although there is no doubt that AI generates creative and inventive works which could obtain copyright and patent, the existing framework of both IP rights in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and European Union (EU) is clearly insufficient to deal with AI development. This paper addresses and analyses the question of who will be the author/inventor or owner of the autonomous work and reaches the conclusion that it does not seem to be answered adequately based on current regulations. The author of this dissertation argues that rather than accepting AI as an author or not, some legal regulations should be done to overcome the uncertainty of AI-generated works’ protection scope. The Dabus decision has shown that there is no unity in terms of assessing inventions across these jurisdictions. Whilst AI develops over time, if the ambiguity problem of AI-generated works is not solved, this may become troublesome to deal with in the future.