Baker, E. (2004), ‘Guilty Pleas, Diversion and Consensual Disposition: England and Wales’ in A. Eser and C. Rabenstein (Hrsg.), Strafjustiz im Spannungsfeld von Effizienz und Fairness, Berlin, 381.Google Scholar

Bell, R. E. (2001), ‘Discretion and Decision Making in Money Laundering Prosecutions’, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 5, No. 1, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chiavario, M. (2002), ‘Private Parties: the Rights of the Defendant and the Victim’ in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge, 541.Google Scholar

Courtney, C. (2002), ‘Corruption in the Official Arms Trade’ in Transparency International, (ed.), Policy Research Paper 001, Sutton (available at: http://www.transparency.org.uk>TI (UK) Papers and Newletters).Google Scholar

Crowe, R. (2005), ‘The Schengen Acquis in Police Cooperation: Implementation in an Enlarged Europe’, ERA-Forum, No. 3, Trier, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delmas-Marty, M. and Vervaele, J. A. E. (eds.) (2000), The Implementation of Corpus Juris in the Member States, Vol. 1, Antwerp, Groningen, Oxford.Google Scholar

Dixon, M. and McCorquodale, R. (1991), Cases and Materials on International Law, London.Google Scholar

Feldman, D. (1993), Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, Oxford.Google Scholar

Glaessner, G.-J. (2003), Sicherheit in Freiheit: Die Schutzfunktion des demokratischen Staates und die Freiheit der Bürger, Opladen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamilton, J. (2005), ‘Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters in Ireland and the Proposed European Evidence Warrant’, ERA-Forum Special Issue, Trier, 53.Google Scholar

Hawley, S. (2003), Turning a Blind Eye: Corruption and the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department, Sturminster Newton.Google Scholar

Janis, M., Kay, R., and Bradley, A. (2000), European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials, 2nd edn, Oxford.Google Scholar

Jean-Pierre, T. (2003), Taiwan Connection: Scandales et meurtres au Coeur de la République, Paris.Google Scholar

Jung, H. (1986), ‘Legalität oder Opportunität im Strafverfahren?’ in H. Prütting (Hrsg.), Recht und Gesetz im Dialog III, Köln, 55.Google Scholar

Kerse, C. and Khan, N. (2005), EC Antitrust Procedures, 5th edn, London.Google Scholar

Kühne, H.-H. (2003), Strafprozeßrecht, 6th edn, Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Low, L. A. (2004), ‘Towards Universal International Anticorruption Standards: The United Nations Convention Against Corruption and other International Anticorruption Treaties: Too Much of a Good Thing?’ (presentation at the 2nd Annual Conference of the International Bar Association, International Chamber of Commerce, and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, The Awakening Giant of Anti-Corruption Enforcement in Paris, 22–23 April 2004).Google Scholar

Low, L. A. (2005), ‘Enforcement of the FCPA in the United States: Trends and the Effects of International Standards’ (presentation at the 3rd Annual Conference of the International Bar Association, International Chamber of Commerce, and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, The Awakening Giant of Anti-Corruption Enforcement in Paris, 4–6 May 2005).Google Scholar

Manacorda, S. (2004), ‘Investigation and Prosecution: Prosecution Authorities’ in Cullen, P. J. (ed.), Enlarging the Fight Against Fraud in the European Union (Academy of European Law Trier Series of Publications, Vol. 36), Cologne, 139.Google Scholar

Mitsilegas, V. (2003), Money Laundering Counter-Measures in the European Union: A New Paradigm of Security Governance versus Fundamental Legal Principles, The Hague, London, New York.Google Scholar

Perrodet, A. (2002) [cited Perrodet 2002a], ‘The Italian System’ in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge, 348.Google Scholar

Perrodet, A. (2002) [cited Perrodet 2002b], ‘The Public Prosecutor’ in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge, 415.Google Scholar

Pesquié, B. (2002), ‘The Belgian System’ in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge, 81.Google Scholar

Sacerdoti, G. (1999), ‘Das OECD-Übereinkommen 1997 über die Bekämpfung der Bestechung ausländischer Amtsträger im internationalen Geschäftsverkehr’ in M. Pieth and P. Eigen (Hrsg.), Korruption im internationalen Geschäftsverkehr: Bestandesaufnahme: Bekämpfung, Prävention, Neuwied, Kriftel, Basel, Frankfurt a. M., 212.Google Scholar

Salas, D. (2002), ‘The Role of the Judge’ in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge, 488.Google Scholar

Schaupensteiner, W. J. (1999), ‘Korruption in Deutschland – Das Ende der Tabuisierung’ in M. Pieth and P. Eigen (Hrsg.), Korruption im internationalen Geschäftsverkehr: Bestandesaufnahme, Bekämpfung, Prävention, Neuwied, Kriftel, Basel, Frankfurt a. M., 131.Google Scholar

Spencer, J. R. (2002), ‘Introduction’ in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge, 1.Google Scholar

Spencer, J. R. (2005), ‘An Academic Critique of the EU Acquis in Relation to Trans-Border Evidence Gathering’, ERA-Forum Special Issue, Trier, 28.Google Scholar

Tulkens, F. (2002), ‘Negotiated Justice’ in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge, 641.Google Scholar

Van den Wyngaert, Ch. (1993), ‘Belgium’ in Wyngaert, Ch. (ed.), Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community, London, 1.Google Scholar

Walther, S. (2004), ‘Communication over Confrontation: Modern Criminal Procedure in Transformation’ in Eser, A. and Rabenstein, C. (Hrsg.), Strafjustiz im Spannungsfeld von Effizienz und Fairness, Berlin, 367.Google Scholar