Dit artikel gaat in op het fenomeen crowdfunding en het wettelijk kader. Hierbij wordt ingegaan op de Europese en nationale ontwikkelingen op het gebied van crowdfunding en wordt gekeken naar de mogelijkheden voor de toekomst, waarbij enkele suggesties worden gedaan. Wordt crowdfunding de nieuwe standaard voor financieren?

Het toezicht op gedrag is een onderdeel van het nieuwe, vooruitblikkende toezicht dat DNB sinds de financiële crisis heeft ingericht. Dit artikel bespreekt de rol van het toezicht op gedrag in het prudentieel toezicht van DNB, en de manier waarop DNB hier invulling aan geeft. Ook wordt de juridische basis voor het toezicht op gedrag in nationale en internationale wet- en regelgeving uitgewerkt. Het artikel besluit met een bespreking van de belangrijkste uitdagingen en toekomstige ontwikkelingen voor het toezicht op gedrag.

For the occasion of the 40 ^th anniversary of the Netherlands’ Society of Criminology the author has analysed the Society’s archive and related the development of this professional organisation to the development of Dutch criminology in the period between 1974 and 2014. He distinguishes five turning points in this respect: between 1965 and 1974 we witnessed the emancipation of criminology as an autonomous discipline; the period 1978-1985 is characterised by a downfall of criminology at the universities; between 1992 and 1995 a period of restoration started, that is characterised by a focus on criminology’s policy-relevance; from 1999 to 2010 we can witness a recovery, in which academic criminology raised like a phoenix from its ashes; and from that time on we see the discipline broadening up again, in which the dominance of positivist research agendas is countered by a cultural criminology and a more critical attitude towards the production-oriented research policy in general. The bottom line is that the Society followed these trends imperceptibly: it was active when criminology did well and was ‘in rest’ when it did not. The article concludes with the question whether the Society has an active role to play in the public debate about the role of science and crime and punishment.

Over the last two decades, there has been a growing interest in the development and implementation of knowledge management systems. In the judicial context, these knowledge management systems are designed to support judges in the decision-making process by providing them with the knowledge that they need in order to deal with doubts or uncertainties in complex cases. However, less attention has been given to the related process of knowledge sharing between judges. In order to optimally benefit from the knowledge available in the organization, this process should be better understood and acted upon. The aim of this research project is to gain a better insight into the interactive process of knowledge sharing between judges. To this end, a research model has been developed which will be quantitatively tested on the basis of survey responses from judges.