Democrats released an intelligence memo Saturday defending an FBI investigation into Russian meddling in rebuttal to a Republican memo that was issued three weeks ago, accusing the FBI of abusing its power. But NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield from Santa Barbara, California, tells Hari Sreenivasan that the back and forth is a distraction from what investigators have already found.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a key subject for businesses at the moment, but what does it actually mean and how ready are businesses? Julia Seary, Company Commercial Partner at Roythornes Solicitors, shares her top tips for approaching GDPR.

A recent survey - which evaluated businesses’ approach to, and compliance with, the implementation of GDPR on 25 May - revealed that as little as seven percent of those asked felt prepared for the change in law. Whilst a small majority felt somewhat ready, almost 30% did not feel ready at all or were not even aware of this new piece of regulation.

This level of preparation was reflected at a seminar I held at the end of last year on GDPR – it was one of Roythornes’ most well attended events of 2017 and we noticed the particularly high volume of questions asked.

It was clear from our discussions that each business and industry has different ‘pain points’ with the introduction of GDPR. I have, therefore, pulled together a handy nine-point action plan:

1. Nominate a GDPR lead or Data Processing Officer (DPO)

Having a person to front the initiative will be very important when the regulation comes into force in May. All staff must be adequately briefed, but one person leading on GDPR will ensure that the regulation is given the necessary priority and compliance is achieved from the outset.

2. Carry out a data mapping review

This will help to inform the business what data is held, what legal basis is being relied upon to process such data and where it has come from. This is also a good time to review and update procedures and refresh any consents (if necessary).

3. Update your customer facing privacy notices

This step is essential due to the fact that businesses must now ensure that customers are informed as to exactly what businesses intend to do with their data. Take this time to also remove any pre-ticked consent boxes and replace them with opt-in boxes.

4. Review and update all relevant data-related policies and procedures

Look at internal processes to see what data is held, why it is still being retained and most importantly how the data is processed and protected. This could include processes such as reporting on potential breaches and deleting data upon request.

5. Clarify and document the legal basis that you are relying on for processing data

This is really important with regard to consent – if you are relying on consent as the legal basis, check if consents are valid and if not then re-approach contacts to gain consent or delete the data. Valid consent is now harder to obtain and must be an affirmative action – be sure to keep an audit trail as the burden is on the business controller to demonstrate compliance.

6. Check your marketing lists

Check that all marketing lists comply with the new regulation. If the business has acquired a list, ensure that the targets have consented to their data being transferred. I would also suggest having a ‘stop list’ to make sure individuals are not contacted if they have objected or not given their consent.

7. Check your IT systems can properly support compliance

I would highly recommend doing an IT system check to ensure that the business can respond to requests and easily rectify data errors, strip out any redundant data and transfer data in response to consent. Also consider whether data should be encrypted and monitor changes to data and record these changes.

8. Review all third-party supplier arrangements with regard to the new regulatory requirements

Third party suppliers, such as back-office support outsourcing, IT cloud storage providers and delivery haulage companies, need to have their agreements checked to ensure that processing of any personal data is governed by a written agreement. This must contain prescribed guarantees in terms of the processor’s technical and organisational measures and record keeping but also obligations on the processor to act only on your instruction.

9. Consider staff training and ongoing audits

Ensure staff are adequately briefed and carry out ongoing audits. Training and educating staff to identify risks and red flags should help to avoid any data protection catastrophes down the line, as will continually reviewing processes to ensure the business remains compliant.

10. Go through and double check everything

Above all, the key take-home message is that you must have a lawful basis to process individuals’ data. This does not have to be explicit consent but you should be clear as to what basis you are relying on. In addition, transparency towards individuals is key. Whether it be in regard to marketing bulletins, IT security, customer relationships, employee data storage or data transfer, the core principles of data protection remain but with tighter controls.

There are many new rules coming into force but the crucial aspects to bear in mind for any industry are; the tighter scope of explicit consent (do you have it and, if not, how do you legally get it), increased transparency (the new ‘right to be forgotten’ and ‘right to be informed’ rules) and the need to demonstrate compliance if the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) suspects any misconduct.

A specialist information and communications technology lawyer has issued a stark warning about the dangers of posting on social media after a Dorset woman has been left with a fine of thousands of pounds for comments made on Facebook.

Making comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social networks can land you in a legal minefield if you are not very careful, according to Susan Hall, head of technology at Clarke Willmott LLP.

The warning comes after the failed appeal of Nicola Stoker, 50, who made comments on Facebook that her ex-husband Ronald Stoker had tried to kill her. Mrs Stoker lost a libel case against her in 2016 and has now lost a subsequent appeal, resulting in a hefty legal bill, estimated at £300,000.

Susan Hall, said the ruling judge was correct in his findings and that people are far too casual when it comes to posting comments on online public forums.

Susan said: “People don’t realise how risky it is to make throwaway comments on social media sites. It’s easy to get carried away when you’re sitting in the comfort of your own home or behind your phone screen but there are serious repercussions when baseless allegations are made.

“And this doesn’t only apply to Facebook, the same can be said for any social media platforms. There are a frightening number of criminal and civil wrongs which can be committed in 280 characters or less.

“The Judge in this case said that what Mrs Stoker did was no different to posting an announcement on an office noticeboard, and he is entirely right.

“Making public comments online is not the same as having a chat at the pub and your comments may well get broadcast to a much wider audience that you initially expected. It is how it might be read by others that matters most to the courts.”

Chris Longbottom, a Partner in Family Law at Clarke Willmott, said this case is not unique and he is seeing increasing cases and issues arising around social media comments when dealing with the breakdown in relationships.

Chris said: “When separations and divorces get nasty emotions run high and the stress of the proceedings can make people act out and take their grievances online.

“What most people don’t realise is that when this happens and when comments turn libellous, they won’t only be dealing with divorce or dissolution, they will also have a civil or even criminal suit on their hands.

“Online abuse and negativity is something we haven’t really had to deal with before but it is becoming more and more of an issue and one where the law is becoming stricter. I think it’s important that people realise that anything posted online can be used against them and might come back to bite them.”

(Source: Clarke Willmott LLP)

The robots are coming. While lawyers like to believe they are coming for them last, artificial intelligence is already having a significant impact on the business of law. Here Lawyer Monthly hears from James Touzel, Partner at TLT, explains the effect we’re likely to see AI have on the legal sphere, in terms of firms, professionals and clients, throughout 2018.

Effects on clients

GCs are under significant pressure to deliver more for less. In many cases, this means analysing how they can improve the efficiency of their legal operations.

At the same time, they are listening to the business and finding ways to add strategic value – not just mitigate risk. This is only possible if the right resource is allocated to the right task.

These symbiotic objectives are increasingly being met by technology. AI is well known for its ability to tackle less strategic, repetitive tasks where decisions are often binary. It can process huge amounts of data in record time, is accurate and learns as it works. More junior lawyers – or even non-lawyers – can manage these processes without the need for expensive senior involvement, freeing up senior staff to focus on more strategically important tasks.

A lot of the early AI inventions for GCs focused on document management. They read and "triage" large numbers of documents based on pre-determined criteria into shorter lists for lawyers to review, increasing speed and accuracy and reducing costs.

The future of AI is where things get really exciting. To date, technology has struggled to get to the heart of what a lawyer does: read, think and write. However, today's technology is smart enough to power what you might call "combined intelligence" – solutions that combine AI-backed technology with in-built legal advice and ad hoc legal support so that clients can enjoy the speed, efficiency and accuracy of AI, but with seamless advice at a low price point.

Contract negotiation is one area that is particularly ripe for this kind of digital disruption, and is the area that TLT has focused on and is now working with clients to adopt.

Clients will always face a challenge of deciding when they are ready for AI. They need to make sure that any investments are right for their business, but they cannot afford to lose the significant value of being an early adopter of a groundbreaking solution, including bespoke adaptation and competitive advantage. A lot of this comes down to trust and understanding and combined intelligence will be spurred on by the bonds between client and law firm, and law firm and technology partner, as well as early adopter success stories and market growth.

Effects on law firms

Law firms are increasingly providing more than just legal advice to their clients, with value added services including innovative approaches that help to address the need for more for less. Law firms need to adopt a different way of thinking and overcome their scepticism of new technology. In the case of AI and combined intelligence, law firms need to believe that this technology can bring about a positive change.

We are heading for a watershed moment as law firms become increasingly aware of the rich data sets at their disposal – and critically, how this can work together with AI. They have a deep understanding of multiple industries, clients, transactions and disputes that creates a unique perspective on trends and opportunities. Making this knowledge more readily available can only make us better lawyers and will enable clients to make more informed business decisions.

Not only will 2018 be the year of big data in law; this year, AI will develop beyond repetitive binary decision making into more nuanced areas, creating a rapidly broadening market of AI opportunities for law firms to consider as part of their service innovation strategies.

Taking contract negotiation as example, AI can already read, review and report on the risks in contracts. In 2018, combined intelligence will enable law firms to help clients deal with the last mile, providing in-built guidance on how to mitigate risks and alternative clauses to support negotiations. With more law firms offering "self-help" solutions, even commercial managers and procurement executives will be able to progress contract reviews and negotiations, quickly, accurately and consistently across the business.

Technology is a fast-evolving business and law firms may learn this the hard way. It is no longer enough to have innovation partners and labs; innovation programmes will need to be constantly reviewed and updated to stay relevant. Law firms will need to learn to identify client needs, run change programmes, manage projects, develop and test client facing software, run proof of concepts, develop new pricing and support models and bring new solutions to market.

AI will enable individuals who are looking for challenging careers in law to get closer to the commercial decision both in-house and in law firms. Wherever you work, the business of law will no longer be just about giving desk-based legal advice.

You’ve been accepted onto a law degree course, but you still don’t know which options to choose or what future in law suits you best. Below Emma Jones, lecturer in law and member of the Open Justice team at the Open University, offers invaluable tips on pinpointing the right options for you.

Many law degree programmes offer a range of options for students to choose from. These may, in part, reflect the type of subjects which are particularly relevant to practising lawyers and also the interests of the academics teaching them. Deciding which options to take can be tricky, but here are three questions to bear in mind.

What are your future career plans?

Depending which stage of your degree you are at, you may already have pretty firm career plans, even perhaps a training contract offer. If so, you need to think carefully about which options fit with your chosen route. If you are planning working as a corporate lawyer in a large City firm, it may be that an option like family law isn’t really going to help you along your way. Similarly, if you want to work in a high street environment, then a focus on corporate finance may not be the most relevant choice.

If you aren’t planning on a legal career, it may still be that some options are more likely to be of use than others. For example, if you would like to work in academia, you may find a dissertation module helps develop your academic writing skills. If you want a job in the charity sector, you may find an option around human rights will provide helpful background information.

What do you enjoy studying?

Hopefully, your answer to this question will reflect your future career plans. If not, perhaps it’s time to pause and consider where the difference lies. It is important that you enjoy your studies (and your career!). If it’s a subject you find interesting then you are more likely to stay motivated and enthusiastic, even when you reach a topic you find challenging or there are important deadlines looming.

Of course, that’s not to suggest you need to find every aspect of every topic fun and enjoyable. Instead, you need to ensure that the parts you do enjoy outweigh the bits you find dull or difficult. If there are some options that you haven’t encountered before, it can be tricky to decide whether you are likely to enjoy them or not. If this is the case, it is worth spending a little time reading around the subject to see if it does appeal to you.

What are my strengths and weaknesses as a student?

Do you love coursework and hate examinations? Find problem questions difficult? Enjoy writing longer essays? Do you prefer working individually or in a group? Listening to lectures or participating in seminars? All these are relevant questions when it comes to choosing options. Make sure you know how each potential option is being taught and assessed so that you can find the right match for your study skills.

Sometimes, it can be a good thing to challenge yourself and try new things. At the same time, it is important to be realistic about what you can achieve given the time and resources you have available. Working to your strengths can put you in a great position to tackle the content involved in the option without leaving you struggling to develop the right study skills.

You might find it easy to answer each of the above questions, but challenging to decide which should be the most important consideration. If that is the case, try and speak to students who have already taken the options you are interested in to get some first-hand feedback on the experience. You could also speak to the relevant course leaders and find out what they are looking for from students on their option.

Choosing options can be tricky, but they also offer great opportunities to gain valuable knowledge and experience and an insight into different areas of law. Thinking carefully about what you are choosing and why is a great first step to achieving the best marks you possibly can in your chosen subjects.

Just one pound in every £6,120 netted by organised criminals is recovered by the CPS, according to research by Fortytwo Data.

A third of a billion pound was seized from convicted criminals, including money launderers, drug offenders and fraudsters, by the Crown Prosecution Service over the last five years.

But rising fraud is estimated to cost UK victims £193bn a year and money laundering more than £90bn annually, according to the National Crime Agency.

This means prosecutors only confiscated 0.02% of fraudsters’ cash, according to the latest annual statistics for 2016. That’s the same proportion of money launderers’ criminal proceeds seized last year too.

Between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2017, the CPS seized £354,254,658 in ‘dirty money’ under the Proceeds of Crime Act, figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request show.

Partial figures for 2017 are also now available, and in the first half of the year £36,231,069 was confiscated from offenders at a rate of £1,449,242 a week - an increase of 29% since 2012.

The figures did not include orders by the National Crime Agency and orders obtained under other legislation. Overall seizures by the authorities reportedly total up to £201m.

The NCA has said in the past that it is difficult to recover funds because they are often hidden overseas.

Britain's multi-billion pound financial crime industry is booming, fuelled by easy and rapid access to large amounts of cash, most of which is untraceable.

The table below provides a breakdown by offence over the last five years:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the CPS disclosed 27,598 charges had been brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2017. There were no figures for convictions.

Julian Dixon, CEO of anti-money laundering and big data specialists Fortytwo Data, said: “The sums of dirty cash being seized from criminals are miniscule when compared to the real cost of financial crime.

“Victims should be demanding more of their haul is recovered because crime shouldn’t pay.”

“And although money laundering comes second to fraud in the CPS figures, it is the tool every member of organised crime needs to profit from their offences and should be pursued with far greater vigour.”

Amounts recovered by the CPS under the Proceeds of Crime Act by Primary Offence Type for the period 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2017

(Source: Fortytwo Data)

In reference to a recent case that sought to clarify the right for domestic courts to hear an EU wide trademark dispute, below experts at Clarke Willmott LLP explain the resolution, and point towards an answer to the question: Where do you sue for infringement of an EU trademark?

The Court of Appeal recently (1 February 2018) decided to seek further clarification from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) about whether or not the Courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear a trade mark dispute concerning an EU trade mark where the defendant was based in Spain and the alleged infringing acts were carried out in Spain and not in England and Wales.

The Judgment in the case of AMS Neve Ltd & Ors v Heritage Audio S.L. & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 86 has been handed down.

This aspect of the case concerns an Appeal in relation to a successful challenge to the jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales in relation to an EU trade mark infringement claim in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). The claim was issued by the owners of the trade mark and AMS Neve, an English company which makes and sells a range of audio equipment in the UK, against Heritage Audio SL, a Spanish company which sells and supplies audio equipment in Spain. Proceedings in Spain for alleged infringement of the same EU trade mark have been stayed as the mark is the subject of cancellation proceedings at the EUIPO. Clarke Willmott act for Heritage Audio SL in these proceedings.

In the Judgment under appeal His Honour Judge Hacon determined that the Courts in England and Wales did not have jurisdiction to hear the EU trade mark infringement case.

Under Art. 125(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (formerly Art. 97(5)) jurisdiction is restricted to "the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened”. The CJEU held in the case of Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (C-360/12), which His Honour Judge Hacon referred to in his judgment, that the “linking factor relates to active conduct on the part of the person causing that infringement”. Jurisdiction is therefore established “…in the Member State in which the defendant committed the alleged unlawful act.”

His Honour Judge Hacon decided that the “active conduct” in this case related to the decisions about the website where the alleged offers and advertising were found, as it was arguable that the website was targeted at UK customers. There was no finding of any sales in the UK. It was common ground that this conduct took place in Spain. Accordingly, there was no jurisdiction for the Courts of England and Wales to determine AMS Neve’s claims for infringement of its EU trade mark.

At the Court of Appeal, AMS Neve Ltd sought to overturn the judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon or, in the alternative, requested that the Court of Appeal make a reference to the CJEU for a preliminary decision. Heritage Audio SL’s position was that His Honour Judge Hacon’s judgment was correct and should be followed in light of recent similar decisions of both the CJEU (Nintendo Co. Ltd. v BigBen Interactive GmbH and BigBen Interactive SA (C-24/16 and C-25/16) and of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof) (Parfummarken (BGH, I ZR 164/16), both of which supported the interpretation of the provision by Heritage Audio SL.

The Court of Appeal decided that a reference to the CJEU was necessary as, although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof was persuasive (as it is the highest civil court in Germany), the meaning of “the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed” in Art. 97(5)/ 125(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringement. It is, however, always open for a claimant in such situations to issue proceedings against a defendant in the defendant’s Member State, which is what the claimants’ in this case have recently done by issuing proceedings in Spain.

The Court of Appeal has requested that the CJEU gives a preliminary ruling on the following three questions: -

“In circumstances where an undertaking is established and domiciled in Member State A and has taken steps in that territory to advertise and offer for sale goods under a sign identical to an EU trade mark on a website targeted at traders and consumers in Member State B:

(i)            does an EU trade mark court in Member State B have jurisdiction to hear a claim for infringement of the EU trade mark in respect of the advertisement and offer for sale of the goods in that territory?

(ii)           if not, which other criteria are to be taken into account by that EU trade mark court in determining whether it has jurisdiction to hear that claim?

(iii)          In so far as the answer to (ii) requires that EU trade mark court to identify whether the undertaking has taken active steps in Member State B, which criteria are to be taken into account in determining whether the undertaking has taken such active steps?”

The case will now be transferred to the CJEU who will determine the answers to the above questions. Once this happens the case will go back before the Court of Appeal who will make their final judgment based on the answers given by the CJEU.

Andrew Stone, a Senior Associate in the Intellectual Property Team of Clarke Willmott LLP said: “By referring these questions to the CJEU the Court of Appeal is seeking clarity on the issues of jurisdiction especially concerning businesses which are not in the UK but could be said to be ‘targeting’ customers in the UK through their websites. As sales online continue to increase trade mark owners need certainty and clarity about where they can enforce their rights. The recent decisions by the CJEU in Nintendo and that of the German Supreme Court appear to support the judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon. The response of the CJEU to the questions raised by the Court of Appeal will determine whether or not the Courts in England and Wales will have jurisdiction to deal with such cases in the future.”

Roy Crozier and Andrew Stone of Clarke Willmott LLP and Jacqueline Reid of 11 South Square act for Heritage Audio SL in these proceedings.

In recent news, it was reported that a federal jury found two Baltimore police officers guilty of corruption for robbing city residents. Their stealing of seized guns, cash and drugs for resale also corrupted many other cases.

Lawyer Monthly reached out to legal experts this week and below lists several responses to some of the subsequent questions:

What does the law say about police brutality? What does the law say on authority corruption and what are the criminal implications? What are your thoughts on the state of policing affairs in your country? How do you view the law and what changes would you like to see? Any further thoughts on this subject?

Robert Conway, Director of Criminal Defence, Vardags:

Up until 1984 the law said very little about police brutality or corruption. For much of the post-war period, there was consensus that the police were above such practices, or at least that these activities were done only with the public’s best interest at heart. The idea that there was a noble cause behind acts of corruption was strongly perpetuated.

It took two shocking cases of corruption that resulted in a miscarriage of justice – the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 - to change this view. These cases highlighted the need for more rigorous police oversight and resulted in the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This introduced a comprehensive set of rules to regulate the way the police conducted their activities. It was one of the most progressive pieces of legislation within our criminal justice system and for the first time put in place checks and balances to govern the extensive investigatory powers the police were granted.

The abuse of authority by public officials acting both within the UK and abroad are covered by several pieces of statute, including the Bribery Act 2010 and the Fraud Act 2006. The landmark Bribery Act introduced clarity to corruption laws that had been in place for over 100 years and established far wider-ranging powers for criminalising the abuse of power in foreign jurisdictions by both corporate institutions and public officials.

Chief Constable Simon Bailey has been very outspoken about the police force’s inability to properly safeguard young people against sexual predators. The alarming announcement of the police's lack of resources in the face of escalating crime, in particular online crime, echoes similar pronouncements by senior police officers in recent years. The tone of resignation in Simon Bailey's most recent warning is a clear indication that the situation is rapidly moving towards a crisis.

The greatest tragedy at the heart of the Worboys case is arguably the inability of the police to properly investigate - at times even take seriously - the complaints made by many victims in the years preceding his final apprehension.  In a recent action conducted by several of those victims against the Metropolitan Police, the Court of Appeal identified systematic failures and inadequacy of training and supervision in the conduct of police investigation. The judgment was another damning indictment upon the police and a further reminder of the emerging crisis of resources which has clearly contributed to those systematic failings.

Reduced police resources are also at the heart of their dismal track record in performing another crucial function - the disclosure of evidence to assist a defendant at trial. Historically, criminal trials were acted out between an individual bringing a complaint to court, on the one hand, and a defendant on the other. Each, through their own means, would compile their cases; the judgement would favour the most persuasive one. When individuals had similar resources, there was an equality of arms - a key component of a fair trial.

Modern policing and the shift towards state rather than individual prosecution destabilised the trial process. Hypothetically, the full weight of the state's resources could now be brought to bear against the individual defendant. To maintain the equality of arms, the police had to be redefined as an impartial and objective investigative body; any evidence they found had to be made available to the defendant. PACE, other legislation such as the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 (CPIA), and the codes of practice accompanying both pieces of statute were crucial in clarifying these new duties.

However, the recent spate of collapsed trials at the end of last year and continuing into the new year has been a clear signal that the police are failing in this most crucial of roles with very serious implications. We shouldn’t ignore the crisis of resources afflicting the police force.

Daniel Machover, Head of Civil Department, Hickman & Rose:

Police corruption involving firearms is less prevalent in the UK than in the USA, as are fatal police shootings.

Drug-related corruption, particularly in big city forces, is likely to be widespread albeit well-hidden.  Police brutality can be harder to hide. Deaths in custody or following contact with police are on the rise in the UK, despite the existence of independent investigations that are non-existent in most US states.

Limited accountability perpetuates the problem. Police are rarely charged with a criminal offence when someone dies at their hands. Following a death, the IOPC investigates, deciding whether to refer the case to the CPS. The CPS has long displayed reluctance to prosecute officers for murder or manslaughter, partly due to difficulties in securing convictions. Establishing causation, particularly in restraint related deaths, can be complex.

Disciplinary charges against officers involved in deaths only exceptionally result in meaningful sanctions. Officers being investigated by the IOPC are rarely suspended from duty. The IOPC often has to force the police to bring disciplinary proceedings against officers. It is doubtful that forces which must be directed to bring proceedings are capable of meaningfully holding their officers to account.

After years of inadequacy and serious criticism of its investigations, the IOPC has shown occasional signs of having teeth. However, IOPC investigations invariably take years. Often no charges will be brought against officers until after an inquest. In inquests, police who give false evidence rarely face perjury charges, with no convictions so far. The process remains profoundly unsatisfactory.

The Hillsborough inquests indicate the damage done by police over ups. The public interest in holding to account officers who kill, pervert the course of justice or commit misconduct in a public office could not be higher.

For those harmed by police corruption, remedies can seem out of reach. Those who suffer miscarriages of justice have two potential options. The Ministry of Justice’s statutory compensation scheme requires new facts that provide total exoneration. Even after the Court of Appeal quashes someone’s conviction, they need to convince the Secretary of State of their innocence.

The other option will be to sue the police for malicious prosecution. This requires proving that there was a lack of reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution and proving malice too. In many cases, only one of these elements can be proved, leaving individuals acquitted of false charges or who have their conviction quashed without any remedy.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

A new Ernst & Young report has found that more than 10% of the $3.7 billion raised in ICOs has been stolen due to cyber-attacks. According to the report, hackers are stealing up to $1.5m in ICO proceeds a month.

Arseny Reutov, blockchain security expert at Positive.com has commented on the findings and what ICOs should be doing to protect themselves.

ICOs provide a huge opportunity for scammers and attackers as they are essentially taking advantage of the promise of people making a huge return from relatively low investment. Unfortunately, this report shows the financial loss being inflicted is devastating when viewed at scale.

The reality is, the second a company goes public with an intention to do an ICO, it is waving a huge flag to cyber criminals that it is both valuable and also in a very vulnerable phase of its company growth. This research is proof that ICOs are not doing enough to protect themselves.

There are some very basically things that ICOs could and should address to improve their security posture. Firstly, it is absolutely vital that the underlying code of the smart contract is purged of any vulnerabilities through development - once this goes live it cannot be changed. Secondly, organisations must ensure that the web applications their ICO use are being monitored and protected in real time - all the security of the blockchain means nothing if a hacker can misdirect funds from the web page.

Finally, there is the human factor. A major risk here is that open source intelligence will be used target members of the team - our own research suggests that every ICO has a team member who's password can be found online. ICOs must do everything within their power to stop investors being tricked by phishing attacks. This is the hardest thing to secure, the only solution is to educate investors on the risks and warning signs and communicate as effectively as possible on official channels, to avoid investors being duped.

This could potentially be a linchpin moment for the future of ICOs - they could disappear as quickly as they emerged. If ICOs are to prove themselves as a viable fundraising option, they must address the issue of security urgently.

Morgan McKinley has revealed in its 2018 UK Salary Guide that the contractor hiring market endured a tough year in 2017. The guide reported slow progress for temporary employment, with contractors turning to permanent jobs in the accountancy and finance sectors. This was due to unpredictability in where vacancies would come available and an uncertain market caused by Brexit and a slowing economy.

However, there was a sharp rise in demand and increase of rates for regulation roles due to MiFID II, IFRS 9 and GDPR in Accounting & Finance Banking, Compliance, Financial Services Operations and Risk Management. Whilst rates for many contractors remained stagnant, the competition for regulatory individuals was fierce, and higher rates were demanded as a result.

Key highlights from Contractor Market 2018 Salary Guide:

- 22% year-on-year decrease in temporary compliance job volumes;

- High volumes of recruitment across regulatory BAU space and emphasis on capital reporting within Accounting & Finance in Banking;

- Investment managers in Financial Services Operations built up regulatory teams with contractors;

- 15.7% year-on-year movement around temporary transactional finance roles in London;

- -Strong Q3 for temporary Compliance hiring as IFRS 9 drove wholesale credit risk recruitment;

- IT contractor rates increased by 12%;

- Dramatic reduction of Risk Management contractor hiring in London as organisations transition -business to Ireland, Switzerland, Poland and India;

-16% year-on-year increase in Financial Services temporary jobs;

- Decreased demand for Accounting & Finance Banking contract roles across Tier 1 bulge banks and SME boutique banks.

Victoria Walmsley, Operations Director at Morgan McKinley, commented on the contract market: “Overall, 2017 has seen a change in hiring trends across the temporary and contract market. The changes to the intermediaries legislation, otherwise known as IR35 or off-payroll rules, were a game-changer for contractors within the public sector. There has certainly been an appetite within Financial Services to recruit more permanent heads and we have seen a noticeable increase in the number of contractors converted to permanent, our highest number in 3 years. This sentiment is supported by the overall results for the UK employment market; the Office for National Statistics reports that the UK employment rate was 75.3% in 2017, which is the joint highest since comparable records began in 1971.”

She concludes: “There has also been an increase in the number of Fixed Term Contracts available, particularly within small and mid-tier organisations and perhaps some of the uncertainty from 2016 seems to have given contractors more interest in longer term contracts which tend to offer more security.”

The reports provide a review of the contractor market in 2017 by analysing the condition of the employment market and unpacking the positive and negative news, in-demand skills, notable trends and contract rate figures.

(Source: Morgan McKinley)