Marianne Johanna Hilf

Country Report: Austria

In Austria, there has so far not been much research on the impact of neuroscience on the law. As a consequence, this contribution will try to discuss how some of the major neurolegal questions identified in other states might be dealt with under Austrian law. We will focus on the following areas: First, the legal framework for neuroscientific research. In this respect, we will pay most attention to the involvement of ethics committees on the one hand, and to the legal consequences of “incidental findings” on the other hand. Second, we will try to tackle some of the questions arising from the use of neuroscientific assistive technologies and “neuro-enhancement”. Third, we will visit the discussion on whether recent neuroscientific findings on determinism put the concept of prosecution based on individual guilt into question. Finally, the legal framework on the use of neuroscientific techniques in criminal and civil procedure law will be drafted.

Money Laundering and Financing Terrorism: Legal Distinctions

In recent years, an important development at the international level has been observed: measures taken in combating organized crime — such as the criminalisation of money laundering, the creation of regulations to improve the detection of profits, and their seizure as well as confiscation or forfeiture — represent instruments that should now also be implemented to some extent to combat terrorism. This deals primarily with the control over the flow of money and access to assets that at least appear to be suspicious.1