The community of Troso Village, Pecangaan District, Jepara Regency, is one of the Restorative Justice Villages in Jepara Province. The purpose of this community service activity is to provide assistance to the restorative justice system to the people of Troso Village. The problem that occurs is the lack of knowledge and understanding of the people of Troso Village regarding restorative justice. The mentoring method is in the form of delivering material face-to-face accompanied by discussions and questions and answers. The result after participating in the mentoring is an increase in the knowledge and understanding of the village community regarding restorative justice. The assistance of the Troso Village community by the service team is the provision of direct consultation and assistance if the Troso Village residents are needed in resolving criminal cases in the village environment through restorative justice.

In almost every criminal investigation, it is necessary to establish whether a particular person or persons may or may have not been present at the scene of a crime. In this regard, the application of forensic science plays a vital role in the criminal investigation to establish the identity of the offender. Like a fingerprint, the footprint of every person is unique and can be used to identify a person. It can help to link the suspect to a crime scene and the victim. Every individual's print contains friction ridges and other individual characteristics that are unique to that person. The present study aims to identify, analyze, and illustrate the individual characteristics of footprints of the tribal population in Jhargram District, West Bengal, India from a forensic perspective in a sample of 120 adult tribal people participants consisting of 60 males and 60 females. These tribal people live in deep forest areas and most of the people walk barefoot day by day. The footprints were collected using a footprint ink slab and white paper. Various identification characteristics feature were identified and recorded during analyses of the collected footprint from different parts of the foot, like, the number of toes, number of humps, phalanges marks, corn, pits, cracks, Crease marks, etc.

Nigeria is endowed with landscapes and vibrant culture which promise immense tourism potential, yet legal hurdles and inadequate infrastructure hold the sector back. This paper argues that a multi-layered legal framework, tailored to Nigerian realities, can unlock sustainable growth. It explores how strategic legal interventions can attract foreign investment, safeguard consumer rights, empower vulnerable groups like tourists with disabilities, and foster community engagement. Technological solutions for visitor management and cultural preservation will also be discussed. By promoting responsible eco-tourism and revitalizing neglected heritage sites, Nigeria can harness its tourism potential, empowering both individual stakeholders and the nation as a whole. This research paper relies on the doctrinal method, using data collected from primary and secondary sources. The primary sources consulted are statutes and case law, while the secondary data are mainly books, journals, periodicals, and web-based materials.

Money laundering is the technique used to make significant sums of money earned illegally through drug trafficking, terrorism, or other major crimes that appear to have come from legitimate sources. Money laundering has a negative influence on the nation's economic and political stability, hence it must be strictly prohibited. As one of the most significant components of the financial system, it serves as the backbone of the money market and plays a vital role in raising funds for beneficial investments that advance economic growth in a nation. An effective and stable financial system is a requirement for the nation's overall growth.

The management of State Property originating from State-Confiscated Goods and Gratification Goods normally differentiates the position and criteria of Execution Confiscated Goods originating from State-Confiscated Goods from Execution Confiscated Goods which are assets or belongings of the convict or the convict's family, assets related to the convict, including related corporations convicts, which are confiscated by the Executing Attorney or Asset Recovery Attorney to be sold or auctioned in order to implement the fine decision. This becomes a problem for the executing prosecutor in implementing the Judge's Decision which has permanent legal force to carry out the execution of the Additional Replacement Money Crime in article 18 paragraph 2 of the Non-Corruption Crime Law. This research focuses on the problems of implementing and reformulating Article 18 paragraph 2 of Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Corruption Crimes in an effort to recover state losses. The normative juridical research method in this research is carried out by analyzing theories, concepts, legislation and court decisions which have a correlation with asset execution problems. Methodologically, the constructivism paradigm applies the hermeneutic method in the process of reaching the truth. The results of this research are: The principle of asset execution as a criminal implementation of additional compensation money in settling state losses is the confiscation of assets resulting from crime which is actually rooted in a very fundamental principle of justice, where a crime should not provide benefits for the perpetrator (crime should not pay). This means that a person must not profit from the illegal activities he carries out. In rem confiscation is an action by the state to take over assets through a court decision in a civil case based on stronger evidence that the assets are suspected to have originated from a criminal act or were used for a criminal act. Confiscation of assets in personam, which is an action directed at an individual person, therefore requires proof of the defendant's guilt first before seizing assets from the defendant. Assets confiscated from court executions under Article 18 paragraph (2) of the Corruption Crime Law cannot yet be made into state property, because it is not concretely stated that the confiscated goods are state confiscated goods.