Search results

The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to analyze the legal issues on disgorgement and disgorgement funds in Indonesia, the USA and the UK and to construct the ideal law regarding disgorgement and disgorgement fund.

The type of legal research in this paper is normative legal research. The research approach used is a comparative approach and a legal approach. The legal materials used are all regulations on the disgorgement law and the disgorgement fund that apply in Indonesia, the USA and the UK. The technique of collecting legal materials is done by using library research techniques.

The rapid growth of the capital market in Indonesia still faces various legal issues such as various market manipulations, insider trading and illegal investment management activities. Based on the results of a comparative study, Indonesia does not yet have a calculation mechanism regarding the imposition of disgorgement on violators. Unlike Indonesia, the USA has the rules of practice and rules on fair funds and exchange commissions, and the UK has the decision procedure and penalties manual, which regulates the mechanism for calculating the imposition of disgorgement. Indonesia is solely able to use administrative action in imposing disgorgement, while in the USA and the UK, it can be through courts or direct administrative actions. These legal issues have resulted due to the lack of confidence by international investors and the growth of the investment climate in Indonesia itself.

This study examines the regulation of disgorgement and disgorgement funds in Indonesia, the USA and the UK. However, the focus of research in this paper is limited to legal issues that occurred in Indonesia.

The results of this study may help to construct the ideal regulations on disgorgement and disgorgement funds in various countries and protect the capital market of the investors.

The results of this study are expected to be helpful for the investment climate in various countries, especially developing countries.

The ideal legal construction regarding disgorgement, namely, parties to the mechanism for imposing disgorgement; disgorgement filing mechanism; sanctions in disgorgement; disgorgement fund sources; provider of fundholding accounts; mechanism for calculating disgorgement imposition; disgorgement fund distribution mechanism.

To analyze the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC, where the Court confronted the issue of whether the SEC can obtain disgorgement in federal district court proceedings.

This paper provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and a summary of the background and opinion in Liu v. SEC. This article then focuses on the practical implications of Liu on SEC disgorgement by considering questions left open by the decision.

The Court in Liu held that the SEC is authorized to seek disgorgement as “equitable relief” as long as it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” But the Court left many unanswered questions, such as whether disgorged funds must always be returned to investors for disgorgement to be a permissible equitable remedy, whether the SEC can obtain joint-and-several disgorgement liability from unrelated co-defendants, what “legitimate expenses” should be deducted in disgorgement calculations, and to what extent the SEC can seek disgorgement in cases when victims are difficult to identify.

Original, practical guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

To analyze the impact of recent legislation that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expressly empower the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement in federal district court proceedings and to codify applicable statutes of limitations.

This article provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and summarizes how the scope of the remedy has evolved since Kokesh v. SEC (2017). Then, the article analyzes the changes to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contained in Section 6501 the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which statutorily empowered the SEC to seek and obtain disgorgement in federal court actions. Finally, the authors discuss the impact of the legislation on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu v. SEC (2020).

The availability and appropriateness of SEC disgorgement have been the subject of vigorous debate. Just as courts began to iron out the contours of SEC disgorgement in the wake of Kokesh and Liu, Congress intervened by granting to the SEC explicit statutory authority to seek a remedy traditionally obtained at equity. In passing this legislation, Congress answered some questions that remained after Liu but also raised many new ones. These new questions will likely take years to resolve through subsequent litigation and potentially additional legislation.

Original, practical analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

With the increasing prevalence of awards for reporting fraudulent activity, it is important to learn if there are unintended consequences associated with the language offering such awards. Aside from issues regarding submitting unsubstantiated claims of fraud to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Section 922 of the Dodd–Frank Act may inadvertently encourage would-be whistleblowers to delay reporting fraud. Potential whistleblowers may choose to delay reporting due to the consideration of alternatives to external reporting, in a misguided attempt to increase the size of an award, or due to their ethical stance on the issues. Using a three-stage mixed methods (experiment, open-ended interviews, and experiment) approach, this study provides evidence that increased knowledge of statutes involving external whistleblowing may result in reporting delays. The data suggest that despite statements from the SEC forbidding this, managers may choose to delay reporting when under the threshold necessary to receive an award. In such a manner, managers may be allowing the fraud to grow to a necessary perceived level over time. As might be expected, the accountants in this study were more cautious, checking to see if internal reporting worked first. Of particular note, 16 individuals indicated that they would never report, with the motivation apparently driven by fear of job loss and/or retaliation. Lastly, the intention to delay or speed up reporting may be very different based on the perception of ethics involved in the decision.

In the midst of one of the most challenging periods in decades, the securities industry is relearning the meaning of the ancient Chinese curse – “may you live in interesting times”. The end of the 90’s bull market, September 11th and corporate wrongdoing have given rise to new rules and far‐reaching new statutes. At the same time, technological change and global consolidation of markets and regulations also continue to drive change, as they did throughout the 1990s. The authors highlight some of the crucial regulatory and legislative developments that will have significant consequences for the securities industry. Legislative proposals in response to the recent corporate scandals, analyst independence, anti‐money laundering rules, and the effectiveness of the Gramm‐Leach‐Bliley Act are among the issues examined.

The purpose of this paper is to offer case studies of hedge fund fraud, solutions that could mitigate hedge fund fraud risk, and a proposal for the industry to establish a hedge fund information depository (HFID) where participants/stakeholders could provide information on any hedge fund on regular basis.

Four major hedge fund fraud cases, Bayou Funds, Lipper Holdings, Manhattan Investment Fund and Maricopa Investment Corporation are used as examples of the complete absence of independent oversight and the application of HFID.

The paper finds that investors in the four funds lost more than $1.3 billion. In all four fraud cases, independent oversight and compliance function were conspicuously missing. In each fraud case there was at least one serious alert (warning) that took place at least 14 months prior to SEC first filing against the fund.

Some hedge fund industry stakeholders may reluctantly join HFID due to concern over possibly disclosing information deemed crucial for their own competitive advantage.

Had third parties become aware of the alerts, they could have made a different investment or business decision. Most importantly, this depository would allow all hedge fund industry stakeholders (accountants, administrators, auditors, investors, marketers, prime brokers, custodians and regulators) to communicate with one another regularly.

The paper makes two proposals: the founding of a hedge fund information depository; and outsourcing of the compliance function for hedge funds where it is more cost effective.

To analyze the U.S, Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. S.E.C., 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020) and its potential implications for insider trading cases.

Provides context on the history of disgorgement in SEC enforcement proceedings; discusses factual and procedural background underlying the Liu decision; summarizes the Court’s opinion and rationale, with a particular focus on the Court’s pronouncements regarding the permissible scope of SEC disgorgement as an equitable remedy; identifies and explores three possible issues in insider trading cases that may be affected by the Court’s narrowing of SEC disgorgement.

In Liu, the Supreme Court narrowed SEC disgorgement by stating that, as a general matter, SEC disgorgement is not permitted where: (1) the proceeds are not remitted to investors; (2) one defendant is made to disgorge profits that were received by someone else; or (3) the amount of disgorgement fails to deduct legitimate business expenses, in each case subject to possible exemptions as outlined by the Court.

This rule may call into question whether courts may: (a) order disgorgement against insider traders, given the difficulty of identifying investors who have been harmed; (b) order insider traders to disgorge profits earned by others on account of their violations; or (c) order insider traders to pay civil penalties under Section 21 A of the Exchange Act based on profits earned by others.

Expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities enforcement lawyers with expertise in insider trading.

This study aims to identify the problems in shariah compliance and the weak oversight of implementing Islamic crowdfunding (ICF). Shariah compliance regulation is an essential subsystem in Islamic social finance ecosystems.

This type of research is legal research. The research approaches are the statute, comparative and conceptual approaches. The study in this research examines Indonesia, the UK and Malaysia.

ICF is one of the fastest-growing sectors of Islamic financial technology (fintech). The Islamic fintech sector is showing maturity signals with a market size of $79bn in 2021, projected at $179bn in 2026. Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia lead the Index by Global Islamic Fintech (GIFT) Index scores. However, low shariah compliance is still an issue in implementing ICF. This problem is caused by regulatory support that is still lacking and oversight of shariah compliance is not optimal. On the one hand, shariah compliance is the ICF core principle for Shariah Governance.

This study examines the regulation and oversight of ICF in Indonesia, Malaysia and the UK. Indonesia and Malaysia, a country with the highest GIFT index score in the world, and the UK, a country with an Islamic finance sector experiencing rapid growth.

The research results on shariah compliance regulation in ICF are helpful as a comprehensive approach for developing sustainable Islamic social finance ecosystems.

Shariah compliance is the core principle of ICF governance. Its implementation can increase public trust.

Crowdfunding platform and issuers in ICF must implement shariah compliance. Therefore, it is essential to consider the presence of shariah compliance requirements and a Shariah Supervisory Board (DPS).

The purpose of this study is to formulate a governance and regulatory framework for Islamic crypto assets (ICAs). A balanced regulatory framework is required to protect consumers and to encourage digital Islamic finance innovation.

This study focuses on Indonesia and compares it to other countries, specifically Malaysia and the UK, using statutory, comparative and conceptual research approaches.

The ICAs are permissible (halal) commodities/assets to be traded if they fulfil the standards as goods or commodities that can be traded with a sale and purchase contract (sil’ah) and have an underlying asset (backed by tangible assets such as gold). Islamic social finance activities such as zakat and Islamic microfinance activities such as halal industry are backed by ICAs. The regulatory framework needed to support ICAs includes the Islamic Financial Services Act, shariah supervisory boards, shariah governance standards and ICA exchanges.

This study only examined crypto assets (tokens as securities) and not cryptocurrencies. It used regulations in several countries with potential in Islamic finance development, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and the UK.

The ICA regulatory framework is helpful as an element of a comprehensive strategy to develop a lasting Islamic social finance ecosystem.

The development of crypto assets must be supported by a regulatory framework to protect consumers and encourage innovation in Islamic digital finance.

ICA has growth prospects; however, weak regulatory support and minimal oversight indicate weak legal protection for consumers and investors. Regulating ICA, optimising supervision, implementing shariah governance standards and having ICA exchanges can strengthen the Islamic economic ecosystem.

This article aims to explore legal challenges regarding the regulation and supervision of Islamic Fintech and to construct Sharia compliance regulations to strengthen the supervision of Islamic Fintech operation.

This type of research is legal research, adopting the statute approach, comparative approach, and conceptual approach. The focus of the study is Indonesia with comparative studies with Malaysia and the United Kingdom.

Malaysia, Indonesia, and the United Kingdom are all on the top five countries in the Global Islamic Fintech (GIFT) Index. The list comprises countries that are most conducive to the growth of the Islamic Fintech market and ecosystem. However, weak supervision and low Sharia compliance are still becoming prominent challenges in the implementation of Islamic Fintech, while Sharia compliance is the core principle for Islamic finance regulation. Another finding is that a good ecosystem of Islamic Fintechs needs supportive regulations and policies, a Sharia Supervisory Board, and standards of Islamic Fintech Shariah governance.

This study examines the regulation and supervision of Islamic Fintech in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom countries whose Islamic Fintech industry is growing rapidly.

This study is a strong reference for countries with potential Islamic finance, especially when they are constructing the Sharia compliance regulations to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the Islamic finance industries.

Sharia compliance regulations can be a subsystem in the Islamic financial ecosystem to encourage Sharia economic growth in various countries.

To ensure Sharia compliance, it is recommended to take some steps: (a) creating the Sharia compliance regulations; (b) creating the Sharia supervisory boards; and (c) standardizing the Sharia governance of Islamic Fintech.