Search results

Foreign whistleblowers are foreign citizens who help national enforcement authorities to sanction both foreign-based corporations and home-based corporations that engage in economic crime. This paper aims to investigate the expansion of US law in the area of transnational economic crime by discussing the case of foreign whistleblowers.

This paper has been developed from a literature review carried out as part of a wider study into policing international bribery.

This paper shows that extraterritorial application of US whistleblowing laws is part of a broad trend associated with extraterritorial enforcement of US anti-corruption statutes such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The extraterritorial reach of the FCPA and other statutes allowed the USA to become the leader in sanctioning US corporations as well as non-US corporations for economic crime. In effect, some US enforcement practices have become the standard that has influenced law and law enforcement in other countries as well as internal compliance of corporations.

In spite of the profound impact foreign whistleblowing has on the effectiveness of national anti-corruption enforcement, this topic has been largely neglected by academic research. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to provide an overview of the role of foreign whistleblowers and the significant impact foreign whistleblowing has for legal reform in European countries and internal compliance of corporations in Europe and beyond.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the effects of several lower court decisions, the enactment of the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of July 2010, and subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission statements on the extraterritorial application of Section 10 (b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, following the June 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

The paper discusses the Morrison decision, three lower court decisions following Morrison, Section 929P(b) of the Dodd‐Frank Act, an October 2011 SEC release supporting the Second Circuit's long‐standing “conduct and effects” test, and other expert commentary, and draws interim conclusions, subject to further legal, regulatory and legislative proceedings, concerning the full impact of Morrison on US securities law.

The full impact of Morrison on US securities law has yet to be seen and will be subject to regulations, legislation and court cases. The interim effect of the decisions issued by lower courts following Morrison is to provide foreign defendants with substantial immunity from private suit under US securities law over securities transactions that occur outside the USA.

This paper provides a useful summary and practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

This paper examines the need for international regulation of financial markets and suggests the possible role that a global financial supervisor might play in providing effective regulation of international financial markets. The first part discusses the nature of systemic risk in the international financial system and the necessity for international Minimum Standards of prudential supervision for banking institutions. The second part examines the efforts of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to devise non‐binding international standards for managing systemic risk in financial markets. Recent financial crises in Asia, Russia and Latin America suggest, however, that informal efforts by international bodies such as the Basel Committee are inadequate to address the risk of systemic failure in financial systems. The third part therefore argues that efficient international financial regulation requires certain regulatory functions to be performed by a global supervisor acting in conjunction with national regulatory authorities. These functions should involve the authorisation of financial institutions, generation of rules and standards of regulatory practice, surveillance of financial markets, and coordination with national authorities in implementing and enforcing such standards.

The need for international regulation of financial markets became apparent in the mid‐1970s in response to the post‐Bretton Woods liberalisation of financial markets. The elimination of the fixed exchange rate parity with gold resulted in the privatisation of financial risk, which created pressure to eliminate controls on cross‐border capital movements and the further deregulation of financial markets. It became necessary for national regulatory authorities to promote safe and sound banking systems through the effective management of systemic risk in national markets. Similarly, the need for international standards of prudential supervision was also recognised, to prevent solvent banking institutions in one jurisdiction from losing business to less respectable institutions operating in other jurisdictions whose laws permitted cut‐rate financial services and other risky financial practices. The privatisation of financial risk also created the need for financial institutions to spread their risks over many assets and activities, which led, in turn, to a significant increase in short‐term cross‐border portfolio investment that has, in many instances, exposed capital‐importing countries to increased systemic risk due to the volatility of such investments.

An update for firms located outside the European Union of the possible extra-territorial impact of certain provisions in the recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (together referred to as “MiFID2”).

The focus is on the issues that are most likely to have an impact on non-EU firms, including buy/sell side financial institutions and private banks.

That the impact of MiFID2 will be felt far beyond the EU, particularly in relation to product governance, inducements and dealing commission, trading obligations, position limits for commodity derivatives and the new regime for accessing EU markets.

Non-EU firms need to assess their interaction with EU clients, counterparties and markets to identify the likely impact of MiFID2. Relevant interaction could include: manufacturing and distribution of financial instruments; the provision of investment research and dealing services to EU clients and trading in instruments which are admitted to trading on EU markets.

This article will be of interest to “third-country” firms, located outside the EU, but with a European connection, either in terms of European counterparties, investors or accessing European markets.

This article aims to examine some of the implications of the UK Bribery Act (UKBA) 2010 for business in Africa and reviews the effectiveness of strategies African governments have adopted to prevent bribery. The author proposes the development of a bespoke anti-bribery management system (ABMS) based on empirical research. This would help African institutions overcome some of the challenges associated with enforcing regulatory measures formulated in developed countries.

The paper takes the form of a literature review and commentary.

The UKBA has extra-territorial jurisdiction which empowers UK courts to prosecute cases of bribery committed abroad by UK companies and their associates. The risk of prosecution is likely to affect foreign direct investment and official development aid flows to Africa. However, companies can escape prosecution if they can prove that they have adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery. This raises the question as to whether the legislation shifts the responsibility of fighting bribery to under-resourced overseas business partners and supply chains. While most African governments have adopted robust anti-bribery laws, their enforcement is hampered by weak institutions.

Empirical research is required to assess the impact of the legislation over the next five years.

African organisations must be sensitised about the consequences of violating the UKBA to ensure they adopt appropriate anti-bribery strategies.

This article contributes to literature by exploring the development of evidence based ABMS for African organisations which is currently lacking.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the background, scope, applications, criticisms, and UK legal challenge of the European Union's Financial Transaction Tax (FTT).

The paper explains the “enhanced cooperation” from the 11 member states implementing the FTT; revenue expected from the FTT; financial transactions, instruments, and institutions to which the FTT applies; territorial application of the FTT; chargeability and payment of the FTT; an anti‐abuse rule; a proposed implementation timetable; criticisms of the FTT; and the UK's legal challenge.

The UK is concerned that the FTT will have an adverse impact on its financial services sector and therefore has launched a legal challenge, increasing the likelihood that the tax will be changed before it is due to apply at the beginning of 2014.

The paper provides practical guidance by expert financial services and tax lawyers.

This paper aims to discuss the tax-related illicit financial flows from a human rights perspective. It argues that curbing illicit financial flows, and specifically tax abuse, is essential not only for realizing human rights but also for achieving the sustainable development goals. It provides definitions of tax evasion and avoidance, as well as estimations of illicit financial flows. It studies the tax abuse implications for human rights and sustainable development, as well as the obligations in the field of human rights and tax abuse. It also critically assesses the recent international initiatives aim at curbing illicit financial flows. It concludes with a set of recommendations on how to curb illicit financial flows.

This paper combines economic, legal and policy perspectives to study the multidimensional, complex and global problem of illicit financial flows. It not only proposes an explanation of the volume, roots and economic, social and human rights implications of illicit financial flows but it also proposes reforms that states and other stakeholders need to implement in order to curb this phenomenon.

Combating tax abuse and illicit financial flows more broadly, is essential to make better progress in realizing international human rights obligations. The inclusion of a specific target to reduce illicit financial flows under the sustainable development goals makes clear that curbing such flows is also essential for creating an enabling environment for sustainable development. While we should applaud that reducing illicit financial flows is mentioned in one of the targets of the sustainable development goals, the target remains broad and vague. Specific measures to operationalize this target are needed to ensure that progress is achieved and that such progress can be tracked and measured. The author presents recommendations for discussion. To promote accountability, the recommendations are addressed to specific stakeholders.

This paper tries to contribute to improve our knowledge and understanding of illicit financial flows and tax abuse more specifically at global level and their implications for human rights, to make the need for change more compelling, as well as to stimulate the debate around reforms that need to be implemented to curb illicit financial flows.