Search results

To analyze the CFTC’s approach to regulating cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies in light of their cross-border nature, limitations on the CFTC’s extraterritorial authority, and the CFTC’s prerogative to work cooperatively with foreign regulators.

Discusses the principles set forth in CFTC Chairman Christopher Giancarlo’s White Paper regarding cross-border swap regulation; analyzes the similar nature of cross-border issues arising from regulation of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies; examines regulations and guidance implemented by foreign authorities in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space; and assesses the limitations of the CFTC’s extraterritorial authority.

The principles set forth in Chairman Giancarlo’s White Paper regarding cross-border swap regulation apply equally to blockchain technologies and cryptocurrencies, and as such, the CFTC may wish to pursue an analogous approach to regulating cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies.

The CFTC should exercise deference to and cooperate with foreign counterparts to regulate cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies that traverse international borders, thereby avoiding overlapping and potentially conflicting regulation while fostering an innovative growth environment for emerging technologies.

In-depth analysis and insight from experienced professionals in the CFTC and cross-border investigations and enforcement space.

This paper seeks to provide the reader with a clear insight into the discussion over the voluntary aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the attempts to introduce regulatory reforms to control corporate activities within Australia.

This paper evaluates the arguments regarding the need for CSR and the criticisms against its voluntary initiative, and analyses three proposed aspects for regulatory amendment in Australia: fiduciary duty, extraterritorial regulation and corporate disclosure.

This paper recognises the attributes of both the mandatory and voluntary aspects, and suggests that there needs to be a balance between both mechanisms in order to achieve a positive outcome.

Although, in Australia, amendment proposals have not been approved, the discussions over regulatory reform will continue. This paper will provide those involved in this field with an insight to the underlying issues over directors' duties, extraterritorial regulation and corporate disclosure. The understanding of these issues will be useful in the future development of appropriate mechanisms regarding CSR.

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.

Some 40 years have now passed since the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began seriously to attack the problem of insider trading in its seminal Cady, Roberts decision. Since then, a complex pattern of regulation has evolved, largely through a common law process of judicial interpretation of the open‐ended anti‐fraud provision of the federal securities laws, Rule 10b‐5. While many interpretative questions still remain open, US law in this area broadly prohibits trading based on material non‐public information when:

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chains have become important policy tools to ensure the security and resilience of regional trading blocs of major economies. The US government’s focus on supply chains for selected strategic industries and the EU Commission’s renewed efforts to strengthen its supply chains using ‘sustainability standards’ coincides with the global trend in the shift towards digital and low-carbon economies. Furthermore, the rising tensions between the US and China, with no signs of reconciliation over key issues of contention, have emphasized the need for more credibility and trust in global supply chains. However, such policies also have the potential to serve as new barriers to participation in supply chains by less-developed economies which are not yet prepared to meet the high-level sustainability criteria which aim for higher protection of the environment and labor rights. There also seems to be an apparent shift in paradigm supporting the interventionist role of government that emphasize the need for more discretion for policy objectives that pursue societal and democratic values, not to mention national security interests. The current rules of international trade, however, do not sufficiently address these new issues and need to be realigned in order to meet the new demands. The current ‘rules of the game’ need to be reinforced in order to accommodate the rising need of countries for increased consideration of issues of sustainability and competitiveness.

This paper aims to critically examine the digital transformation of anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) in light of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) San Jose principles, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) principles for artificial intelligence (AI) and the proposed European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act. The authors argue that AI tools can revolutionize AML/CFT and asset recovery, but there is a need to strike a balance between optimizing AML efficiency and safeguarding fundamental rights.

This paper draws on reports, legislation, legal scholarships and other open-source data on the digital transformation of AML/CFT, particularly the deployment of AI in this context.

A new regulatory framework with robust safeguards is necessary to mitigate the risks associated with the use of new technologies in the AML context.

This study is one of the first to examine the use of AI in the AML/CFT context in light of the FATF San Jose principles, the OECD AI principles and the proposed EU AI Act.

This study aims to analyze Payday loans and many similar products which are a relatively new phenomena in the USA, but have been rapidly expanding particularly after the 2008 financial crisis, and have taken a heavy toll on the most vulnerable members of our society.

An extensive literature review of the key US features of payday loans, the regulatory framework and its limitations, the issues and the most recent actions taken to date. The review also includes work done by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations while discussing how the Internet and extraterritoriality influence the current landscape.

With the advent of globalization and the Internet, the issues associated with payday loans have become harder to tackle, particularly in the USA, given the arcane state regulations used to address the numerous frauds and abuses plaguing the industry. The lack of any international approach combined with increasing cases where questionable actors leverage extraterritoriality, making addressing the issues even more challenging.

This is an all-encompassing review aimed at expanding on existing approaches to properly provide and regulate payday loans and similar alternative sources of credit in this rapidly changing environment; pragmatic domestic and international policy recommendations are listed accordingly.

The purpose of this paper is to show how global regulation of cryptocurrencies and other cybercurrencies can assist in addressing the challenges of attribution when investigating ransomware attacks and other types of cybercrime using these payment methods.

A literature review, looking at current academic research and discourse on the topic cryptocurrency regulation, is conducted to highlight current thinking and perceived difficulties in implanting a global regulatory framework. In addition, the research explores how governments have addressed the risks posed by cryptocurrencies and how regulation has been implemented. The research focuses on the regulatory approaches of Australia, Europe and the Americas to determine whether they could feasibly address the risks posed by cryptocurrencies and be implemented on a global scale.

To date, few sustained efforts have been made to regulate Bitcoin or other cybercurrencies. Where regulation has been introduced, it has often proven too costly to implement, thereby, stifling Bitcoin industry growth, or too ad hoc to function effectively. These regulatory pitfalls are substantiated by the continuing difficulty faced by law enforcement agencies, in identifying individual Bitcoin users and separating those that are using them for nefarious purposes from those that are using them for legitimate ones. These challenges appear to grow exponentially when it comes to prosecuting criminals for Bitcoin-related offences, due to the enormous lack of agreement within the justice system of most countries as to the appropriate legal definition for Bitcoin. This research highlights three characteristics that will be vital to the success of any global regulatory framework. These are consistency, clarity and cost-effective implementation. A regulatory framework for Bitcoin that lacks any one of these elements will fail to meet the requirements of every stakeholder in the regulatory process. A framework that is too costly to implement will stifle fintech innovation, subsequently depriving national economies of the multitude of potential benefits promised by fostering fintech entrepreneurship. Equally, a framework that is inconsistent will hamper the global cooperation necessary to combat Bitcoin-related crime.

This research evaluates research, discourse and regulatory responses from academic and governmental sources and discusses how a global response to cryptocurrency regulation will help address the growing problem of attribution when it comes to ransomware attacks, which has experienced a considerable spike in recent months.

The purpose of this paper is to underline the (hidden) risks posed after the crisis by the exemption of non-financial operators, especially sovereigns, from the regulatory reforms of over the counter (OTC) derivatives undertaken by G20 countries in the absence of accounting data on trading.

Recent financial regulatory improvements are reported to underline that the trading of OTC derivatives by sovereigns and local administrations does not take place under the new regulatory umbrella, because of the relative size of the institution, the lack of incentives to adhere to Centralized Counterparty Systems (CCPs) and most of all, the absence of proper accounting rules. Sovereigns and local administrations have the potential to undermine global financial stability.

The limited availability of accounting data on derivatives’ use by public administrations constitutes a barrier towards a full comprehension of risks involved. Sovereigns should be compelled to adhere to the CCPs and the collateralized system of trading; the short-term costs of adhering to CCPs are worth $20bn.

The new regulatory system failed to explicitly consider the trading of sovereigns and this can reduce the effectiveness of regulation itself and can have negative impact on financial stability; in fact, omitting sovereigns from these regulations represent a significant risk oversight because they are systemically important players, although with a special political power.

Despite progress made in improving the transparency and resilience of OTC derivative markets after the subprime crisis, sovereigns and public administrations are exempted from the new regulation, posing severe risks to financial stability.