Search results

The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it highlights areas of disconnect between how the financial services sector in the UK approaches the requirement to evidence source of wealth when conducting customer due diligence; the requirements of the UK’s laws and regulations in relation to evidence source of wealth; and the expectations of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in this regard. It then proposes an alternative approach to evidencing source of wealth.

Semi-structured interviews have been carried out among compliance professionals in UK financial services.

This paper provides rare insight into the anti-money laundering arrangements of UK banks, an area that has not yet been widely researched in the academic literature. It highlights a lack of legal certainty in the UK’s laws and regulation around anti-money laundering and argues that the expectations of the FCA exceed both the letter and the spirit of the laws. It suggests that mixed messages disseminated by the FCA have incentivised banks to shift their focus from financial crime risk (i.e. preventing money laundering and terrorist financing, etc.) towards regulatory risk (i.e. the risk of falling foul of regulatory expectations) and proposes a change to the law and regulatory guidance to enhance the level of legal certainty needed for the law to be effective.

The paper makes suggestions for a more practical and risk-based approach to anti-money laundering compliance and for a much-needed change in the law.

It provides unique insight into the due diligence challenges of financial services firms and argues for the FCA to propagate a more risk-based approach to enhanced due diligence.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of UK investment firms’ implementation of the requirements in Commission Delegated Regulation 2017/589 (more commonly known as “Regulatory Technical Standard 6” or “RTS 6”) that govern the conduct of algorithmic trading activities.

A qualitative examination of 19 semi-structured interviews with practitioners working for, or with, UK investment firms engaged in algorithmic trading activities.

The paper finds that practitioners generally have a good understanding of the requirements in RTS 6. Some lack knowledge of algorithms, coding and algorithmic strategies but have used best efforts to implement RTS 6. However, regulatory fatigue, complacency, cost pressures, governance in international groups, overreliance on external knowledge and generous risk parameter calibration threaten to undermine these efforts.

The study’s findings are limited to the participants’ insights. Some areas of the RTS 6 regime attracted little comment from participants.

The paper proposes the introduction of mandatory algorithmic trading qualification requirements for key staff; the lessening of the requirements in RTS 6 for automated executors; and the introduction of a recognised software vendor regime to reduce duplication and improve coordination between market participants that deploy algorithmic trading systems.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, the study represents the first qualitative examination of firms’ implementation of the algorithmic trading regime in the second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2014/65/EU.

The paper’s aim is to consider how best to formulate sturdy regulatory frameworks for RegTech and SupTech. The paper appraises how key features of EU and UK regulatory and policy initiatives can contribute to a functional framework for RegTech and SupTech.

The paper refers to the most comprehensive empirical findings within the EU and the UK on RegTech and SupTech, including reports released by the European Banking Authority and the Bank of England. As data is only gradually becoming available about the true rate of adoption of RegTech and SupTech, the paper identifies salient areas that warrant analysis from emerging findings. In light of the relatively restricted sources of empirical data, the article’s methodological approach is directed towards the most wide-ranging and detailed sources that are currently available at EU and UK levels.

The paper reveals distinct variations in how the EU and UK have pursued regulatory approaches towards RegTech and SupTech growth. However, there are many shared features in the respective approaches. The paper argues that a regulatory framework should ideally be imbued with overarching strategies and policy objectives, as well as with practical measures through innovation facilitators, such as sandboxes. Yet, legislative (top-down) intervention will be the significant ingredient in guaranteeing legal clarity for RegTech and SupTech.

By understanding the nuances in EU and UK approaches, the paper advocates for pragmatic reasoning when formulating a regulatory response. The importance of the article is in its focus on the elements of EU and UK regulatory approaches that are most capable of guaranteeing clarity on standards relating to RegTech and SupTech. The paper makes a vital contribution to existing commentary by determining how a balance can be struck between “top-down” and “bottom-up” types of regulation (i.e. should regulation be entirely concerned with industry-driven standards, such as codes of conduct?).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of two regulatory initiatives in developing awareness of conduct risk associated with algorithmic and direct-electronic access (DEA) trading at broker-dealers: the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s algorithmic trading compliance in the wholesale markets and Commission Delegated Regulation 2017/589 (CDR 589) to the second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive.

A qualitative examination of 15 semi-structured interviews with representatives of London Metal Exchange member firms, their clients and regulators.

This paper finds that the key conduct related messages in algorithmic trading compliance in the wholesale markets may not yet be fully embedded at broker–dealers. This is because of a perceived simplicity of the algorithms deployed by broker dealers or, alternatively, a lack of reflection on their impact. Conversely, a concern exists that clients’ deployment of algorithms on DEA channels provided by broker–dealers increase conduct risk. However, the threat of harm posed by clients is not envisaged in current definitions of conduct risk. Accordingly, CDR 2017/589 does not currently require firms to evaluate clients’ awareness of it.

This study’s findings are limited to the insights provided by 15 participants.

This paper contributes to existing research by deepening understanding of conduct risk arising from algorithmic trading and DEA. To account for the potential harm arising from clients’ activities, this paper proposes a revision to Miles’s definition of conduct risk. This is complemented by a proposed amendment to CDR 2017/589 to require evaluation of clients’ understanding of conduct risk.

The purpose of this paper is to scrutinise the effectiveness of four derivative exchanges’ enforcement efforts since 2007. These exchanges include the Commodity Exchange Inc. and ICE Futures US from the United States and ICE Futures Europe and the London Metal Exchange from the UK.

The paper examines 799 enforcement notices published by four exchanges through a behavioural science lens: HUMANS conceived by Hunt (2023) in Humanizing Rules: Bringing Behavioural Science to Ethics and Compliance.

The paper finds the effectiveness of the exchanges’ enforcement efforts to be a mixed picture as financial markets transition from the digital to artificial intelligence era. Humans remain a key cog in the wheel of market participants’ trading operations, albeit their roles have changed. Despite this, some elements of exchanges’ enforcement regimes have not kept pace with the move from floor to remote trading. However, in other respects, their efforts are or should be, effective, at least in behavioural terms.

The paper’s findings are arguably limited to exchanges based in Anglophone jurisdictions. The information published by the exchanges is variable, making “like-for-like” comparisons difficult in some areas.

The paper makes several recommendations that, if adopted, could help exchanges to increase the potency of their enforcement programmes.

A key aim of the paper is to shift the lens through which the debate concerning the efficacy of exchange-level oversight is conducted. Hitherto, a legal lens has been used, whereas this paper uses a behavioural lens.

The phenomenal proliferation of crowdfunding platforms raises concerns on the heightened occurrence of financial crimes since billions of funds are exchanged through these online systems frequently. Accordingly, some countries have implemented legislative responses to address these risks, although each countries’ laws have varying degrees of severity. Hence, the purpose of this study is to assess the efficiency and robustness of Mauritian laws to combat financial crimes that may arise from a crowdfunding transaction with a particular emphasis on money laundering and tax evasion.

To achieve this research objective, the black letter approach was used to analyse Mauritian rules and regulations on the researched topic and a comparative analysis was carried out against the corresponding laws on crowdfunding in some other jurisdictions, notably the UK and the USA with the view of suggesting the policy recommendations to Mauritian authorities.

It was found that there is still scope for improving the existing legal and regulatory framework on crowdfunding in Mauritius to prevent instances of money laundering and tax evasion. The paper suggests that a crowdfunding operator must be categorised as a reporting person and must carry out regular due diligence checks. There must also be more collaboration in terms of information exchanges and training sessions among the tax authority of Mauritius, crowdfunding operators, fund seekers and investors to shed light on the tax treatment of income and deductions to avoid issues of tax evasion.

At present, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is amongst the first academic writings on the efficiency of Mauritian laws in dealing with the risk of financial crimes through crowdfunding, and also, because existing literature is quite scarce on assessing the adequacy of crowdfunding rules in developing countries, this research aims at filling in the gap in literature. The study is carried out with the aim of combining a large amount of empirical, theoretical and factual information that can be of use to various stakeholders and not only to academics.

This study explores the psychological determinants of buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) use in the UK and reviews the efficacy of existing payment constructs.

A total of 533 BNPL users engaged in story stem completion. Template analysis was used, supported by the identification of four BNPL sentiment groups to enable comparison.

Whilst positive attitudes towards BNPL dominate, other psychological determinants are apparent to a varied extent. Psychological distance and ownership of borrowed money are redolent, while transparency and transaction convenience are less appreciable. BNPL users understand temporality beyond its current conceptualizations. Some users construe BNPL as a “savings” product, and hence payment format conceptualizations may be erroneous. Those with a positive sentiment foreground BNPL’s consumption and budget management benefits. However, the potential for unintended consequences is manifest across all users.

The potentially unwanted consequences, or dark side, of BNPL use in the UK are highlighted. The specified constructs, whilst helpful, do not particularize the complex interconnected nature of the psychological determinants of BNPL use. Improved conceptualization offering richness and clarity is needed – temporality specifically requires consideration.

Users’ sophistication and misunderstanding are both evident, necessitating fuller conversations among various stakeholders, including, providers, policymakers, consumers and advocacy groups.

This research advances the scarce literature exploring consumers’ BNPL use determinants and challenges current conceptualizations surrounding payment format perceptions.

This paper aims to conceptualize and empirically illustrate the challenges that financial market regulation presents to politicians and the organization tasked with specifying regulations and supervising their implementation in the interest of users and consumers of financial instruments. It analyses the problem from the viewpoint of the governor's dilemma and the control/competence conflict, the linked problem of the rent-seeking of agents/intermediators and consumers of financial instruments. Political accountability problems are enhanced by the materiality of the technologies used, i.e. algo trading.

The paper theoretically conceptualizes and empirically illustrates the argument.

The paper finds that regulators of digitalized financial markets are faced with considerable problems and depend on private agents when regulating financial transactions. However, the new technological instruments also offer new possibilities for securing compliance.

Further research should focus more in-depth on the cooperation between public and private actors in the specification and implementation of regulatory details. It should further investigate the conditions which allow regulators to use RegTech in the surveillance of financial firms.

Since financial market transactions are opaque for most users, the creation of more transparency is crucial to hold regulators accountable in their activity of surveillance of financial firms. New algorithm-based technologies may lend important support in doing so.

By linking the different analytical perspectives, i.e. the governor's dilemma vis-à-vis the intermediator or agent and the possible rent-seeking of intermediators, under the condition of a highly developed technology of financial transactions as well as the market structure, the paper offers new insights into the limits as well as new opportunities of regulating financial markets allowing for political accountability of regulators and financial firms.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the current legal framework on money laundering control in the insurance sector. Essentially, this examination is premised on the interrogation of whether it is still appropriate for Mauritius to apply such stringent, opaque and unyielding Anti-Money Laundering/Combating Financing of Terrorism norms and rules on general insurance when developed nations such as the UK and Singapore have done away with them for a more effective combat against money laundering. It would also be assessed why the financial services commission (FSC) is not able to draw inspiration from its British and Singaporean counterparts in fighting money laundering more effectively.

This paper uses the doctrinal legal research methodology which is colloquially described as “black-letter law” approach. It is backed up by a contextual legal analysis that is based on an analysis of relevant legal provisions. It relies ground experience from the insurance industry through the experience of the authors. A comparative approach is used with Singapore and the UK as case studies given that there are significant commonalities to the Mauritian jurisdiction as well as useful differences.

It is observed that a move towards a de-regulation of the legal framework on money laundering in the insurance sector with a more relaxed approach is more effective for the Mauritian insurance sector. Evidence is drawn from the Singaporean and British models. A re-structuring of the FSC of Mauritius is also warranted for such an approach to be adopted.

This paper is among the first academic contribution that proposes a de-regulation and the adoption of a relaxed approach of and by the Mauritian Insurance Industry for a more effective combat against money laundering. It serves as a legal foundational basis for further research in this direction.

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.