Search results

The purpose of this study is to review the reasoning of the judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Versloot Dredging BV and another (Appellants) v. HDI Gerling Industrie Versichering AG and Others (Respondents) [2016] UKSC 45 in finding that there is no remedy or sanction for the use of fraudulent devices (so-called “collateral lies”) in insurance claims and to consider potential implications for underwriters.

The methodology is a typical case law analysis starting from case facts and the reasoning with short comments on legal implications.

Despite no sanction provided by law for the use of fraudulent devices, the room still opens for the underwriters to stipulate the consequence of using the fraudulent devices by the express term in the insurance contract.

The main implication from the judgment is that underwriters are likely to incur more investigating costs for insurance claims.

This work raises awareness of the marine insurance industry (especially underwriters) as to the approach of the English law towards the use of fraudulent devices.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical examination of the current law and the possible changes that are under consideration by the Law Commissions, after public consultation in relation to the continuing duty of good faith and post‐contractual duties owed by the insured towards the insurer.

The research is addressed using case law, statutes, current academic and Law Commissions publications in the UK.

First, the paper finds that the current state of the law allows for the insurer to claim damages from an insured when a fraudulent claim is made to recover the cost of any investigations. Second the insurer can refuse to meet a claim that is tainted by fraud. Third the insurer can have the right to avoid the policy obligations upon the discovery of a fraud, but subject to some limitations. Fourth there is a need for the insured to be protected against an insurer's unjustified allegations of fraud.

This work does not address detailed issues in relation to pre‐contractual issues of good faith. These have been discussed in a previous edition of this journal see Swaby. G. (2010) “Insurance law: fit for purpose in the twenty‐first century?” IJLMA, 52 (1), pp. 21‐39. ISSN 1754‐243X.

The Law Commission will be undertaking further consultations before reforming this area of law.

This paper will be of interest to legal practitioners and academics and those in the insurance industry.

This paper seeks to provide auditors, forensic accountants, investigators, regulators, financial managers, lawyers, law enforcement personnel, academics, and others with a basic overview of the steps in and elements of a qui tam legal claim, limitations on a qui tam claim, protection for a whistleblower employee, and the role of qui tam litigation in the fight against fraud.

A sample of types of recent qui tam fraud cases is highlighted for the reader. The steps in filing a qui tam claim are described along with the limitations of pursuing such a lawsuit. The paper includes a statutory and legal case study analysis of each required element of proof in a qui tam claim. Analysis of actual qui tam court cases illustrates the importance of private civil lawsuits in combating fraud committed against the US Government.

This paper provides readers with information about the substantial recoveries earned by successful qui tam plaintiffs. Also, the necessary steps in and elements of a qui tam suit are revealed. Technical legal details of various federal court rulings are distilled for readers. The important role of this unique type of lawsuit in the arsenal of those who fight against government fraud is emphasized.

This paper fills an identified need to inform those involved in the fight against economic crime about an important tool that uncovers and deters fraud against the federal government.

This study aims to assess the fraud cases, factors and control measures of financial fraud in the drug industry with evidence from Ghana. Drug industry and pharmaceutical are the same, and they are used interchangeably in this study.

Data from questionnaires were collected from 412 manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of the drug industry. Data were presented and analysed with descriptive statistics and probit regression.

Results show that, in general, stealing of drugs, stealing of cash, usage of fake cheques, falsified documents and dubious accounting practices are some of the fraud cases in the industry. Factors such as gender, educational level, religious beliefs, regulatory 7measures, pressure, rationalization and opportunities influence financial fraud in the drug industry. Control measures such as thorough assessment of products, regular review of fraud policies, installation of fraud-detection software and effective internal systems could reduce the menace.

The paper addresses a number of theoretical and systemic issues on financial fraud in the drug industry but with limited specific quantitative data or calculations as well as limited sample size. Further studies could offer a more quantitative approach with a larger sample size in an attempt, for instance, to estimate the financial costs of financial fraud to the drug industry.

This paper openly tackles various attempted frauds and financial malfeasances from stakeholder perspectives in the drug industry. Practical measures have been given to tackle the consequences of the menace.

This paper is geared towards providing valuable learning points for stakeholders in the drug industry to handle daily operations to assist them in detecting and preventing similar occurrence of financial fraud.

Stockbrokers’ frauds in India frequently occur, causing investors significant financial loss. This study aims to unfold the various dubious practices adopted by stock brokers in the recent past to defraud investors and the necessary corrective regulations passed by the market regulator to prevent and detect fraud.

The authors conduct exploratory research using a collective model of literature review, case studies and regulatory changes.

The authors find tightening the system’s loopholes and strengthening the regulatory system using technology helps in the early detection and prevention of fraud. Media activism and investors’ awareness play a role in reducing incidences of fraud.

This study unfolds the practices followed by stock brokers to defraud investors, indicative of regulatory gaps and enforcement lapses. Regulators are evolving a robust system to curb these practices and make them on par with international standards. But, it has a long way to go.

Robust fraud detection and prevention mechanism is desirable to restore investors’ confidence in the stock market. Regulators should focus on investors’ protection and education and whistleblowers’ protection. Compared to the market regulators worldwide, the Securities and Exchange Board of India has less power to identify, detect and punish fraudulent brokers and needs to be empowered.

Besides the regulatory changes, strict enforcement and investor campaigns are required to increase public awareness and restore trust in the stock market to combat the recurrence of fraud.

This paper can be helpful to regulators, investors and financial intermediaries like stock brokers and aid in strengthening the reliability of capital markets and restoring investors’ confidence.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and its amendment – the Trade and Competitive Act of 1988 – are unique not only in the history of the accounting and auditing profession, but also in international law. The Acts raised awareness of the need for efficient and adequate internal control systems to prevent illegal acts such as the bribery of foreign officials, political parties and governments to secure or maintain contracts overseas. Its uniqueness is also due to the fact that the USA is the first country to pioneer such a legislation that impacted foreign trade, international law and codes of ethics. The research traces the history of the FCPA before and after its enactment, the role played by the various branches of the United States Government – Congress, Department of Justice, Securities Exchange commission (SEC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the contributions made by professional associations such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICFA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Bar Association (ABA); and, finally, the role played by various international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). A cultural, ethical and legalistic background will give a better understanding of the FCPA as wll as the rationale for its controversy.

The purpose of this paper is to provide of selected Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) regulatory notices and disciplinary actions issued in January, February, and March 2012.

The paper provides Regulatory Notice 12‐03, January 2012, Complex Products: Heightened Supervision of Complex Products; Regulatory Notice 12‐05, January 2012, Customer Account Protection: Verification of Emailed Instructions to Transmit or Withdraw Assets from Customer Accounts; Regulatory Notice 12‐13, March 2012, Best Execution, SEC Approves Consolidated FINRA Best Execution Rule. It summarizes ten disciplinary actions for recommending unsuitable sales of unit investment trusts (UITs) and floating rate loan funds; using misleading marketing materials in the sale of a non‐traded real estate investment trust (REIT); selling interests in private placement offerings without having a reasonable basis for recommending the securities; unsuitable sales of reverse convertible securities; violating Regulation SHO (Reg SHO) and failing to properly supervise short sales of securities and marking of sale orders; misrepresenting delinquency data and inadequate supervision in connection with the issuance of residential subprime mortgage securitizations (RMBS); permitting a registered representative to publish advertisements that failed to provide a sound basis for a reader to evaluate the products and services being offered, contained exaggerated, unwarranted and misleading statements, and failed to disclose the firm's name; failing to conduct reasonable due diligence regarding securities an entity issued; failing to disclose certain conflicts of interest in research reports and research analysts' public appearances; and failing to develop and enforce written procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with NASD Rule 3010(d)(2) regarding the review of electronic correspondence.

The paper reveals for Regulatory Notice 12‐03 that the decision to recommend complex products to retail investors is one that a firm should make only after the firm has implemented heightened supervisory and compliance procedures; firms also should monitor the sale of these products in a manner that is reasonably designed to ensure that each product is recommended only to a customer who understands the essential features of the product and for whom the product is suitable. For Notice 12‐05 it finds that, given the rise in incidents reported to FINRA involving fraud perpetrated through compromised customer e‐mail accounts, FINRA recommends that firms reassess their specific policies and procedures for accepting and verifying instructions to withdraw or transfer customer funds that are transmitted via email or other electronic means, as well as firms' overall policies and procedures in this area. For Notice 12‐13: FINRA Rule 5310 leaves in place the general requirements of best execution, which are for a member firm, in any transaction for or with a customer or a customer of another broker‐dealer, to use “reasonable diligence” to ascertain the best market for a security and to buy or sell in such market so that the resultant price to the customer is as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions.

These are direct excerpts designed to provide a useful digest for the reader and an indication of regulatory trends.

The purpose of this summary is to provide excerpts of selected Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Regulatory Notices and Disciplinary Actions issued in April, May, and June 2010.

The paper provides excerpts from FINRA Regulatory Notice 10‐18, Master Accounts and Sub‐Accounts; 10‐22, Regulation D Offerings; 10‐23, Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE); 10‐24, Trade Reporting; 10‐27, Customer Complaint Reporting; and 10‐30, Trading‐Pause Pilot Program; provides summaries of selected disciplinary actions.

(10‐18) If a firm has notice that the sub‐accounts of a master account have different beneficial ownership (but does not know the identities of the beneficial owners) or the firm is privy to facts and/or circumstances that would reasonably raise the issue as to whether the sub‐accounts, in fact, may have separate beneficial owners, then the firm must inquire further and satisfy itself as to the beneficial ownership of each such sub‐account. (10‐22) A broker‐dealer has a duty – enforceable under federal securities laws and FINRA rules – to conduct a reasonable investigation of securities that it recommends, including those sold in a Regulation D offering. (10‐23) On February 22, 2010, the SEC approved the second major proposed expansion of TRACE to include Asset‐backed Securities as TRACE‐Eligible Securities, to require the reporting of Asset‐backed Securities transactions and to establish reporting fees. (10‐27) Starting on July 1, 2010, the beginning of the third calendar quarter, firms must use revised and new product codes to report statistical information regarding written customer complaints relating to annuities and life settlement products. (10‐30) On June 10, 2010, FINRA began a pilot program in which it will halt trading otherwise than on an exchange with respect to securities included in the S&P 500® Index where the primary listing market has issued a trading pause due to extraordinary market volatility. Selected disciplinary actions: FINRA announced that it has settled charges with two additional firms relating to the sale of auction rate securities (ARS) that became illiquid when auctions froze in February 2008. FINRA announced that it has fined five broker‐dealers a total of $385,000 for the illegal sale of more than 8 billion shares of penny stock on behalf of their customers.

These are direct excerpts designed to provide a useful digest for the reader and an indication of regulatory trends. The FINRA staff is aware of this summary but has neither reviewed nor edited it. For further detail as well as other useful information, the reader should visit www.finra.org.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of using the right of private action against perpetrators of market manipulation.

The author examines legislation in the USA, which gives victims the right to pursue private legal action against market manipulators, and discusses the eligibility criteria that plaintiffs have to meet before they are allowed to pursue private proceedings.

In spite of the importance placed on private claims by courts, regulators and legal firms in the USA, research has shown that relying on this type of redress alone, is fraught with difficulties as it may not be appropriate in a modern day economic climate, because the doctrines of the law of tort, such as reliance and causation, are ill‐suited to the impersonal nature of financial market trading. Common law tort has placed obstacles in the way of effective private civil action, making it inconvenient for those wishing to pursue this route to do so.

The study concludes that private action can work as a secondary or tool against market manipulation, but it cannot replace or reduce the power of public enforcement.

The study examines in detail the experience of the USA in using private action as a remedy against perpetrators of market manipulation. It discusses the eligibility criteria that plaintiffs have to meet before they are allowed to pursue private proceedings. It addresses the question of whether other countries such as the UK should use private enforcement against market manipulation.