Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_law

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 703

2016-50/3657/en_head.json.gz/1014

Defense Trade: Implementation of Exon-Florio GAO-06-135T: Published: Oct 6, 2005. Publicly Released: Oct 6, 2005. Katherine V. Schinasi(202) [email protected] Office of Public Affairs The 1988 Exon-Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act authorizes the President to suspend or prohibit foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies that may harm national security, an action the President has taken only once. Implementing Exon-Florio can pose a significant challenge because of the need to weigh security concerns against U.S. open investment policy--which requires equal treatment of foreign and domestic investors. Exon-Florio's investigative authority was delegated to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (Committee)--an interagency committee established in 1975 to monitor and coordinate U.S. policy on foreign investments. In September 2002, GAO reported on weaknesses in the Committee's implementation of Exon-Florio. This review further examined the Committee's implementation of Exon-Florio.Several aspects of the process for implementing Exon-Florio could be enhanced thereby strengthening the law's effectiveness. First, in light of differing views among Committee members about the scope of Exon-Florio--specifically, what defines a threat to national security, we have suggested that Congress should consider amending Exon-Florio to more clearly emphasize the factors that should be considered in determining potential harm to national security. Second, to provide additional time for analyzing transactions when necessary, while avoiding the perceived negative connotation of investigation on foreign investment in the United States we have suggested that the Congress eliminate the distinction between the 30-day review and the 45-day investigation and make the entire 75-day period available for review. Third, the Committee's current approach to provide additional time for analysis or to resolve concerns while avoiding the potential negative impacts of an investigation on foreign investment in the United Stated is to encourage companies to withdraw their notifications of proposed or completed acquisitions and refile them at a later date. Since 1997, companies involved in 18 acquisitions have been allowed to withdraw their notification to refile at a later time. The new filing is considered a new case and restarts the 30-day clock. While withdrawing and refiling provides additional time while minimizing the risk of chilling foreign investment, withdrawal may also heighten the risk to national security in transactions where there are concerns and the acquisition has been completed or is likely to be completed during the withdrawal period. We are therefore suggesting that the Congress consider requiring the Committee Chair to (1) establish interim protections where specific concerns have been raised, (2) specify time frames for refiling, and (3) establish a process for tracking any actions being taken during the withdrawal period. Finally, to provide more transparency and facilitate congressional oversight, we are suggesting that the Congress may want to revisit the criterion for reporting circumstances surrounding cases to the Congress. Currently, the criterion is a presidential decision. However, there have only been two such decisions since 1997 and thus only two reports to Congress. Find Recent Work on National Defense »

法律

2016-50/3657/en_head.json.gz/1020

Text of GOP response to State of the Union address Associated Press Tuesday, January 28, 2014 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2013. McMorris Rodgers, the highest ranking Republican woman in Congress, gave the party's response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday. Obama vows to flex presidential powers in speech Text of Obama's State of the Union address FACT CHECK: Less than meets eye in Obama speech Analysis: Obama's agenda more bite-sized than bold LIVE VIDEO: Obama's 2014 State of the Union address begins at 8 p.m. Five things to know about the State of the Union Text of the Republican response to the State of the Union address, as prepared for delivery by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and provided by the Office of the Speaker of the House: What an honor it is for me to be with you after the president's State of the Union. Tonight we honor America - a nation that has witnessed the greatest rise of freedom and opportunity our world has ever seen. A nation where we are not defined by our limits, but by our potential. And a nation where a girl who worked at the McDonald's Drive-Thru to help pay for college can be with you from the United States Capitol. But the most important moments right now aren't happening here. They're not in the Oval Office or in the House Chamber. They're in your homes. Kissing your kids goodnight, figuring out how to pay the bills, getting ready for tomorrow's doctor's visit, waiting to hear from those you love serving in Afghanistan, or searching for that big job interview. After all, 'We the People' have been the foundation of America since her earliest days - people from all walks of life, and from all corners of the world - people who come to America because here, no challenge is too great and no dream too big. That's the genius of America. Tonight the president made more promises that sound good, but won't solve the problems actually facing Americans. We want you to have a better life. The president wants that, too. But we part ways when it comes to how to make that happen. So tonight I'd like to share a more hopeful, Republican vision, one that empowers you, not the government. It's one that champions free markets - and trusts people to make their own decisions, not a government that decides for you. It helps working families rise above the limits of poverty and protects our most vulnerable. And it's one where Washington plays by the same rules that you do. It's a vision that is fair and offers the promise of a better future for every American. If you had told me as a little girl that one day I would put my hand on the Bible and be sworn in as the 200th woman to serve in the House of Representatives, I never would've thought it possible. I grew up working at my family's orchard and fruit stand in Kettle Falls, a small town in Eastern Washington — getting up before dawn with my brother to pick apples. My dad drove a school bus and my mom worked as a part-time bookkeeper. They taught me to work hard, help others, and always, always dream for more. So, when I showed my 4H animals at the county fair, my parents used to say to me, "Cathy, you need to save this money so you can go to college one day!" So I did - I saved, I worked hard, and I became the first in my family to graduate from college. The chance to go from my Washington to this one was unexpected. I came to Congress to help empower people, not politicians; to grow the working middle class, not the government; and to ensure that everyone in this country can find a job. Because a job is so much more than just a paycheck. It gives us purpose, dignity and the foundation to build a future. I was single when I was elected - but it wasn't long before I met Brian, a retired Navy commander, and now we have three beautiful children, one who was born just eight weeks ago. Like all parents, we have high hopes and dreams for our children, but we also know what it's like to face challenges. Three days after we gave birth to our son, Cole, we got news no parent expects. Cole was diagnosed with Down syndrome. The doctors told us he could have endless complications, heart defects, even early Alzheimer's. They told us all the problems. But when we looked at our son, we saw only possibilities. We saw a gift from God. Today we see a 6-year old boy who dances to Bruce Springsteen; who reads above grade level; and who is the best big brother in the world. We see all the things he can do, not those he can't. Cole, and his sisters, Grace and Brynn, have only made me more determined to see the potential in every human life - that whether we are born with an extra 21st chromosome or without a dollar to our name - we are not defined by our limits, but by our potential. Because our mission, not only as Republicans, but as Americans, is to once again to ensure that we are not bound by where we come from, but empowered by what we can become. That is the gap Republicans are working to close. It's the gap we all face: between where you are and where you want to be. The president talks a lot about income inequality. But the real gap we face today is one of opportunity inequality. And with this administration's policies, that gap has become far too wide. We see this gap growing every single day. We see it in our neighbors who are struggling to find jobs. A husband who's now working just part-time. A child who drops out of college because she can't afford tuition. Or parents who are outliving their life's savings. Last month, more Americans stopped looking for a job than found one. Too many people are falling further and further behind because, right now, the president's policies are making people's lives harder. Republicans have plans to close the gap, plans that focus on jobs first without more spending, government bailouts, and red tape. Every day, we're working to expand our economy, one manufacturing job, nursing degree and small business at a time. We have plans to improve our education and training systems so you have the choice to determine where your kids go to school, so college is affordable, and skills training is modernized. And yes, it's time to honor our history of legal immigration. We're working on a step-by-step solution to immigration reform by first securing our borders and making sure America will always attract the best, brightest, and hardest working from around the world. And with too many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, we have solutions to help you take home more of your pay - through lower taxes, cheaper energy costs, and affordable health care. Not long ago I got a letter from Bette in Spokane, who hoped the president's health care law would save her money - but found out instead that her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month. No, we shouldn't go back to the way things were, but this law is not working. Republicans believe health care choices should be yours, not the government's. And that whether you're a boy with Down syndrome or a woman with breast cancer, you can find coverage and a doctor who will treat you. So we hope the president will join us in a year of real action - by empowering people - not making their lives harder with unprecedented spending, higher taxes and fewer jobs. As Republicans, we advance these plans every day because we believe in a government that trusts people and doesn't limit where you finish because of where you started. That is what we stand for - for an America that is every bit as compassionate as it is exceptional. If we're successful, years from now our children will say that we rebuilt the American Dream. We built a working middle class that could take in anyone, and a workforce that could take on the world. Whether you're a girl in Kettle Falls or a boy from Brooklyn, our children should be able to say that we closed the gap. Our plan is one that dreams big for everyone and turns its back on no one. The president said many things tonight. But now, we ask him to listen - to you - for the true state of the union lies in your heart and in your home. Tomorrow, I'll watch my son Cole get on the school bus; others will wait in the doctor's office or interview for that first job. Some of us will celebrate new beginnings. Others will face great challenges. But all of us will wake up and do what is uniquely American. We will look forward to the boundless potential that lies ahead. We will give thanks to the brave men and women who have answered America's call to freedom, like Sgt. Jacob Hess from Spokane, who recently gave his life to protect all of ours. So, tonight, I simply offer a prayer. A prayer for Sgt. Hess's family, your family and for our larger American family. That, with the guidance of God, we may prove worthy of His blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For when we embrace these gifts, we are each doing our part to form a more perfect union. May God guide you and our president, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

法律

2016-50/3657/en_head.json.gz/1079

THR, Esq. Eriq Gardner Village People Trial Begins: Who Wrote 'Y.M.C.A.'? Clinton Wallace/Globe Photos/ZumaPress.com/Newscom 'Cosby Show' actress Phylicia Rashad is scheduled to testify in a California courtroom. It's been a long time since The Village People were in the limelight, but on Monday, a trial opens to determine who wrote 24 of the group's songs, including "Y.M.C.A." In May 2012, original Village People singer-songwriter Victor Willis won a big ruling in the music industry by having a California federal judge uphold his ability to terminate his share of the group's songs. As a result, the royalty payments that Willis received from music publishers were due to increase from a 12-20 percent rate. But exactly how much of a bump? Willis contends he co-authored the songs with just Jacques Morali and therefore is entitled to a 50 percent share. But Scorpio Music and Can’t Stop Productions, the publishers, point to copyright registrations indicating a third author, Henri Belolo. It's their contention that the songs were originally French and then adapted by Willis, who in turn says Belolo didn't have much to do with the songs in question. The music publishers only believe Willis is entitled to a 33 percent share. Among the witnesses scheduled to testify on behalf of Willis is his ex-wife Phylicia Rashad, who is famous for playing Clair Huxtable on The Cosby Show. She is expected to say that she witnessed Willis writing many of the songs at their home and they were never adapted from a prior existing French song. Also being called as plaintiff witnesses are Hope Grossbard, Belolo's former secretary, to testify about the drafting of various agreements and copyright filings, as well as Russell Dabney, a drummer in the Village People studio band. The defendant's star witness is Felipe Rose, a founding member of The Village People, who is scheduled to testify that he saw Belolo and Morali working together to create "Y.M.C.A." and other songs. To rebut this, Willis will have his new wife Karen take the stand to testify that she has compiled an extensive archive of Rose's various interviews, and he never before identified Belolo as a co-writer. As the trial begins, there are a few matters that will have to be addressed by the judge. The biggest is whose burden it is to prove Belolo did or didn't contribute to the creation of the songs. The publishers say that Willis, as plaintiff, carries the burden of disproving the writer credits contained on the copyright registration certificates. Willis, on the other hand, says that these certificates can't be presumed to be truthful if there's fraud involved and "at the best, the introduction of those certificates will simply place the ball in Mr. Willis' court to rebut the factual statements contained in them." Willis' side previously estimated a loss of $30 million from the claim that his iconic songs are adapted from original French songs. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @eriqgardner Eriq Gardner [email protected] eriqgardner

法律

2016-50/3657/en_head.json.gz/1126

Sharis Pozen DOJ’s acting antitrust division chief stepping down January 24, 2012 | By Alex Vorro After only six months on the job, Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis Pozen announced her resignation from the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division yesterday. As of April 30, Pozen will step down from the role to which she was appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder on Aug. 4, 2011. Details of H&R Block, TaxAct merger ruling released November 11, 2011 | By Shirley Li Details of the ruling that stopped the merger of H&R Block and TaxAct surfaced Thursday when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell released her legal reasoning.

法律

2016-50/3657/en_head.json.gz/1136

Courts send the Diet a message The Tokyo High Court on March 6 ruled that the apportionment for the Dec. 16 Lower House election was unconstitutional because of the extent of the disparity in single-seat constituency vote values between depopulated rural areas and populated urban ones. Although the lawsuit was filed by a group of lawyers concerning the election in the Tokyo No. 1 constituency — and the court did not nullify the election results — the ruling’s implication is still significant as it casts strong doubt over the constitutional legitimacy of the election victories of many Lower House members. The Diet should reduce the vote-value disparity by immediately carrying out reapportionment. On March 7, the Sapporo High Court ruled in a similar fashion. A series of other similar rulings with regard the constitutionality of the Lower House election results are likely to come by the end of this month. When that happens, the legitimacy of those Lower House members will be further weakened. The Diet must prepare for the possibility that a court will declare the December election results null and void, thus necessitating a new round of elections after reapportionment. This would cause great confusion in Japanese politics. In March 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the August 2009 Lower House election, which brought the Democratic Party of Japan to power, was held “in an unconstitutional state” because of the great disparity in vote values, although it did not nullify the election results. The Tokyo High Court on March 6 said that the election in the Tokyo No. 1 electoral district was “illegal,” saying that the disparity in the weight of votes between depopulated rural areas and populated urban areas expanded from 2.304 times in the August 2009 Lower House election to 2.425 times in the December 2012 Lower House election. It also pointed out that the number of constituencies where the disparity is 2.0 times or more increased from 45 to 72. Since the disparity of up to 2.0 times is regarded as acceptable, this means that the legitimacy of a quarter of the 300 Lower House members’ election wins in single-seat constituencies is in doubt. In an effort to reapportion Lower House seats, the Diet enacted a bill to reduce one seat each in five prefectures on Nov. 16. But Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda of the DPJ dissolved the Lower House the same day without waiting for reapportionment to be implemented. As the Liberal Democratic Party was calling for an early Lower House dissolution, both Mr. Noda and the LDP share responsibility for holding an election without reapportionment. Fourteen high courts or high court branches are expected to make rulings by March 27 on lawsuits filed by lawyers’ groups on the legality of the December Lower House election. If the legislature does not act quickly enough to reapportion Lower House seats, there will no other choice than for these courts to issue rulings either nullifying the election results or setting a specific deadline for reapportionment. Lower House election, reapportionment Editorials

法律

2016-50/3657/en_head.json.gz/1212

Settlement reached in Walmart parking lot death A $100,000 insurance payment was accepted Friday in Lenawee County Probate Court to settle a claim over the death of an Adrian woman in a Walmart parking lot accident a year ago.The settlement was reached after an investigation of all parties potentially liable in the death of 59-year-old Linda Gail Guzman on Feb. 10, 2013. She was killed when an elderly driver backed his van into a parked pickup, pinning Guzman against her own car.The driver, John Charles Ellis of Adrian, was sentenced on his 90th birthday in July to probation and ordered not to drive again. He pleaded no contest in June to a charge of moving violation causing death.The Guzman family’s attorney, Courtney Morgan of Dearborn, presented the settlement with Ellis’ auto insurance company on Friday. Morgan said he and his staff investigated claims against other potential parties, including liability for Walmart. The facts did not line up for a legal claim against any others, he told the court.“This wasn’t the first time Mr. Ellis had an accident like this,” Morgan said.Ellis was sued for injuring a man he struck in another Adrian parking lot while backing up his van in November 2011.Morgan said state law prohibits liability claims against Ellis’ doctor or family members who could have prevented him from continuing to drive, he said. Ellis does not have assets to justify pursuing further claims against him, he said.Auto Owners Insurance offered a $100,000 payment as the limit for the policy in effect for Ellis.“This does not reflect an adequate representation of the value of Mrs. Guzman and her loss,” Morgan said.Judge Gregg P. Iddings ruled the settlement was in the best interests of the estate and offered condolences to the Guzman family.Fidel Guzman said nothing could be done in court to make up for the loss of his wife.“There’s no money in the world that could ever have replaced her,” he said.Family members said at Ellis’ sentencing in July that they agreed with the judge’s decision not to send him to jail. They wanted to be certain he would not drive again and endanger others, said LaVerne Guzman, a sister of the victim.“Linda was a very forgiving person,” she said.

法律

2016-50/3657/en_head.json.gz/1214

End-user of defective product prevented from bringing a claim when it has knowledge of the defects Product Liability Notes The Court of Appeal has confirmed that where an end user has knowledge of the defects in a product, it is not able to bring a claim for any subsequent loss resulting from that defect. It held that an end user company would be deemed to have knowledge even where its senior managers were not aware. It is sufficient that employees entrusted with the task of maintaining and operating the defective equipment in a safe manner had such knowledge: Howmet Limited v Economy Devices Limited & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 847. The Appellant, Howmet, is a company which manufactures turbine aerofoils and other precision components for the aerospace industry. As part of the manufacturing process, metal castings are dipped into a series of heated tanks. The Respondent, EDL, was engaged to provide a number of "thermolevel" devices which were fitted to the tanks. Operating correctly, the device automatically switches off the heater when the level sensor detects that the liquid in the tank has dropped below a specified level. This function is designed to prevent the risk of the tank catching fire, which was the likely outcome of the heater remaining on when the tank was empty or nearly empty. On two occasions prior to the incident giving rise to the claim, the thermolevel failed to function resulting in a fire. On both of these occasions, the fires were extinguished by members of staff on site at the time. The thermolevel device fitted to the same tank then failed for a third time. On this occasion, there was no one present to witness the chemicals within the tank catching fire and the blaze spread, causing £20 million of loss. Howmet brought the following claims: EDL had breached its duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in the manufacture and design of the thermolevel devices. That EDL had breached its statutory duties under the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 (the “1994 Regulations”) in failing to affix CE markings and ensure the product was “safe”. First Instance decision At first instance, it was held that EDL had not implemented any satisfactory testing regime and the manufacture of the devices was deficient. In addition, EDL provided inadequate instructions to accompany its product demonstrating a lack of reasonable care. The same reasoning also meant that the product was unsafe under the 1994 Regulations. Had Howmet reasonably relied on the thermolevel as protection against fire at the relevant time, the failure of the device to operate properly would have been within the scope of the duty of care and the claim to recover losses caused by the fire would have been successful. It was held, however, that this was not the case; Howmet had knowledge that there had been at least one occasion upon which the thermolevel had not operated as it should have done. The evidence also suggested Howmet might have been prepared to accept vigilance of the operators as a suitable safeguard. There was therefore no such reliance. Upholding the judgment at first instance, the Court of Appeal discussed in greater detail whether Howmet did possess the relevant knowledge of the defect, and whether EDL could remain liable for some part of the loss nonetheless. The Court of Appeal noted that the law imposes restrictions on a manufacturer's liability to an end user, noting that the manufacturer will have no control over how the product is used. It is well established that a claim for negligence cannot be brought successfully if a hidden defect in the product was discovered before the damage was caused. A claimant cannot recover losses caused by a faulty product if it continued to use the product after becoming aware of the fault. The Court of Appeal considered in more detail the question as to who within a company would have to make or have knowledge of such a discovery before the company itself would be deemed to have the relevant knowledge. Jackson LJ confirmed that if one relevant employee in the corporate hierarchy becomes aware of a defect and fails to comply with a duty to report the defect up the line, the company in question will not be able to rely on the ignorance of more senior managers. This would be the case even if it would only be within the power of those senior managers to take steps to deal with the problem. The relevant employees for the purpose of attribution of knowledge in this case were those employees to whom the directors of Howmet had entrusted the task of maintaining and operating the equipment in a safe manner. Apportionment of Liability Counsel for Howmet argued that the effect of such a discovery should not defeat a tortious claim in its entirety. Instead, there should be an apportionment of liability under the Contributory Negligence Act 1945. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. Once an end user is alerted to the dangerous condition of a chattel, it continues to use it entirely at its own risk except in exceptional circumstances where there is no choice but to continue usage. The Court of Appeal decision represents a confirmation of the law as it was previously understood. When a defective product has been supplied to a company as end user, relatively junior employees of the company who discover the defect may possess knowledge which will be attributed to the company. It would be prudent to put in place policies which encourage systematic reporting up the line in order to identify defects and raise these with the supplier as soon as possible, considering carefully whether to continue usage of the product at the company's own risk. Anthony Dempster and David Bennett Filed under More from Product Liability Notes Challenges to sugar - Health claims relating to glucose tablets not authorised New sentencing guidelines for corporate manslaughter and health and safety offences come into force today Criminal liability for defective products: a refresher ECJ lowers level of proof required to prove ‘defect’ in medical products The Franchising Code of Conduct – one of the ACCC’s strategic compliance and enforcement priorities in 2015 "An excellent service!" "An excellent service!" "An excellent service!" Sonja Sarantis State Street Bank and Trust Company

法律

2016-50/3657/en_head.json.gz/1215

Follow the money - the Criminal Finances Bill The Criminal Finances Bill sets out measures to combat money laundering and tax evasion that will also affect corporate compliance requirements, particularly in the finance and professional services sectors. The Criminal Finances Bill is intended to give effect to key elements of the government's April 2016 action plan on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance. This alert summarises a number of key proposals from the Bill, which was published on 13 October 2016 and is due to be scrutinised in committee from 15 November 2016. The proposals include new corporate offences regarding tax evasion, changes to the current suspicious activity reports ("SARs") regime, and the introduction of unexplained wealth orders ("UWOs").1 These proposals reflect two major ongoing developments in UK criminal law following the Bribery Act 2010: namely, an increasing focus on foreign politically exposed persons ("PEPs"), and the expansion of corporate criminal liability through strict liability 'failure to prevent' offences. New corporate offences regarding tax evasion Further to a consultation that ended in July this year, the Bill introduces two new criminal offences for corporates and partnerships regarding tax evasion. These offences follow the strict liability 'failure to prevent' approach to corporate misconduct previously seen in section 7 of the Bribery Act. An entity will commit an offence where it fails to prevent an associated person – someone acting for or on behalf of the entity – from criminally facilitating either: 1) a UK tax evasion offence; or 2) an equivalent offence under foreign law. Both new offences have extra-territorial effect, although the second offence (regarding foreign tax evasion) requires the entity or the facilitation to be linked to the UK. For each offence, it will be a defence for the entity to show that it had reasonable procedures in place to prevent such facilitation, or that it was not reasonable to expect it to have such procedures. In their current form, the offences may be difficult to actually prosecute. Each offence requires another two underlying criminal offences – regarding the tax evasion and the facilitation – to be proved (although not necessarily prosecuted). In addition, it is often difficult to distinguish between criminal tax evasion and aggressive (but legal) tax avoidance. There are potential workarounds for these issues, but the main impact of the new offences is likely to be compliance-related: as with the Bribery Act, businesses will need to ensure their procedures are sufficient to provide a defence. Further analysis of these offences can be found in previous alerts: Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water… and Criminal consequences of the use of leaked data by tax authorities. Enhancements to the SARs regime A regulated entity making a SAR may request consent from the National Crime Agency ("NCA") to proceed with the reported activity. If the NCA grants consent, the entity has a statutory defence to the principal money laundering offences that it might otherwise commit by proceeding. If the NCA refuses consent, the entity loses the statutory defence (and so cannot proceed with the activity without risking an offence) for a 31-day 'moratorium period'. This is intended to allow investigators time to gather evidence and decide if further action (e.g. to freeze funds) is required. In practice, 31 days is often insufficient for a proper investigation, and so the NCA often takes no further action. The Bill allows for extensions of the moratorium period (by application to the Crown Court) in 31-day increments, up to a total of 217 days, where more time is needed to finish an ongoing investigation. To assist such investigations, the Bill enables the NCA to request further information from a person in the regulated sector after receiving a SAR2 and, if it is not provided, to apply for an order compelling its provision. More broadly, the Bill extends the use of disclosure orders, allowing law enforcement agencies to compel the provision of information and documents in money laundering investigations. The Bill also enables regulated entities to share information with each other regarding suspected money laundering, further to a notification to the NCA. This 'public / private partnership' approach, which has been piloted by the NCA and a number of banks in the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce (JMLIT), is intended to allow multiple entities to compile detailed intelligence about suspected money laundering before providing this information to the NCA in a single joint disclosure report, or 'super SAR'. In response to concerns expressed by regulated entities, the Bill also provides a clear legal basis for the sharing of confidential information regarding suspected money laundering. As with ordinary SARs, information shared with the NCA or with other regulated entities further to these provisions will not breach disclosure restrictions (e.g. regarding client confidentiality). Where the NCA requests or requires further information following a SAR, privileged information does not need to be provided. These measures would undoubtedly help the NCA to investigate SARs regarding serious misconduct, although an extended moratorium period will pose a serious challenge to a company that has to place a transaction on hold for up to 7 months and avoid tipping off the subject of the SAR during that time. However, the bigger difficulty with the current SAR regime is arguably the sheer volume of information: in 2014-15, more than 380,000 SARs were submitted to an aging IT system designed to cope with only 20,000 SARs. The information sharing provisions in the Bill may assist, if widely used, by allowing multiple SARs to be replaced with a single 'super SAR', but it is likely that the NCA will need more and better resources to take full advantage of improvements to the SAR regime. Unexplained wealth orders, explained UWOs are intended to allow law enforcement agencies to investigate and seize property from a person, without needing to prove serious criminality, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person's known lawful income3 would have been insufficient to obtain that property. The Bill enables law enforcement agencies to apply to the High Court for a UWO (and, if required, an interim freezing order) regarding property thought to be held by: a PEP (i.e. a prominent foreign public official or their family member or close associate); or a person who there are reasonable grounds to suspect has been (or is connected with someone who has been) involved in serious crime4. For a PEP, there is no need to have reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in serious crime. UWOs will be available for general use by law enforcement, but it is likely that they will see particular use in support of SARs that identify valuable property held by such persons. The UWO requires the respondent to explain the nature and extent of their interest in the specified property and how they obtained it. Non-compliance with a UWO (without reasonable excuse) will leave the respondent open to contempt of court proceedings and give rise to a presumption that the property is recoverable, making it easier for a law enforcement agency5 to seize under the civil recovery regime. It will also be an offence to knowingly or recklessly make a materially false or misleading statement in response to a UWO. The law enforcement agency may (and presumably would in most cases) apply for an interim freezing order at the same time as the UWO, in order to prevent dissipation of the property. UWOs are a potentially powerful tool and will require careful handling, particularly as applied to PEPs. Besides the obvious political sensitivities and potential reputational damage (even if the UWO is not ultimately granted), the reversal of the normal burden of proof allows an application to be made on the basis of limited evidence and places significant pressure on the respondent. One way to mitigate this, as raised in the recent Commons debate on the Bill, would be to have the initial application for a UWO be heard in private (as is done for restraint proceedings and at the initial stage for deferred prosecution agreements), with publication of the judgment and UWO taking place only if a UWO is granted. It remains to be seen whether this suggestion will be adopted in committee. Further government action on money laundering, corruption and financial crime is expected. The recent Commons debate on the Bill saw a number of questions about the extension of the 'failure to prevent' approach to other economic crimes, and the government has indicated that a consultation on the topic is forthcoming. The Bill forms only one part of a wider package of measures. However, the measures it proposes will – if properly implemented and resourced – significantly enhance the UK's ability to combat money laundering and recover the proceeds of crime. The finalised Bill is expected to become law next year, although no implementation date has yet been fixed. The effect of these measures on compliance requirements should be taken into account by those in the regulated sector and, in particular, companies in the financial and professional services sectors, ahead of the Bill coming into force. White & Case LLP - Jonathan Pickworth, Joseph Carroll and Jonah Anderson Filed under Global trends in fintech dealmaking * How fintech deals are reshaping financial services * Forfeiture: High Court grants relief after 14 months * Regulatory and business challenges to fintech M&A * The future of fintech M&A: Not just a ripple

法律