Welcome to the April 2014 edition of our corporate crime update – our round-up of developments in relation to corruption, money laundering, fraud, sanctions and related matters. Our update now covers a number of jurisdictions. For the full update on each jurisdiction, please click on the name of the jurisdiction below. Below we provide a brief overview of what is covered in each jurisdiction’s update. Continue reading
In a case of interest to foreign parties that routinely use New York’s banking system to facilitate dollar transactions, the New York Court of Appeals has reversed a decision by the Appellate Division that would have foreclosed ‘forum non conveniens’ dismissals as a matter of law whenever a foreign national, “effecting what is alleged to be a fraudulent transaction, moves dollars through a bank in New York.” Left undisturbed, this ruling would have burdened overseas litigants in cases lacking any other nexus to the state by preventing them from using the doctrine of forum non conveniens in response to the often broad jurisdictional reach of New York’s “long-arm” statute. For further commentary on this case, Mashreqbank PSC v. Ahmed Hamad al Gosaibi & Brothers Company, New York State Court of Appeals No. 54, click here.
ESMA consultation on notification of interests in listed companies under revised Transparency Directive
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is consulting on draft regulatory technical standards on how interests in listed companies should be calculated for the purposes of the disclosure requirements under the revised Transparency Directive 2013/50/EC. The deadline for responses is 30 May 2014. Continue reading
UK: anonymous hearsay evidence will usually be inadmissible in professional disciplinary proceedings
The High Court of England and Wales has held that in general it would be unfair to admit “potentially significant” anonymous hearsay evidence in professional disciplinary proceedings, although there may be exceptions to this in some circumstances.
Admitting anonymous hearsay evidence is in general unfair because it prevents defendants from challenging evidence by (i) advancing reasons why the witness might have an axe to grind against them or (ii) making enquiries or adducing conflicting evidence in rebuttal. However, the court may, as it did in this case, uphold a professional disciplinary panel’s judgment even if the panel erred in admitting evidence, if it is clear from the decision that the panel did not take into account inadmissible evidence in reaching its decision. Our briefing sets out a discussion of the case, White v Nursing and Midwifery Council  EWHC 520 (Admin).
In December 2013, the Dubai Financial Services Authority (the “DFSA”) issued its Consultation Paper on Qualified Investor Exempt Funds (the “Consultation Paper”), which proposed the introduction of a new category of Domestic Funds in the Dubai International Financial Centre (the “DIFC”). Continue reading
The National Audit Office (NAO) has published a report on “The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority: Regulating financial services”, examining the progress made to date by the FCA and the PRA in developing and implementing their regulatory approaches. A number of key facts in the report have grabbed the press headlines – most notably the £127 million forecast increase in the cost of regulation since legal cutover and the £472 million in regulatory fines imposed in 2013 (interestingly, the number of enforcement cases is half that of the FSA’s 2010 enforcement cases). However, the detail of the report, which sets out a number of key findings and recommendations summarised below, provides some useful insights for those working in the regulated sector.
The EU, US and Russia have taken further steps in response to continuing events in Ukraine.
On 20 March 2014, the US imposed an asset freeze and visa ban on 20 additional individuals and one Russian Bank. A new executive order was also signed to allow the imposition of further restrictions. Russia imposed sanctions against nine US officials in response. The following day, on 21 March 2014, an EU Regulation came into force increasing the number of individuals subject to an asset freeze and travel ban. For more details on the measures adopted by the EU, US and Russian, click here.
In pre-action correspondence, a Bank disclosed its underwriting guidelines for mortgages, which stated they were to be read in conjunction with the key credit policy document for the relevant business, a Credit Process Guide. Unsurprisingly, the defendants sought disclosure of the Credit Process Guide. The Bank resisted on the basis that it did not come within the test for standard disclosure, and as the document was commercially sensitive, the Bank was not prepared to provide it voluntarily. The High Court’s recently published decision shows that a court will examine closely whether a document comes within the test for standard disclosure: references to the document in another disclosed document will not be sufficient, nor is the fact that it might prove helpful for the purposes of cross-examination. Our litigation notes set out a more detailed analysis of the decision in Ward Hadaway v DB (UK) Bank  EWHC 4538 (Ch).
Welcome to the March 2014 edition of our corporate crime update – our round-up of developments in relation to corruption, money laundering, fraud, sanctions and related matters. Our update now covers a number of jurisdictions. For the full update on each jurisdiction, please click on the name of the jurisdiction below. Below we provide a brief overview of what is covered in each jurisdiction’s update. Continue reading