1,721,033 research outputs found
The Introduction of an EU-wide Deposit Insurance Scheme: Advantages and Disadvantages from a Depositor Perspective
No full textThe Legal Characterization of Crypto-Exchange Platforms
No full textIn un mercato fiorente di cripto-asset, le piattaforme di scambio di criptovalute svolgono un ruolo fondamentale. Infatti, tali sistemi di scambio sono fondamentali per l'incontro tra domanda e offerta (trading) e per il trasferimento dei token (settlement e post-trading). Tuttavia, attualmente non esiste un quadro normativo specifico applicabile agli scambi di criptovalute, il che solleva domande pressanti su se e come tali piattaforme siano regolamentate. Questo articolo esamina il quadro normativo italiano applicabile alle piattaforme di scambio di criptovalute. Esso mostra che l'attuale impegno normativo nei confronti delle criptovalute riguarda la qualificazione delle attività crittografiche negoziate. A seconda di tale qualificazione, potrebbero scattare diversi regimi finanziari.In a thriving crypto-assets market, crypto exchange platforms play a pivotal role. Indeed, such trading systems are instrumental to the matching of demand and supply (trading) as well as the transfer of tokens (settlement and post-trading). Yet, there is currently no bespoke regulatory framework applicable to crypto exchange, raising pressing questions on whether and how those platforms are regulated. This article examines the Italian regulatory framework applicable to crypto-exchange platforms. It shows that the present regulatory engagement with crypto exchanges relates to the qualification of the crypto assets traded. Depending on such qualification, different financial regimes could be triggered
Banks’ internal governance obligations vis-a -vis money laundering risks emerging from the new technology-enabled means to transfer funds or value (“crypto assets”)
Full text linkPurpose
The new technology-enabled means to transfer funds or value via crypto assets have prompted regulators and supervisors to question the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering (AML) regulatory framework. This paper aims to examine the recent developments of the EU AML legislation – leading up to the 2021 AML package – focusing in particular on the banks’ internal governance obligations.
Design/methodology/approach
The analysis is based on the legal dogmatic methodology and is therefore conducted thanks to a critical exam of the current and upcoming EU policy and legislation, taking into account the relevant literature and case-law.
Findings
The recent regulatory developments, culminating in the AML regulation, are strengthening the causal links between ML risk assessment–ML risk exposure–ML risk management, via internal governance procedures. One of the major AML regulatory strategies to react to the new challenges brought up by crypto assets amounts to a stricter and more demanding AML risk management regime imposed on banks.
Originality/value
The originality of this article lies in the analysis of the causal connection between money laundering risk identification and internal governance obligations. In particular, this article examines how the risk assessment will be shaping the organizational procedures, processes and internal functions necessary to manage the money laundering risks.publishedVersio
Sul perimetro dei poteri del commissario straordinario nel periodo di c.d. proroga tecnica
No full textL'articolo esamina i poteri del commissario straordinario nel contesto del periodo di proroga tecnica prevista dalla legislazione di settor
Il nuovo documento denominato "Informazioni europee di base" nell'ambito del rinnovato regime informativo dei contratti di credito ai consumatori
No full textIl contributo esamina il nuovo documento informativo denominato informazioni europee di bas
La speciale natura dell’incarico amministrativo in banca tra limitazioni alla discrezionalità organizzativa e vincoli sull’agire in modo informato
No full textLa nota commenta una delle prime pronunce giurisprudenziali in materia di dovere organizzativo. In particolare, l'analisi si sofferma sul nesso di strumentalita' esistente tra "adeguatezza degli assetti organizzativi" e il dovere di agire informati che incombe sugli amministratori. Nell'inquadrare tale tema, l'indagine prosegue ad affrontare la specialita' della natura dell'incarico amministrativo in banca, il quale si rispecchia tanto sul dovere organizzativo quanto sul dovere di agire in modo informato
Enlisting Internal and External Financial Gatekeepers: Problems of Multiple Centres of Knowledge Construction
No full textOver the last decade complexity has impaired financial regulators' and supervisors' ability to cope with informational asymmetries, moral hazards and other market failures. Recent regulatory responses have been to include external auditors in the range of "gatekeepers" and "watchdogs" that serve regulatory objectives. On the other hand, the compliance function gained greater prominence as a form of internalised law enforcement, being increasingly seen as facilitating the achievement of public regulatory needs in maintaining the safety and soundness of financial institutions. Yet, uncertainty has pervaded the issue of what modes of interaction supervisors, compliance and external auditors should be subject to. International experience and anecdotal evidence show, in fact, that the current informal, discretion-based, relationship between such gatekeepers brings about risks of knowledge fragmentation and ambiguity, calling for better gathering and use of "gatekeepers' knowledge". The objective of this article is to address and rectify problems of multiple centres of knowledge construction, by approaching questions pertaining to the interaction between the "internal" and "external" gatekeepers. A primary contribution of this article is to examine this problem by reconciling the strand of research concerning multiple gatekeeperś liability and the developing legal scholarship on compliance as a delegated form of external enforcement. The explanatory nature of multiple gatekeepers' liability is twofold: first, it contributes in emphasising the complexity stemming from the interactions between multiple gatekeepers; second, it offers a solid working hypothesis to detect the market failures that can arise from such complexity, namely relating to fragmentation - and construction - of knowledge
- …
