ENGLISH

On May 12, 2011, both Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for the digital agenda within the European Commission, and Larry Strickling, Assistant Commissioner for Communications and Information within the United States Department of Commerce, sent a notification to the ICANN, a private association that manages Internet domain names. First of all, they agreed with the principle of self-regulation of Internet domain names by the ICANN. But, they requested a reform of its “governance” to improve its transparency and better take into account public authorities’ recommendations.

Association - Conflict resolution - Domain name - European commission - Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) - Memorandum - Power - Private regulator - Regulatory Authority - Self regulation - Soft law - Transparency - United Nations (UN) *

* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.

 

PORTUGUESE

Informe bibliográfico (Internet): Autoridades europeias e norte-americanas notificaram a ICANN, uma associação privada encarregada da auto-regulação de nomes de domínio na Internet, que ela deve adotar uma governança mais transparente e também adotar as recomendações de estruturas públicas.

Em 12 de maio de 2011, tanto Neelie Kroes, o Comissário Europeu para a agenda digital dentro da Comissão Europeia, quanto Larry Strickling, Comissário Assistente para Comunicações e Informação dentro do Departamento de Comércio dos Estados Unidos da América, enviaram uma notificação para a ICANN, uma associação privada que gerencia nomes de domínio na internet. Em primeiro lugar, eles concordaram com o princípio da auto-regulação dos nomes de domínio na Internet pela ICANN. No entanto, eles solicitaram uma reforma em sua governança para melhorar sua transparência e melhor levar em consideração as recomendações de autoridades públicas.

Associação – Resolução de conflitos – Nome de domínio – Comissão Europeia – Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) – Memorandum – Poder – Regulação privada – Autoridade de regulação – Auto-regulação – Soft law – Transparência – Nações Unidas (ONU)*

* No Journal of Regulation, as palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Diretor, e não pelo Autor.

ITALIAN

Relazione bibliografica (Internet): Le autorità europee e nord americane hanno indicato che l’ICANN, una società privata che ha lo scopo di auto-regolare i nomi a dominio di internet, dovrà aumentare la trasparenza della gestione ed adottare le raccomandazioni delle strutture pubbliche

Il 12 maggio 2011, Neelie Kroes, Commissario europeo per l’agenda digitale della Commissione europea, e Larry Strickling, Commissario assistente per le comunicazioni e l’informazione del Dipartimento del Commercio degli Stati Uniti, hanno entrambi dichiarato che l’ICANN, una società privata che gestisce i nomi a dominio di Internet, deve riformare il proprio sistema di gestione migliorando la sua trasparenza e deve prendere in debita considerazione le raccomandazioni provenienti dalle autorità pubbliche.

Associazione - Autorità di regolazione - Autorità privata di regolazione - Auto-regolazione - Commissione Europea - Internet - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) - Memorandum - Nazioni Unite (ONU) - Nomi di dominio - Potere - Risoluzione di controversie - Soft law - Transparenza *

* In The Journal of Regulation, le parole chiave sono responsabilità dell’Editore e non dall’Autore.

 

 Other translations fortcoming.

Main information

The national register of trusts has finally become a reality thanks to a decree published on March 2, 2010. It only use will be to inform various government administrations, in order to reinforce the tools available for fighting tax evasion, money laundering, and terrorism financing.

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., The always in expansion "Right to be Forgotten"​: a legitimate Oxymore in Compliance Law built on Information. Example of​ Cancer Survivors Protection, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 25th of August 2020 

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

 

Summary of the news

The "right to be forgotten" is an invention of the Court of Justice of the European Union during the case Google Spain in 2014. It implies that digital firms block the access to personal data of someone who asks it. This "right to be forgotten", which permits to impose secret to third parties has largely been generalized by GDPR in 2016. This new fundamental subjective right is a very political and European right. United-States which, on the contrary of Europe, did not experience nazism, links the "right to be forgotten" to the protection of consumer, conception which especially leads California Consumer Privacy Act adopted in 2018 to link this right to a situation of absence of necessity of this data for the firm which obtained it. 

In Europe, this willingness to protect directly the person increases the scope of such a subjective right. Thus, in France and in Luxembourg, since 2020, a cancer survivor can thus ask that such an information is not accessible among his or her health data, especially for insurance companies which use them in their risk calculus to set premium amount. Netherlands will do the same in 2021 to fight against discrimination between banks' and insurances' clients. 

The "monumental goal" is therefore not so much here the protection of individual freedoms as the protection of the vulnerable person, which is bye the way the keystone of a Compliance Law, concealing sometimes prohibition to circulate information (as here) and sometimes obligation to circulate information (in other cases, where the alert must be given) depending on whether vulnerable people are protected either by one or by the other.

The European Directive of 22 October 2014 ot the European Parliament and of the Council as regard disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertaking  and groupe  comes from afar.

Some present it as a step of an "irrestible rises  of Corporate Social Responsabilité.  This text would be a  a "step forward" and a "strong signal".

It is true the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council follows a consultation conducted for several years by the European Commission on the subject of Social Responsibility. Whatever might have said the "stakeholders", the Directive contains the same lines tham the European Commission Communication of 13 April 2011, adopted on 25 October 2011 on the topic.

It is difficult today to oppose "Hard Law" and "Soft Law": Law hardens gradually. Thus, from the "communication", we went to the "resolutions", whose status remains uncertain, both a communication firmer but less binding than a law, since resolution is only for its author ... Thus Parliament in its resolutions of 6 February 2013 'resolved' to design an "inclusive" vision of the corporate action, to dance together profitability and social justice. To get by,  it must suffice to say that the Social Responsibility Company is "multidimensional" ... Guidelines of the European Commission (non-binding) will explicit. Wait and see.

Following a series of obligations on information that companies must make available "to the public and authorities." Thus, companies must do the work instead of public authorities themselves. The provisions relating to non-financial information are mandatory and standardized. They are particularly demanding on the environment.

But when the text provides more substantial obligations, such as making the activity business less polluting, the Directive simply ask the member states to encourage companies to adopt "best practices" in the field. The market itself is incitative, in particular for making boards of large corporations more diverses. Because the principle is the belief that "investor access to non-financial information is a step towards achieving the goal of effective .... Europe in the use of resources," in a regulatory context of a "smart, sustainable and inclusive" growth".

 

Translated Summaries

ENGLISH

In May 2011, Nasdaq OMX and its partner Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) were authorized by their respective boards of directors to perform a tender offer on the stock market operator NYSE Euronext. The American Department of Justice was worried about the consequences that this operation would have on competition, and despite the remedies proposed by the two companies, notified them that it would refuse the merger. On May 16, 2011, this potential refusal was enough for Nasdaq OMX and ICE to abandon their plan. This game of signals demonstrates the power of interregulation between merger review and the regulation of tender offers.

Capital market - Competition - Concentration - Financial market - Initial Public Offering (IPO) - Regulator - Self regulation - United States *

* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.

Capital market - Competition - Concentration - Financial market - Initial Public Offering (IPO) - Regulator - Self regulation - United States *

 

* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.

ITALIAN

Relazione tematica (Finanza): Il Dipartimento di giustizia americano ha informato Nasdaq e Intercontinental Exchange che rifiuterà la loro offerta pubblica iniziale su NYSE Euronext a ragione degli effetti anticoncorrenziali e le due società hanno quindi abbandonato il progetto.

Durante il mese di maggio 2011, Nasdq OMX ed il suo partner Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) erano stati autorizzati dai propri consigli di amministrazione a fare un’offerta sull’operatore di mercato NYSE Euronext. Il dipartimento di giustizia americano era preoccupato delle conseguenze che tale operazione avrebbe avuto sulla libera concorrenza e, malgrado i provvedimenti proposti dalle due società, aveva informato le società che avrebbe rifiutato la fusione. Il 16 maggio 2011, questo potenziale rifiuto bastò a Nasdaq OMX e ICE a far abbandonare il loro progetto. Questo gioco di segnali mette in rilievo il potere dell’interregolazione tra il controllo delle concentrazioni e la regolazione delle offerte all’asta.

Autoregolazione – Concorrenza - Concentrazione – Mercato finanziario – Mercato dei capitali – Offerta Pubblica Iniziale (IPO) – Regolatore – Stati Uniti d’America *

* In The Journal of Regulation, le parole chiave sono responsabilità dell’Editore e non dall’Autore.

 SPANISH

Informe temático (Finanza): El Departamento americano de justicia informó a Nasdaq y ICE que rechazó su IPO sobre el NYSE Euronext a causa de sus efectos anticompetitivos, y que las dos compañías deben por lo tanto abandonar su plan. NYSE Euronext y Deutsche Börse han decidido merge.

En mayo del 2011, Nasdaq OMX y su partidario, Interncontinental Exchange (ICE), obtuvieron la autorización por sus respectivas juntas directivas para extender una oferta en el operador del mercado de valores, NYSE Euronex. El Departamento americano de justicia comenzó a preocuparse sobre las consecuencias que esta operación tendría sobre la competencia, y a pesar de algunos remedios propuestos por las dos compoañías, notificó que rechazaría la unión. El 16 de mayo del 2011, esta rechazo potencial fue suficiente para que Nasdaq OMX y ICE abandonaran su plan. Este juego de señales demuestra el poder de la inter-regulación entre el proceso de revisión de uniones y la regulación de ofertas públicas de adquisición.

 PORTUGUESE

Informe temático (Finanças): O Departamento de Justiça dos Estados Unidos da América informou Nasdaq e ICE que ele iria rejeitar o IPO em NYSE Euronext por causa de seus efeitos anti-concorrenciais, assim as duas empresas abandonaram seu plano.

Em maio de 2011, Nasdaq OMX e seu parceiro Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) foram autorizados por suas respectivas diretorias a realizar uma oferta no operador do mercado de estocagem NYSE Euronext. O Departamento de Justiça dos Estados Unidos da América ficou preocupado com as conseqüências que esta operação teria na concorrência, e apesar dos contrapesos indicados pelas duas empresas, informou que ele iria recusar a operação. Em 16 de maio de 2011, esta recusa potencial foi suficiente para Nasdaq e OMX e ICE abandonarem seu plano. Este jogo de sinais demonstra o poder da interregulação entre revisão de operações e regulação de ofertas.

Mercado de capitais – Concorrência – Concentração – Mercado financeiro – Oferta pública inicial (IPO) – Regulador – Auto-regulação – Estados Unidos.*

* Em The Journal of Regulation, estas palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Editor e não pelo Autor.

.....................

Other translations forthcoming.

 

In what it presents as a set of guidelines designed by a risk-driven approach, the FATF published on 21 June 2019 recommendating to fight the use of crypto-assets and cryptocurrency platforms for launderind money and financing terrorism.

This fight against money laundering is (with the fight against corruption) often presented as the core of the Compliance Law. The FATF takes a large part of it. Even if this new branch of Law aims to crystallize other ambitions, such as the fight against tax fraud or climate change, or even the promotion of diversity or education and the preservation of democratie, the legislation of Compliance Law are mature in the matter of money laundering and the terrorism financing, as they are in the fight against corruption.

The news comes then not from the new legal mechanisms but rather from the new technological tools that could allow the realization of the behaviors against which these obligations of compliance have been inserted in the legal system. It is then to these technologies that the law must adapt. This is the case with crypto-assets and cryptocurrency platforms. Because these are rapidly evolving technologies, with the exercise of written guidelines in 2019 to inform the meaning of the provisions adopted in 2018, the FATF is taking the opportunity to change the definition it provides of crypto-assets and cryptocurrencies. So that a too narrow definition by the texts does not allow the operators to escape the supervision (phenomenon of "hole in the racket" - loophole)..  

 

___

 

In fact, in October 2018, the FATC (Financial Action Task Force) developed 15 principles applying to these platforms, to allow this intergovernmental organization to carry out its general mission to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. These June 2019 recommendations are to interpret them.

 

In this very important document, where it is expressly stated that it is a matter of fixing the obligations of those who propose crypto-assets and crypto-currencies, the notion of self-regulation is rejected. Il est writter : "Regarding VASP (virtual assets services providers) supervision, the Guidance makes clear that only competent authorities can act as VASP supervisory or monitoring bodies!footnote-119, and not self-regulatory bodies. They should conduct risk-based supervision or monitoring, with adequate powers, including the power to conduct inspections, compel the production of information and impose sanctions. There is a specific focus on the importance of international co-operation between supervisors, given the cross-border nature of VASPs’ activities and provision of services."

On the contrary, it is a matter of elaborating the control obligations that these service providers must exercise over products and their customers (Due Diligences), which must be supervised by public authorities. 

In order to exercise this supervision and monitoring, the national authorities themselves must ensure that they work together : "As the Virtual Assets Services Providers (VASP) sector evolves, countries should consider examining the relationship between AML/CF (Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financint) measures for covered VA activities and other regulatory and supervisory measures (e.g., consumer protection, prudential safety and soundness, network IT security, tax, etc.), as the measures taken in other fields may affect the ML/TF risks. In this regard, countries should consider undertaking short- and longer-term policy work to develop comprehensive regulatory and supervisory frameworks for covered VA activities and VASPs (as well as other obliged entities operating in the VA space) as widespread adoption of VAs continues".

After particularly interesting comparative law information on Italy, the Scandinavian countries and the United States, the report concludes: "International Co-operation is Key", because of the global nature of this activity.

 

Since the issue is not the global Regulation of these platforms and types of products, but only the possible modes of money laundering and terrorist financing to which they may give rise, the FATF recalls that neither crypto-products nor product suppliers are not referred to as such. As the guidance's title recalls, common to the 2018 document adopting the 15 principles and this interpretive document, these are "risk-based" rules. Thus, it is according to the situations that these - products and suppliers - that they may or may not present risks of laundering and financing of terrorism: depending on the type of transaction, the type of client, the type of country, etc. For example, from the moment that the transaction is anonymous, that is impossible to know the "beneficiary", or that it is transnational and instantaneous, which makes it difficult to supervise because of the heterogeneity of national supervisions little articulated between them.

In reports that public supervisors must have with crypto-product suppliers, they must adjust according to the level of risk presented by them, higher or lower: "Adjusting the type of AML/CFT supervision or monitoring: supervisors should employ both offsite and onsite access to all relevant risk and compliance information.However, to the extent permitted by their regime, supervisors can determine the correct mix of offsite and onsite supervision or monitoring of Virtual Assets Services Providers (VASPs). Offsite supervision alone may not be appropriate in higher risk situations. However, where supervisory findings in previous examinations (either offsite or onsite) suggest a low risk for ML/TF, resources can be allocated to focus on higher risk VASPs. In that case, lower risk VASPs could be supervised offsite, for example through transaction analysis and questionnaires".

This "adjustment" required does not prevent a very broad conception of the power of supervision. So, for nothing escapes the recommendations (and in particular the obligations that ensue for the suppliers of these products), the definition of the crypo-assets and crypo-currencies is this one: “Virtual asset” as a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred and can be used for payment or investment purposes. Virtual assets do not include digital representations of fiat currencies, securities, and other financial assets that are already covered elsewhere in the FATF Recommendations."

And for the same reason of effectiveness is posited the principle of technological neutrality: "Whether a natural or legal person engaged in Virtual Assets (VA) activities is a Virtual Asset Services Provider (VASP) depends on how the person uses the VA and for whose benefit. As emphasized above, ...  then they are a VASP, regardless of what technology they use to conduct the covered VA activities. Moreover, they are a VASP, whether they use a decentralized or centralized platform, smart contract, or some other mechanism.".

The interpretative guidelines then formulate the obligations that these platforms have with regard to the supervisors they obey(question of the "jurisdiction", ratione loci ; ratione materiae): " The Guidance explains how these obligations should be fulfilled in a VA context and provides clarifications regarding the specific requirements applicable regarding the USD/EUR 1 000 threshold for virtual assets occasional transactions, above which VASPs must conduct customer due diligence (Recommendation 10); and the obligation to obtain, hold, and transmit required originator and beneficiary information, immediately and securely, when conducting VA transfers (Recommendation 16). As the guidance makes clear, relevant authorities should co-ordinate to ensure this can be done in a way that is compatible with national data protection and privacy rules. ".

These platforms are not uniformly defined due to the diversity of their activities. Because it is their activity that makes them responsible for this or that regulator. For example from the Central Bank or the Financial Regulator: "For example, a number of online platforms that provide a mechanism for trading assets, including VAs offered and sold in ICOs, may meet the definition of an exchange and/or a security-related entity dealing in VAs that are “securities” under various jurisdictions’ national legal frameworks. Other jurisdictions may have a different approach which may include payment tokens. The relevant competent authorities in jurisdictions should therefore strive to apply a functional approach that takes into account the relevant facts and circumstances of the platform, assets, and activity involved, among other factors, in determining whether the entity meets the definition of an “exchange”!footnote-121 or other obliged entity (such as a securities-related entity) under their national legal framework and whether an entity falls within a particular definition. In reaching a determination, countries and competent authorities should consider the activities and functions that the entity in question performs, regardless of the technology associated with the activity or used by the entity".

 

____

Reading this very important document, it is possible to make 6 observations: 

1. Interpretative documents are often more important than rules interpretated themselves. En these guidances, first and foremost, these are major obligations that are stated, not only for platforms but also for national laws, and well beyond the issue of money laundering. So, it is laid: "Countries should designate one or more authorities that have responsibility for licensing and/or registering VASPs. ...  at a minimum, VASPs should be required to be licensed or registered in the jurisdiction(s) where they are created. ".This is a general prescription, involving a general regulation of these platform, which registered in a general way, will probably be supervised in a general way.

Secondly, it is a series of binding measures that is required of the National legal systems, for example the possibility of seizing crypto-values.

It shows that the soft Law illustrates the continuum of the texts, and allows their evolution. Here the evolution of the definition of the object itself: the definition of crypto-assets and crypto-currencies is widened, so that the techniques of money laundering and terrorist financing are always countered, without it being necessary to adopt new binding rules. We are beyond mere interpretation. And even more of the principle of restrictive interpretation, classically attached to the Repressive Law ...

2. Fort the effectiveness of the Compliance Law, definition become extremely broad. Thus, to follow the FATF, the definititon off a financial institution is as follows: "“Financial institution” as any natural or legal person who conducts as a business one or more of several specified activities or operations for or on behalf of a customer". This is more the definition of a company in Competition Law!footnote-120....Why ? Because otherwise, an operator finds a status allowing him to escape the category and obligations listed. The principle of efficiency implies it. The principle of "legality", derived from criminal law, has hardly any existence. But this also corresponds to the general evolution of the financial world, in which one no longer stars from the organ (for example to be a"bank") but of activity, but from an activity or a fonction whose metamorphoses are so rapid that it is almost impossible to define them ....

3. In the same way, the definition of crypto-assets or crypto-currencies: "“Virtual asset” as a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred and can be used for payment or investment purposes. Virtual assets do not include digital representations of fiat currencies, securities, and other financial assets that are already covered elsewhere in the FATF Recommendations". This definition is purely operational because nothing can escape the FATF: all that is financial or monetary, whatever its form or support, its traditional form or a form that will be invented tomorrow, is within its competence and, through a such definition, is under national supervisors. In Compliance Law, and since everything is based on risk analysis, the idea is simple: nothing must escape obligations and supervision.

4. Platform apprehension is done by the criterion of activity, according to the "functional" method. Thus, its supervision, or even its regulation, and its obligations of compliance, will apply, depending on what it does, to the Financial Regulator (if it does ICO) or to others if it only uses tokens as an instrument of exchange. If it makes several uses, then it would fall under several Regulators (criterion ratione materiae).

5. The principle of "technological neutrality" is a classic principle in Telecommunications Law. Here we measure the interference between the principles of Telecommunications Law and Financial Law, which is logical because crypto-financial objects are born of digital technology. This neutrality allows both technological innovation to develop and supervision to be unhindered for not having foreseen an innovative technology appearing after the adoption of the legal text. Here again, the effectiveness of Compliance and risk management are served, without the innovation being thwarted, which is often opposed.

6. What is expected of national public authorities is a very wide "interregulation". This is both "positive". Indeed, this includes financial matters but also the security of networks, or the protection of consumers. It can be called equilibrium interregulation in that all goals converge. But this is also an "interregulation" that can be described as balance. Indeed, the FATF is concerned about the protection of personal data. However, it emphasizes that the effectiveness of the Compliance system must stop. But the protection of personal data is also a part of Compliance Law.... This is one of the major challenges in the future: the balance between security and the fight against global evils(here the fight against money laundering and terrorism) and the protection of the privacy of individuals, as both fall under Compliance, but both have opposite legal effects: one the transmission of information, and the other the secret of the information. 

____

 

 

This scientific manifestation is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC).

It constitutes the inaugural colloquium of the cycle of colloquia in 2021 on the general topic Compliance Jurisdictionalisation.

 

 

The work will then be incorporated into the two books La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance and Compliance Jurisdictionalization which will be published in the Regulations & Compliance series, co-edited by the JoRC with Dalloz for the book in French and with Bruylant for the book in English.

This colloquium will be held in Paris in 2021.

 

Presentation of the topic: Because Compliance Law is the extension of Regulatory Law, it is experiencing the same movement of Juridictionnalisation. First of all conceived as the goal of protecting systems and people, even if they seem beyond reach, this has led to the establishment of private companies as judges of themselves, to be structurally the judges and judged, those who act and those who observe.  The duty of vigilance has increased this transformation. As in Regulatory Law, which is an Ex Ante branch of Law, the procedure, which is an Ex Post branch of Law, governs the functioning of companies, transfiguring Company Law under the term "governance".

The shock and transformation once received by Administrative Regulatory Authorities has been heightened by the fact that companies have been further seized by the repressive Courts on the one hand and by an American repressive Law on the other hand, two different cultures. There are therefore many technical difficulties that must first be identified and formulated and then resolved. The easiest is in a first step to ask the following questions : Why? Who? How? When? Where? Toward What?

 

 

 

•  

 

 

 

On 31 May, 2012 Mr Jörg Asmussen member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, said at a Conference behind closed doors in Frankfurt that the situation of Europe requires the establishment of an integrated supervisory banking in the euro area on the more systemic banks, which we can assess the number to 25. To do this, they should be supervised directly by a supranational regulatory authority and not by their national authority. Reuter was in favour of this statement. The European Central Bank spokesman confirmed the quote.

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Difficulty of Compliance in Self-Regulation system: example of the Summer 2020 meetings of OPEC about the "conformity"​ for Oil Market Stability​, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 26th of August 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

 

Summary of the news

The world production of oil is largely coordinated by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and especially by its Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee (JMMC). On 15th of July 2020, this Committee decides to reduce the world production of oil in order to maintain a certain price stability in a context of restricted demand because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

However, such a stability can be maintained only if each member respects this decision and effectively reduce its production level. This meeting of 15th of July also aimed to get member's conformity. In order to get this conformity, the JMMC declared that it will use "name and shame", shaming countries which do not respect the Committee's declaration and naming those which respect it. A second meeting, on 19th of August 2020, reminded to non-compliant countries their obligation and urged them to comply before the 28th of August. 

We can observe two things: 

• The term used by the Committee is "conformity" and not "compliance", which implies less adherence to "monumental goals than the mechanical respect of formal rules.
• In an self-regulation system where there is not supposed to be a need for "conformity", the need for it is a clue that this self-regulation is malfunctioning.