scholarly journals Liability of Banks for Aiding Tax Evasion: A Comparative Analysis of German and UK Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-163
Author(s):  
Malte WILKE ◽  
Alisdair MACPHERSON
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
German Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Regulatory Offence

This article compares the regulatory liability of German banks for aiding tax evasion under the German Act on Regulatory Offences with the UK corporate offences of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion under the Criminal Finances Act (CFA) 2017. The study demonstrates that the approaches share some similarities; however, major differences are also evident. Unlike the German approach, the CFA provisions are designed as strict liability provisions, whereas the German regulatory offence requires an intentional or negligent omission to take the supervisory measures required to prevent contraventions of the law. Moreover, the scope of the offences under UK law is wider than the scope of their German equivalent. In addition, the CFA provisions do not place financial limits on the fines that can be imposed. Because of these differences, the CFA is likely to be more effective in preventing banks from aiding tax evasion than its German counterpart. Consideration should therefore be given to reforming German law to make it more like its UK equivalent, especially in the post-Panama Papers world.

Product Liability

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fairgrieve Duncan ◽  
Richard Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Product Liability is a recognised authority in the field and covers the product liability laws through which manufacturers, retailers, and others may be held liable to compensate persons who are injured, or who incur financial loss, when the products which they manufacture or sell are defective or not fit for their purpose. Product defects may originate in the production process, be one of design, or be grounded in a failure to issue an adequate warning or directions for safe use and practitioners advising business clients or claimants will find this book provides all the necessary information for practitioners to manage a product liability claim. This new edition has been fully updated to take account of 10 years of development in case law and regulation, and the increasing impact of cross-border and transnational sale of goods. The Court of Justice of the European Union handed down major rulings concerning the Product Liability Directive which affect the application of the Directive and national arrangements and Fairgrieve and Goldberg examines this in detail. For any legal practitioner operating in areas which require knowledge of European product liability law, an understanding of the impact of recent developments is essential and this work is an essential resource for practitioners working on product liability, sale of goods, personal injury and negligence. The work provides comprehensive coverage of the law of negligence as it applies to product liability, of the strict liability provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and of the EU's Product Liability Directive on which the Act is based. Although the majority of cases involve pharmaceuticals and medical devices, in recent English cases the allegedly defective products have been as diverse as a child's buggy, an All Terrain Vehicle, and even a coffee cup. Many cases are brought as group actions, and the book examines the rights of those who are injured by defective products. As well as considering the perspective of the law as it has developed in the UK, this edition contains detailed discussion of case law from other jurisdictions including the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Germany. The coverage in the work is complemented by a full analysis of issues which arise in transnational litigation involving problems of jurisdiction and the choice of laws.

Liability for Means of Mass Transportation in Scandinavia

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-191
Author(s):  
Bjarte Askeland
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Air Traffic ◽  
Mass Transportation ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Social Security Benefits

Abstract The article presents an overview of Norwegian law with regard to damages caused by means of mass transportation by buses, railways and airplanes. The author explains why and how in Norway, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, there is strict liability for damages caused by means of mass transportation. Also the assessment of damages in the mentioned categories is discussed. For personal injuries there are no caps for trains or buses, partly because a greater part of the loss of income is covered by social security benefits, something which is typical of the ‘Nordic model’. Along the same lines, the rules on contributory negligence favour the victim somewhat more than in other parts of Europe, with regard to accidents caused by both buses and trains. Hence the law is all in all rather friendly to the victim. As for damage caused by air traffic, there are tensions between the ‘victim-friendly’ attitude and the relevant EU regulations which make the Montreal Convention applicable to Scandinavian law. These tensions are discussed towards the end of the article. Thus the article highlights and illustrates how the Scandinavian legal culture with the ‘Nordic Model’ as its special hallmark endorses solutions that somewhat contradict the common solutions in continental Europe and in the UK.

scholarly journals Whistleblowers Under the Spotlight

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-384
Author(s):  
Stelios Andreadakis ◽  
Scott Morrison
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Employment Practices ◽  
Regulatory Authorities ◽  
The Law ◽  
Business Structures ◽  
The Uk

The contemporary prevalence of complex business structures, and the limited resources and time of regulatory authorities charged with policing business organisations has increased the importance of whistleblowers for modern corporate governance. This article aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion in relation to the effectiveness of the existing regulatory regime, a regime that is intended to encourage whistleblowing in general and to provide sufficient safeguards to whistleblowers from dismissal or retaliation. The countries of the uk and Japan have been selected for this comparative study because they exhibit contrasting business and employment practices and because the relevant authorities have adopted distinct regulatory approaches. The comparative analysis intends to support the claim that, irrespective of the primary and secondary legislation in place in these two jurisdictions and the disparate corporate cultures existing in each, whistleblowers all too frequently end up as victims even when they have complied with the requirements and the procedures stipulated by the law, followed their conscience and reported wrongdoing.

Mapping an Investor Protection Framework for the Security Token Offering Market: A Comparative Analysis of UK and German Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 316 (316) ◽  
pp. 73-105
Author(s):  
Dr Joseph Lee Dr Joseph Lee ◽  
Doreen Annette Geidel LL.M. Dr Joseph Lee
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Initial Public Offering ◽  
German Law ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Data Governance ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Public Offering ◽  
Political Right ◽  
Political Governance ◽  
Country Specific

建構證券型代幣發行（STO）市場的法律及規範性框架，係創造投資人信心的關鍵。英國金融行為監理局（FCA）現行有關首次公開發行（IPO）市場之法規範，經評估可適用於STO市場，以消弭投資人與發行人間之不對稱，並促進其使用金融服務。英國的公司法，則作為辨認投資人經濟（現金流）及政治（治理）權存在風險與否之架構。英國法之比較法分析，可提供藉由發展智慧合約以實行STO並落實投資人權利之指引。再者，德國法之比較法分析結果顯示，風險不只僅存在於特定國家之資本市場或公司法規範，其他法律體系亦尚未充分辨認許多風險之態樣，也未將之納入現行立法項目之考量。最後，本文檢視投資人之資料權，並主張資料權應同時作為經濟及政治上之權利，故資料紅利應被分派予證券型代幣之持有者，且資料治理上應確保中心化管理不會有獨占資訊而影響代幣持有者決策之情形。<br />Embedding securities token offering (STO) within a law and a regulatory framework is critical for its market to develop with investor confidence. The UK&rsquo;s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) current laws and regulations, which were designed for the initial public offering (IPO) market, are assessed for suitability in an STO market that aims to bring investors closer to issuers and to increase access to finance. UK Company law is then used as a framework to identify risks to investors&rsquo; economic (cash flow) and political (governance) rights. The analysis provides guidance for developing smart contracts to implement STO and fulfilling investors&rsquo; rights. Furthermore, a comparative analysis with German law shows that although the risks do not only exist in country-specific capital market or company law regulations, other legal systems have neither sufficiently identified many of the risks nor taken them into account in current legislative projects. Finally, the author examines investor&rsquo;s data rights and argues that they should be recognised as both an economic and a political right. Data dividends should be distributed to security token holders and data governance should ensure that centralised management does not monopolise information to influence token holders&rsquo; decision making.<br />

scholarly journals Forum Non Conveniens in Australia: A Comparative Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Gray
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

This paper critically examines the law of forum non conveniens, in particular the use of the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test in Australia, compared with the ‘more appropriate forum’ test applied in jurisdictions such as the UK and the US. It traces the development of the law in the UK in relation to forum non conveniens, including the English acceptance of the doctrine, and how it has been applied in various cases. Some criticism of the ‘more appropriate forum’ test is noted, and it is not recommended that the courts adopt the ‘laundry list’ approach evident in some US decisions, where up to 25 different factors are considered in assessing a forum non conveniens application. It considers the Australian ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test, and concludes that the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test should no longer be followed in that it is unnecessarily parochial and is not consistent with other goals of the rules of private international law including comity. Links between Australia and the subject matter may well be tenuous. Confusion attends the application of the test in Australia at present, the court has rejected the English approach but claims to apply some of the factors mentioned in the English approach in the Australian test, and there is an undesirable schism between statutory rules applicable in domestic cases and the approach when the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens is used. The law regarding forum non conveniens should be harmonious with choice of law rules, and interest analysis can assist in formulating the desired approach to forum non conveniens applications.

scholarly journals Delictual Liability for Damage Caused by Fully Autonomous Vehicles: The Estonian Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-74
Author(s):  
Taivo Liivak ◽  
Janno Lahe
Keyword(s):  
Autonomous Vehicles ◽  
Traffic Accidents ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
German Law ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Delict

Self-driving vehicles have become a reality. For instance, in the summer of 2017, self-driving buses carried passengers on a designated route in Estonia's capital Tallinn. Regrettably, traffic accidents involving self-driving vehicles have also become a reality. This article focuses on fully autonomous vehicles. The safe and responsible use of fully autonomous vehicles calls for appropriate rules and an appropriate allocation of liability. Above all, fully autonomous vehicles pose a challenge to the law of delict. The article seeks to establish, based on the example of Estonian law, whether the application of delictual liability is affected by the autonomy of a vehicle and, if so, whether related differences are significant, and whether the law of delict needs to be modified in the light thereof. The issues are discussed primarily in the context of Estonian law, but parallels with German law are drawn as well. The conclusions drawn are more or less universal and can be taken into account also in other jurisdictions besides Estonia. The article analyses liability for damage caused by fully autonomous vehicles under general delictual liability, strict liability and product liability.

Consent and population genetic databases: a comparative analysis of the law in Iceland, Sweden, Estonia and the UK

2009 ◽  
pp. 97-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hördur Helgi Helgason ◽  
Matti Hayry ◽  
Ruth Chadwick ◽  
Vilhjalmur Arnason ◽  
Gardar Arnason
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Population Genetic ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

“Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?” – A Common Law Response

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Level Of Abstraction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
High Level ◽  
Logical Process

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document