Criminalization of Market Actor Behavior as Regulatory Tool: The Implementation in the Netherlands of the EU Directive 2014/57 ('Mad II') on Criminal Sanctions for Insider Dealing and Market Manipulation, and its Effects on the Cooperation between the Dutch Public Prosecutors Office (OM) and the Dutch Authority for Financial Markets (AFM)

Author(s):  
Ernst van Bemmelen van Gent
Author(s):  
De Carvalho Robalo Pedro

This chapter assesses market abuse. Market abuse offences, in all of their possible forms, frustrate the concept of market efficiency by allowing undue advantage to the individuals performing the abusive actions, thus jeopardizing the development of fair and orderly markets. In turn, this is likely to harm confidence by undermining investors' beliefs that the market is fair, leading them to withdraw their investments. In Europe, the first European-wide legislative package was initiated with the adoption of the Market Abuse Directive in 2003 (Directive 2003/6/EC), with the aim of providing a broad framework that would address market manipulation and insider dealing practices in the EU. However, in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis in 2008, a review of the regime was required as a number of deficiencies were found. In 2011 and in order to address these issues, the European Commission adopted the proposal for the Regulation on insider dealing and market manipulation (MAR) as well as the Directive on Criminal Sanctions for Insider Dealing and Market Manipulation (CSMAD).


2020 ◽  
pp. 147737082093185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nieke A Elbers ◽  
Sonja Meijer ◽  
Iris M Becx ◽  
Arlette JJG Schijns ◽  
Arno J Akkermans

The role of the victim in the criminal trial process has evolved considerably in recent decades. On a European level, an important driver has been the EU Directive 2012/29/EU, according to which European countries are legally bound to afford certain rights to crime victims. In the Netherlands, the EU Directive has instigated several extensions of existing victims’ rights, and in the Code of Criminal Procedure a separate section has been devoted to the victim. The current study specifically addresses one of the victims’ rights, that is, the right to be legally represented. The Dutch government has financially invested in access to and specialization of victim lawyers in order to promote the realization of victims’ rights, specifically for victims of serious crimes and sex offences. The goal of the current study was to investigate the added value of victim lawyers and the extent to which they contribute to the fulfilment of victims’ rights in the criminal law process. A literature study was conducted to examine legislation pertaining to victims’ rights; a questionnaire study was conducted to investigate the perspective of victim lawyers ( n = 148); and interviews were conducted to examine the perspective of the police, Victim Support Netherlands, Public Prosecuting Service, and criminal courts ( n = 17). The results show that victim lawyers were important to the realization of victims’ rights. They were considered most necessary with respect to the right to claim compensation and with respect to the right to gain access to the case file. They were also required because victims’ rights have not yet been smoothly incorporated into legal practice. In addition, victim lawyers’ presence in the courtroom was considered important because it contributes to victims experiencing that they are taken seriously. It has been concluded that the support of victim lawyers is an important contribution to victim participation in criminal proceedings.


Legal Studies ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Dignam

The integration of national financial markets over the past 30 years has resulted in a globalised market for corporate control which has increased both the opportunities for companies to fund acquisitions and the possibility of being acquired. Takeovers and mergers have, as a result, become a matter of some concern for governments, as they try to encourage the development of financial markets but also deal with the consequences of a globalised market for corporate control, where even companies regarded as national champions are within the reach of a foreign takeover. In the course of the last decade General Principle No 7 of the UK Takeover Code, that shareholders should decide the outcome of a takeover bid, has been adopted in many jurisdictions around the world and has formed the heart of the EU Directive on Takeovers. The Principle is however a controversial one, as its adoption is often viewed in civil law jurisdictions as an attack on a core part of a social market system. This has been particularly evident in the debate on the EU Directive on Takeovers. A number of common law heritage countries have also based their takeover regime around General Principle No 7 and many of these common law heritage counties have similarities with social market systems, in that they have less significant stock exchanges than the UK, the make up of their shareholding base is more concentrated and employment protections are more extensive. A central jurisdiction in that overlap is Australia, with exactly this combination. The purpose of this paper is to examine the historical effect of introducing UK takeover principles into the Australian system, by creating an empirical data set of takeovers of Australian listed companies covering the period before and after those UK-based principles were introduced. In doing so the paper found that factors such as concentrated ownership, capital controls and protective labour law have significant effects on the market for corporate control. There was no transforming effect evident in adopting an anti-managerial pro-shareholder takeover regime. As such, the fear that the adoption of a standardised EU-wide takeover Directive, along the lines of the UK Panel on Takeovers and Mergers' shareholder-oriented General Principle 7, would have a negative transforming effect on social market systems appears, on the Australian evidence, to be overblown, while other key features of such systems, particularly concentrated ownership and protective labour laws, remain in place.


2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-151 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractIn The Netherlands medical research with minors is regulated in the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. During the legislation process in the Houses of Parliament in the 1990s the issue of non-therapeutic research with minors and incapacitated subjects was heavily debated. Stringent regulations were formulated for this type of research and the Act became operational in December 1999. In order to implement the Clinical Trial Directive 2001/20/EG, the Act was modified on several issues. However, the Act was not modified on the issue of non-therapeutic research with minors and incapacitated subjects. As a result at present the Dutch law is more restrictive on non-therapeutic research with minors than the EU Directive. Currently, discussion is ongoing to adapt the Dutch law in order to harmonize it with the EU Directive.


Author(s):  
Mark Heemskerk ◽  
René Maatman ◽  
Bas Werker

Pensions in the EU are vulnerable to reduced economic growth, adverse developments in financial markets, and an increasing life expectancy. The increase of the old age dependency ratio contributes to concerns about the sustainability of pension systems. Nonetheless, the pension system in the Netherlands is one of the most sustainable in the world, ranking second in the Mercer Global Pension Index. The Dutch pension sector manages a significant EUR 1400 billion in assets for pensions that are primarily funded through legally compulsory schemes related to employment pension schemes. This chapter examines whether the development of a personal pension system in Europe and in the Netherlands coincide, and if the Dutch system can contribute to a policy framework for European personal pensions. It then considers the reasons why a European market for personal pensions has been proposed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Ľubomír Čunderlík

The Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) was adopted in April 2014, and it has been uniformly regulating the issues of insider dealing and market manipulation throughout the EU since 3 July 2016. Unlike the previous legislation, deviation from the regulation’s wording will not be possible. This should exclude different applications, which have occurred in the individual EU Member States so far, when investigating unlawful behaviours marked as market abuse. The regulation introduced several substantial changes.


Author(s):  
R. A. Kasyanov

In the European Union combating insider violations and market manipulation is one of the key tasks in the domain of legal regulation of the finance market. The EU takes a systems approach to the solution of this problem, as the development of the legal regulation in this field goes the way of enhancing a respective complex of legal norms. In 7 989 the first stage of the development of the EU legal base in the area of combating insider violations was undertaken. In the mentioned year a Council Directive 89/592/EEC on insider dealing was adopted which created the basis for the legal regulation in this field. The document, despite its progressive nature for that time, soon became outdated and no longer could meet the demands of modern finance markets. In 2003 the European Union decided to enhance its legal base and adopted a new Directive 2003/6/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse). This secondary law act, which is still in force, has a much wider scope because its key notion "market abuse" comprises two forms of unlawful actions: insider dealing and market manipulation. In 20 7 7 drafts of new regulatory acts were elaborated - a regulation on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and a directive on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market abuse. Should these acts be adopted, the third stage of development of the legal base in this area will begin. This article is aimed at analysing specific features of the second-stage development of the EU legal base and attempting to characterise the main directions of the upcoming reform.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 796-814
Author(s):  
E.K. Ovakimyan

Subject. The article examines the laws regulating insider trading. Objectives. The study outlines recommendations for refining Law On Countering the Illegal Use of Insider Information and Market Manipulation and Amendments to Some Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, № 224-ФЗ of July 27, 2010. Methods. The methodological framework includes a general dialectical method, analysis and synthesis, induction and deductions, and some specific methods, such as comparative and formal logic analysis to specify the definition of insider information, structural logic and functional analysis to improve the mechanism for countering insider trading and market manipulation. Results. We discovered key drawbacks to be addressed so as to improve the business environment in Russia. Although the Russia laws mainly mirror the U.S. laws, they present a more extended list of terms concerning the insider information. I believe the legislative perfection should be continued. Conclusions and Relevance. The study helps apply the findings to outline a new legislative regulation or amend the existing ones, add a new mention on the course of financial markets to students’ books, develop new methods for detecting and countering and improving the existing ones. If all parties to insider relationships use the findings, they will prevent insider trading crimes in financial markets and (or) reduce the negative impact of such crimes on the parties.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document