Search results

This paper aims to investigate and provide pathways for leveraging the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD’s) Ten Global Principles (TGPs) for countering tax crimes in the EU.

The study is guided by the combination of traditional and innovative research methods drawn from criminal law and justice, public regulatory theory and tax law, based on socio-legal and comparative methodologies.

The research shows that EU has achieved considerable amount of progress when it comes to meeting the TGPs. However, law and practice in EU Member States indicate that there are different legal, human and organisational approaches to fighting tax crimes. The TGPs could be strategically applied to complementing the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) and other initiatives on Administrative Cooperation.

Although the TGPs appear encompassing, there are opportunities to harness the potency of these principles and to provide more tailored principles that can help engineer sustainable remedies for countering tax crimes in the EU.

The paper critically analyses, through a multidisciplinary approach, the main legal, human and organisational factors influencing the prosecution of tax crimes in the EU Member States.

Realignment and harmonisation of tax enforcement paractices in the EU Member States thus help in the reduction of tax gap resulting from tax offences.

The paper provides novel approaches and findings based on empirical info obtained from face-to-face focus groups with end users and law enforcement agencies in tax enforcement eco-system in ten different EU Member States.

This paper aims to focus on the need for an enhanced anti-money laundering (AML) regulation for decentralised finance (DeFi) to protect the integrity of global financial systems against illicit activities. Research highlights the requirement for a robust regulatory strategy for the fast-paced DeFi evolvement.

This study used doctrinal legal research by analysing legislation, which involved creating use cases to illustrate different aspects of potential illicit activities via the DeFi ecosystem. Various DeFi applications were assessed for the potential regulatory responses and outcomes.

This paper offers valuable insight into the regulatory challenges presented by DeFi. This study addresses the blind spots leveraged by criminals afforded by the DeFi’s decentralised nature. This paper offers a comprehensive examination of DeFi regulatory challenges based on use-case scenarios and provides recommendations for regulators on how to address them effectively.

This paper proposes measures for regulatory authorities to minimise money laundering risks through new channels such as decentralised exchanges, non-custodial wallets and cross-chain bridges. This study concludes with the future directions for DeFi regulation and AML compliance.

This paper critiques the recent anti‐money laundering (AML) legislation in Turkey and the European Union (EU) in order to determine whether there is convergence between them. Given the fact that Turkey is a candidate country for the EU membership, harmonisation of Turkish and the EU AML frameworks has become increasingly important. These AML laws pose important responsibilities for the financial and legal sectors.

In order to facilitate the evaluation process, the AML regimes examined are compared in regards to various aspects, such as criminalisation of money laundering, recording and reporting obligations, enforcement and sanctions mechanisms. Findings from activity reports from the regulatory bodies as well as semi‐structured interviews conducted with relevant professionals are incorporated into the discussion.

It can be argued that the Turkish AML regime is in line with the EU AML framework. However, there is a need for government authorities to coordinate their efforts with the relevant independent regulatory professional bodies that represent the liable professionals in Turkey. While it is evident that each national regime in the EU has adopted a unique AML framework, minimum standards provided by international (e.g. the Financial Action Task Force) and regional (e.g. EU) instruments have been the main driving force behind all national laws.

The involvement of professional regulatory bodies will enhance competence to monitor compliance and provide training mechanisms and guidance for liable professionals pertaining to AML regulations.

Effectiveness of AML initiatives will enhance with improved cooperation and communication between the executive, law enforcement agencies and businesses. This will improve the reporting of suspicious financial activities and subsequent enforcement.

The paper provides an up‐to‐date account of the Turkish legal regime pertaining to AML and demonstrates its shortcomings whilst assessing it against the EU AML framework. The findings of the study contribute to the existing literature and shed light on areas for reform.

The need for independent audit goes back to the agency theory, the theory of delegation of power and the issue of trust. Stakeholders delegate power to management to manage the business on their behalf, yet they face the risk of information asymmetry and management motivations to commit fraud. The main aim of having an independent auditor was therefore to reduce the risk of information asymmetry and fraudulent behaviour by management. Auditors are required by the International Auditing Standards to detect material fraud and error, and they are expected to have a duty of care for stakeholders. However, recently independent auditors, whether conducting private or public audit, have been scrutinised for failing to detect material fraud. There have been a lot of discussions in the literature about the role of private auditors in detecting fraud, but very little discussions about the role of public auditors in detecting fraud. This chapter will outline the difference between private audit and public audit; explain the legal liability of public auditors in relation to fraud detection; the role of public auditors in detecting fraud; and will critically review the root causes for auditors’ failure to detect fraud.