A recent review has detailed the limited application of corporate criminal liability and the indirect legal consequences that companies may face following criminal investigations targeting individuals. Corporations may face harsh administrative and civil penalties for business crimes which only individuals can be held liable for. This is especially true where cross-border investigations result in white collar crime regulations becoming increasingly denationalised and tougher than ever before.
Brazilian law's limited establishment of corporate criminal liability does not mean that companies cannot be seriously affected by criminal law enforcement and subject to an extensive range of substantive and procedural matters. Companies' executive boards are not always prepared for such matters, which – especially when criminal investigations attract considerable media attention – can also raise serious and costly reputational issues.
After years of extensive anti-corruption investigations launched by Operation Car Wash, the national and international legal community have recognised that Brazil's enforcement of regulatory and criminal matters has become stronger than ever. While work is still needed, it is clear that the use of settlements and plea deals in Brazil is here to stay and that these methods have radically changed the local enforcement landscape.
Schedule 2 of the Anti-money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code of Practice 2008 sets out a list of jurisdictions with laws and regulations similar to those of the British Virgin Islands. The principal advantage of relying on Schedule 2 is that business coming from recognised jurisdictions will generally attract the application of reduced client due diligence measures.
In Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Brothers Company (AHAB) v Saad, the Grand Court found that AHAB's claims, which attempted to trace its funds into the hands of defendant SIFCO5, were "unparticularised and unprincipled". Further, AHAB was unsuccessful in establishing that funds representing traceable proceeds from the Money Exchange reached SIFCO5 or in articulating any discernible cause of action against SIFCO5 in respect of such funds.
In a landmark ruling, the Grand Court emphatically dismissed a multibillion-dollar claim in a case involving allegations of fraud arising from one of the largest corporate collapses of the financial crisis. The case has showcased the court's ability to manage high-profile large-scale litigation, demonstrating especially the quality of the Cayman Islands judiciary and the court's ability to use cutting-edge technology, as well as the resources and flexibility to manage a year-long, multi-jurisdictional trial.
Under new anti-money laundering legislation, the list of activities classed as relevant financial businesses has been expanded. Unregulated investment funds and some insurance entities have now been given a grace period until May 31 2018 to establish anti-money laundering compliance programmes. This is a welcome move, particularly for unregulated investment funds which were not bound by the preceding regulations and therefore may not have policies and procedures in place.
The government recently adopted updated Anti-money Laundering Regulations. The regulations demonstrate the Cayman Islands' ongoing commitment to comply with the highest international standards on combating money laundering and terrorist financing and aim to ensure consistency with the Financial Action Task Force 2012 recommendations. The move is part of an overall update of the territory's anti-money laundering regime.
Cyprus implements EU anti-money laundering directives through the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering Laws 2007 to 2013. The Advisory Authority for Combating Money Laundering is working with the local industry to transpose the EU Fourth Anti-money Laundering Directive and (in due course) the EU Fifth Anti-money Laundering Directive through amendments to domestic legislation.
Articles 59 and 60 of Law 2016-1691 (the Sapin II Law) on transparency, anti-corruption and the modernisation of economic life established a system of immunity from the execution of civil judgments on property in France which is owned by foreign states. The main purpose of this aspect of the Sapin II Law is to limit the risk of litigation arising from seizures or attachments of property belonging to foreign states.