Law360, London: The UK's anti-money laundering (AML) regime is set out in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, or POCA 2002, and other legislation. It requires regulated businesses, such as banks, to cease dealing with and to freeze any criminal property—defined as a person's benefit of criminal conduct, that they hold for a client.

Bodies corporate with functions relating to the economic development and regeneration of their local authority areas established by order of the Secretary of State (see section 88(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009).

ECOFIN is one of the oldest configurations of the Council which is made up of the Ministers of Economics and Finance of the Member States and also the Budget Ministers when budgetary issues are discussed.

The European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee has approved an amendment to the Central Securities Depository Regulation (Regulation (EU) 909/2014) (CSDR) that shortens the settlement cycle for securities transactions on trading venues from two business days (T+2) to one business day (T+1). The Committee, which recorded 48 votes in favour and 4 abstentions, noted that the change would reduce risks and improve liquidity, while bringing EU practices into line with global standards. The amendment also allows for same-day settlements (T+0) when possible and exempts certain complex transactions from the T+1 rule. Furthermore, the European Securities and Markets Authority has been tasked with monitoring the transition and assessing the potential for future further shortening of the settlement cycle. These changes are set to take effect from 11 October 2027, subject to final negotiations with the Council.

A mandatory assessment by principal councils in England of the economic conditions of their areas (see Section 69 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009).

This Practice Note is intended for law firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). It explains the SRA’s supervision and enforcement powers under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, as amended (MLR 2017), as expanded by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023). There is a separate Practice Note on How to survive an SRA anti-money laundering (AML) inspection: How to survive an SRA AML inspection. For more general guidance on the SRA’s supervision and enforcement functions, see Practice Notes: • SRA’s supervision function • SRA’s enforcement function, and • SRA enforcement strategy Regulatory status of the SRA under the AML regime The MLR 2017 identify professional bodies with responsibility for AML supervision. The Law Society is the named supervisor for solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, however the Law Society delegates regulatory activities to the SRA, which means the SRA is responsible for ensuring the solicitors and firms it supervises comply with the MLR 2017. In October

Corporate Crime analysis: Joseph Duggin and Diana Czugler, senior associates at Peters & Peters, reflect on the key developments in economic crime in 2023 and what to look out for in 2024.

Scope of Practice Note This Practice Note considers: • the doctrine of economic duress—raised as a defence so as to render void a contractual arrangement which the party alleging duress asserts was entered into as a result of economic duress (lawful act economic duress receiving Supreme Court confirmatory recognition in English law in the decision in Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel) • the doctrine of undue influence—again raised as a defence, whereby a party may seek to rescind a contract or set aside a transaction on the grounds that they entered into it by reason of undue influence being exerted upon them. More commonly seen in the context of domestic relations, eg between husband and wife in relation to jointly owned property, rather than a commercial, business context. The authoritative decision in this regard being RBS v Etridge • the tort of intimidation—not a defence but a free-standing cause of action based in tort, where the claimant seeks to recover damages; with elements of cross-over in respect of economic duress as seen in cases

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the use of the economic interest test by the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) when conducting trade remedy investigations. It provides guidance on when the TRA will have recourse to the economic interest test, what the economic interest test entails, which factors are relevant in applying the economic interest test and how the information to be considered is to be obtained. Introduction The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the ‘Anti-dumping Agreement’) does not prohibit dumping. For guidance on dumping, see Practice Note: An introduction to UK Trade Remedies Authority’s Investigations. Nor does the WTO’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the ‘SCM Agreement’) prohibit subsidies. For guidance on subsidies, see Practice Note: An introduction to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Instead, the WTO agreements condemn dumping and subsidies and therefore allow Member States to counter the effect of dumping and subsidies if they so wish after a positive finding of injurious

Assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which are not funds but may be used to obtain funds, goods or services.

A copyright owner (and performer) has certain economic rights that is rights which can be exploited for economic gain.

The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and the Overseas Territories of Bermuda, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, have all introduced new legislative economic substance requirements for companies and other entities with a presence in their respective jurisdictions. The legislation is effective for accounting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2019. Background In 2016, the EU Council committed to co-ordinated policy efforts in the fight against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance and adopted the ‘conclusions on criteria and process leading to the establishment of the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes’. Consequently, the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) (COCG) were instructed by the EU Council to undertake a screening process whereby jurisdictions, including the Crown Dependencies, were assessed against three standards in respect of: • tax transparency • fair taxation, and • compliance with anti-base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) measures In December 2017, the COCG issued a list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. Most countries were keen to avoid