Connect with us

Published

on

The European Union’s financial regulatory landscape is in flux with the introduction of multiple Anti-Money Laundering (AML) directives and related laws. These regulations, although designed to protect the financial system, come at a hidden, and sometimes steep, cost to consumers and financial institutions alike. It’s imperative to understand their wider implications, and to question whether the costs — both monetary and ethical — are simply too high.

To name just a few, the AML Directive 5, MiCa and the Transfer of Funds Regulation have reshaped the European financial framework. These laws mandate a rigorous monitoring system. However, the depth and breadth of these regulations are unparalleled in their scope. One cannot help but wonder if such comprehensive oversight is truly sustainable in the long run Banks, crypto asset managers, and even sports clubs now face complex due diligence processes, requiring them to verify customer identities, assets, and transaction patterns. With the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Travel Rule and equivalents of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in play, data collection, sharing, and monitoring become increasingly invasive. This begs the question: to what extent should the quest for security compromise the sanctity of personal data?

For many, this extensive scrutiny spells the end of financial privacy. While it’s undeniably crucial to deter criminal activities, these measures have begun encroaching upon personal freedoms. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience; it signifies a broader shift in the social contract of trust and transparency between citizens and institutions. Consider, for instance, the public accessibility mandate for beneficial owners of corporate entities. Suddenly, individuals and businesses lose control over their financial confidentiality, an unsettling consequence for a region that prides itself on individual rights and privacy. Such drastic changes necessitate a rigorous debate on the ethical implications involved.

Related: How will CBDCs be used for political oppression in your country?

The unforeseen costs of these regulations are burdensome. Financial institutions bear the brunt of technology upgrades, intensive man-hour investments and processes that have been revamped. This not only hampers their agility in a fast-evolving market but also deters potential new entrants from contributing to the financial ecosystem. Unfortunately, these overheads don’t vanish into thin air. They trickle down, affecting consumers in the form of higher fees and limited financial product offerings. In essence, the common man pays a tangible price for these regulatory shifts. Such economic ramifications must be weighed against the purported benefits of these regulations.

What’s even more concerning is that despite these hefty regulations, monumental regulatory failures persist. Big names like HSBC, Danske Bank, and FTX have been associated with regulatory controversies. It’s distressing to observe that even with such stringent rules, large-scale oversights still occur. The juxtaposition of strict regulations with glaring lapses presents a paradox that warrants thorough introspection. It poses a daunting challenge: if these behemoths, with their vast resources, falter, what hope do smaller entities have in navigating this regulatory maze? This naturally leads to skepticism. Are these regulations genuinely effective, or are they mere symbolic gestures, inconveniencing businesses and consumers alike without ensuring the intended foolproof security?

Related: Worldcoin is making reality look a lot like Black Mirror

Europe’s intentions are undoubtedly noble. In a world of increasing cyber threats and financial crimes, protective measures are essential. Yet, the path to safety shouldn’t undermine the values we hold dear. With every stride towards security, we must be cautious not to tread upon the tenets of personal liberty. But it’s equally crucial to ensure that these protective walls don’t become stifling cages. A fine balance must be struck between security and freedom, costs and benefits. As Europe pioneers this journey, it has the responsibility of crafting a model that other regions can emulate without reservations.

Europe’s evolving financial regulatory framework requires a closer examination. Not just from a legal or economic perspective, but from an ethical standpoint. The choices made today will shape the future of finance in the region, setting precedents that could reverberate globally. Personal privacy is a cherished right, and it’s imperative that it doesn’t become an inadvertent casualty in the quest for financial security. The ultimate challenge lies in harmonizing these conflicting demands, creating a landscape where safety doesn’t overshadow freedom. Only by achieving this equilibrium can Europe truly champion a regulatory model that stands the test of time.

George Basiladze is the co-founder and CEO of Wert, a fintech company dedicated to creating products that expand fiat payment access to crypto. He previously co-founded Cryptopay, a Bitcoin wallet. Before fintech, he held analyst roles at companies including NordWest Energy and Evli Bank PLC, accumulating years of experience in the financial and tech sectors. He graduated from the University of Exeter and the Higher School of Economics. Based in Estonia, he has consulted for firms navigating European AML regulations. (Disclaimer: George has direct involvement with fintech companies that could be influenced by European AML regulations.)

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Published

on

By

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

The CARF regulation, which brings crypto under global tax reporting standards akin to traditional finance, marks a crucial turning point.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Published

on

By

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

The nascent real-world tokenized assets track prices but do not provide investors the same legal rights as holding the underlying instruments.

Continue Reading

Politics

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Rachel Reeves has hinted that taxes are likely to be raised this autumn after a major U-turn on the government’s controversial welfare bill.

Sir Keir Starmer’s Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill passed through the House of Commons on Tuesday after multiple concessions and threats of a major rebellion.

MPs ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to universal credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Initially aimed at saving £5.5bn, it now leaves the government with an estimated £5.5bn black hole – close to breaching Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules set out last year.

Read more:
Yet another fiscal ‘black hole’? Here’s why this one matters

Success or failure: One year of Keir in nine charts

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma

In an interview with The Guardian, the chancellor did not rule out tax rises later in the year, saying there were “costs” to watering down the welfare bill.

“I’m not going to [rule out tax rises], because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor to do that,” Ms Reeves told the outlet.

More on Rachel Reeves

“We took the decisions last year to draw a line under unfunded commitments and economic mismanagement.

“So we’ll never have to do something like that again. But there are costs to what happened.”

Meanwhile, The Times reported that, ahead of the Commons vote on the welfare bill, Ms Reeves told cabinet ministers the decision to offer concessions would mean taxes would have to be raised.

The outlet reported that the chancellor said the tax rises would be smaller than those announced in the 2024 budget, but that she is expected to have to raise tens of billions more.

It comes after Ms Reeves said she was “totally” up to continuing as chancellor after appearing tearful at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why was the chancellor crying at PMQs?

Criticising Sir Keir for the U-turns on benefit reform during PMQs, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the chancellor looked “absolutely miserable”, and questioned whether she would remain in post until the next election.

Sir Keir did not explicitly say that she would, and Ms Badenoch interjected to say: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

In her first comments after the incident, Ms Reeves said she was having a “tough day” before adding: “People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday.

“Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reeves is ‘totally’ up for the job

Sir Keir also told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby on Thursday that he “didn’t appreciate” that Ms Reeves was crying in the Commons.

“In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang,” he said. “That’s what it was yesterday.

“And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that’s just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.”

Continue Reading

Trending