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.
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.
— Open Dialogue Foundation / Fundacja Otwarty Dialog (@ODFoundation) October 12, 2023
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?
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.
According to the US Department of Justice, Wolf Capital’s co-founder has pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy for luring 2,800 crypto investors into a Ponzi scheme.
Making Britain better off will be “at the forefront of the chancellor’s mind” during her visit to China, the Treasury has said amid controversy over the trip.
Rachel Reeves flew out on Friday after ignoring calls from opposition parties to cancel the long-planned venture because of market turmoil at home.
The past week has seen a drop in the pound and an increase in government borrowing costs, which has fuelled speculation of more spending cuts or tax rises.
The Tories have accused the chancellor of having “fled to China” rather than explain how she will fix the UK’s flatlining economy, while the Liberal Democrats say she should stay in Britain and announce a “plan B” to address market volatility.
However, Ms Reeves has rejected calls to cancel the visit, writing in The Times on Friday night that choosing not to engage with China is “no choice at all”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
On Friday, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy defended the trip, telling Sky News that the climbing cost of government borrowing was a “global trend” that had affected many countries, “most notably the United States”.
“We are still on track to be the fastest growing economy, according to the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] in Europe,” she told Anna Jones on Sky News Breakfast.
“China is the second-largest economy, and what China does has the biggest impact on people from Stockton to Sunderland, right across the UK, and it’s absolutely essential that we have a relationship with them.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:32
Nandy defends Reeves’ trip to China
However, former prime minister Boris Johnson said Ms Reeves had “been rumbled” and said she should “make her way to HR and collect her P45 – or stay in China”.
While in the country’s capital, Ms Reeves will also visit British bike brand Brompton’s flagship store, which relies heavily on exports to China, before heading to Shanghai for talks with representatives across British and Chinese businesses.
It is the first UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD) since 2019, building on the Labour government’s plan for a “pragmatic” policy with the world’s second-largest economy.
Sir Keir Starmer was the first British prime minister to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping in six years at the G20 summit in Brazil last autumn.
Relations between the UK and China have become strained over the last decade as the Conservative government spoke out against human rights abuses and concerns grew over national security risks.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:45
How much do we trade with China?
Navigating this has proved tricky given China is the UK’s fourth largest single trading partner, with a trade relationship worth almost £113bn and exports to China supporting over 455,000 jobs in the UK in 2020, according to the government.
During the Tories’ 14 years in office, the approach varied dramatically from the “golden era” under David Cameron to hawkish aggression under Liz Truss, while Rishi Sunak vowed to be “robust” but resisted pressure from his own party to brand China a threat.
The Treasury said a stable relationship with China would support economic growth and that “making working people across Britain secure and better off is at the forefront of the chancellor’s mind”.
Ahead of her visit, Ms Reeves said: “By finding common ground on trade and investment, while being candid about our differences and upholding national security as the first duty of this government, we can build a long-term economic relationship with China that works in the national interest.”