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

Wes Streeting ‘crossed the line’ by opposing assisted dying in public, says Labour peer Harriet Harman

Published

on

By

Wes Streeting 'crossed the line' by opposing assisted dying in public, says Labour peer Harriet Harman

Wes Streeting “crossed the line” by opposing assisted dying in public and the argument shouldn’t “come down to resources”, a Labour peer has said.

Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Baroness Harriet Harman criticised the health secretary for revealing how he is going to vote on the matter when it comes before parliament later this month.

MPs are being given a free vote, meaning they can side with their conscience and not party lines, so the government is supposed to be staying neutral.

But Mr Streeting has made clear he will vote against legalising assisted dying, citing concerns end-of-life care is not good enough for people to make an informed choice, and that some could feel pressured into the decision to save the NHS money.

He has also ordered a review into the potential costs of changing the law, warning it could come at the expense of other NHS services if implemented.

Baroness Harman said Mr Streeting has “crossed the line in two ways”.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

“He should not have said how he was going to vote, because that breaches neutrality and sends a signal,” she said.

“And secondly… he’s said the problem is that it will cost money to bring in an assisted dying measure, and therefore he will have to cut other services.

“But paradoxically, he also said it would be a slippery slope because people will be forced to bring about their own death in order to save the NHS money. Well, it can’t be doing both things.

“It can’t be both costing the NHS money and saving the NHS money.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Review into assisted dying costs

Baroness Harman said the argument “should not come down to resources” as it is a “huge moral issue” affecting “only a tiny number of people”.

She added that people should not mistake Mr Streeting for being “a kind of proxy for Keir Starmer”.

“The government is genuinely neutral and all of those backbenchers, they can vote whichever way they want,” she added.

Read more on this story:
‘Fix care before assisted dying legislation’
Why assisted dying is controversial – and where it’s already legal

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously expressed support for assisted dying, but it is not clear how he intends to vote on the issue or if he will make his decision public ahead of time.

The cabinet has varying views on the topic, with the likes of Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood siding with Mr Streeting in her opposition but Energy Secretary Ed Miliband being for it.

Britain's Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband walks on Downing Street on the day of the budget announcement, in London, Britain October 30, 2024. REUTERS/Maja Smiejkowska
Image:
Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband is said to support the bill. Pic: Reuters

Shabana Mahmood arrives 10 Downing Street.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has concerns. Pic: Reuters

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being championed by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater, who wants to give people with six months left to live the choice to end their lives.

Under her proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill

The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.

MPs will debate and vote on the legislation on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015, when the proposal was defeated.

Continue Reading

Politics

SEC crypto cases will be ‘dismissed or settled’ under Trump: Consensys CEO

Published

on

By

SEC crypto cases will be ‘dismissed or settled’ under Trump: Consensys CEO

The crypto industry is “going to save hundreds of millions of dollars” with Donald Trump as president, Consensys CEO Joe Lubin forecasts.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Crypto Dad’ squashes rumors that he could replace Gensler as SEC Chair

Published

on

By

<div>'Crypto Dad' squashes rumors that he could replace Gensler as SEC Chair</div>

Former CFTC Acting Chair Chris Giancarlo said he’s “already cleaned up earlier Gary Gensler mess,” shooting down speculation he’d replace the SEC Chair.

Continue Reading

Trending