- Maritime Piracy
- TalkFraud
- Membership
- Investigation
- Products & Services
The IMB aware of the escalating level of this criminal activity, wanted to provide a free service to the seafarer and established the 24 hour IMB Piracy Reporting Centre (PRC) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
A newsletter about fraud and global asset recovery from the office of International Chamber of Commerce's FraudNet. To read about key asset recovery cases and global compliance with anti-fraud and money-laundering laws, please click in the link above for the Newsletter PDF.
CCS offers a flexible membership arrangement based on the selection of predetermined membership packages. A prospective member can elect to join one or more Bureaux according to their requirements.
Losses due to official misconduct account for a great many maritime trade incidents. Each incident can be complex and wide-ranging in nature. It is therefore unlikely that any one company will have the knowledge and resources to be able to investigate it thoroughly.
Counterfeiting and piracy are a drain on our businesses and on the global economy. It has resulted in the widespread loss of lawful employment and a massive reduction of tax revenues.
- Details
snp@pcblitigation.com www.pcblitigation.com |
Address
4th Floor
90 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1EU DX: 0038 LDE United Kingdom |
Telephone
+44 (0) 20 7831 2691
|
Languages
English
|
11.5 million documents reveal links to massive asset concealment According to the BBC today, 11.5 million documents leaked from a Panamanian law firm (the so-called Panama Papers) reveal links to massive asset concealment running to billions of dollars being conducted by numerous international persons including heads of state.
Such disclosure may enable fraud victims amongst others a unique opportunity to recover losses using the remedies offered by Courts in numerous jurisdictions to help them to locate, freeze and recover assets. |
Steven Philippsohn is a leading authority on complex international asset recovery. Over the last 30 years his firm has been retained by governmental, national and international organisations. A founding member of ICC FraudNet, he is listed by The Times of London as one of the 100 key influential legal professionals in the United Kingdom.” Among his firm's highlighted work is representation of the primary defendant to a $1 billion claim (one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases for 2014 and 2015). ICC FraudNet is an international network of independent lawyers who are leading civil asset recovery specialists in each country. Recognized by Chambers Global as the world’s leading asset recovery legal network, our membership extends to every continent and the world’s major economies, as well as leading offshore wealth havens that have complex bank secrecy laws and institutions where the proceeds of fraud often are hidden. Founded in 2004 by the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the world’s business organization, FraudNet operates under the auspices of the ICC’s London-based Commercial Crime Services unit. |
- Details
s.bonifassi@lebray.fr www.lebray.fr |
Address
7, rue de Madrid
75008, Paris, France |
Telephone
+33 1 44 90 17 10
|
Languages
French, English, Russian, divish, Arabic, Romanian, Bulgarian
|
Conférence de la Commission Italie du barreau de Paris : comparaison des justices pénales française et italienne Le 19 février dernier dans la Bibliothèque de l’Ordre des Avocats de Paris en présence de la responsable de la Commission Italie du barreau de Paris Me Martina Barcaroli et de l’Ambassadeur d’Italie en France Monsieur Giandomenico Magliano s’est tenue une rencontre de la Commission portant sur « L’évolution de la justice pénale en Italie et en France vue par les praticiens à travers des grands procès des derniers 20 ans ». J’ai été invité à intervenir aux cotés de Monsieur Renaud Van Ruymbeke, Premier Vice-Président du Tribunal de grande instance de Paris et Monsieur Lorenzo Salazar, substitut du Procureur général à la Cour d’appel de Naples.
|
Stéphane Bonifassi (far left) at the Italy Commission of the Paris Bar Association
J’ai concentré mon intervention sur un point principal de comparaison, à savoir, l’indépendance du parquet en Italie. J’ai fait remarquer que l’indépendance du parquet « à l’italienne »1 perçu comme un modèle par beaucoup en France, soulève la question du contrôle démocratique de leurs actes. D’ailleurs, Monsieur Lorenzo Salazar a lui-même indiqué que cette indépendance pouvait créer une certaine « anarchie » quant à l’application des lois en Italie. J’ai notamment souligné que l’indépendance du parquet n’est pas en soi nécessaire à une justice pénale efficace en matière économique et financière et que c’est même plutôt l’inverse. Ainsi, dans les pays où la lutte contre la corruption internationale est la plus efficace à nos jours, les Etats-Unis et l’Allemagne, le parquet n’est pas indépendant, mais, au contraire, considéré de manière claire comme étant rattaché au pouvoir exécutif. J’ai également évoqué la question de la concurrence des justices pénales en matière économique et financière et j’ai indiqué qu’à mon sens, tant la justice italienne que la justice française avaient pour l’instant perdu la partie. Ce sont les procureurs américains qui mènent la danse notamment par l’utilisation de la transaction pénale et ce, y compris à l’encontre de sociétés françaises ou italiennes spectaculairement sanctionnées aux Etats-Unis. Enfin, dans la mesure où la justice pénale italienne a choisi de passer d’un système inquisitoire (avec juge d’instruction) à un système accusatoire, et dans la mesure où une telle évolution serait possible en France, j’ai considéré que l’expérience italienne devait être analysée de près pour tenter d’en retenir les qualités mais aussi d’en éviter les défauts, notamment quant à la durée des procès. 1L'une des différences majeures entre la France et l'Italie, est que les procureurs sont réellement indépendants, et qu'il n'y a pas cette hiérarchie qui existe en France entre le procureur, le procureur général et le ministère de la Justice. |
- Details
s.bonifassi@lebray.fr www.lebray.fr |
Address
7, rue de Madrid
75008, Paris, France |
Telephone
+33 1 44 90 17 10
|
Languages
French, English, Russian, divish, Arabic, Romanian, Bulgarian
|
Independent Prosecutors: Are They Better for Criminal Justice? I was honoured to be invited by the Italy Commission of the Paris Bar Association to speak in February at its presentation about the evolution of criminal justice in Italy and France over the past 20 years. I, along with Renaud Van Ruymbeke, First Vice President of the Tribunal de grande instance of Paris, and Lorenzo Salazar, Assistant Attorney General at the Naples Court of Appeal, helped demonstrate some important differences between trying a case in Italy versus trying a case in France. The event was moderated by Martina Barcaroli, head of the Italy Commission of the Paris Bar and Giandomenico Magliano, the Italian ambassador in France.
|
Stéphane Bonifassi (far left) at the Italy Commission of the Paris Bar Association
My presentation focused on one main point of comparison—the statutory independence of Prosecutors in Italy. One of the major differences between French and Italian criminal systems is that Prosecutors in Italy have an independent status, while, in France, Prosecutors are under the hierarchy of the Ministry of Justice. I noted that the independent status of Italian Prosecutors, viewed as a model by many in France, raises the question of democratic control over their activity. I stressed that the statutory independence of Prosecutors, per se, does not produce effective criminal justice in economic and financial matters, and it can be quite the opposite. Even Mr. Salazar admitted that this independence was the source of some “anarchy” in the application of laws in Italy. In countries, like the United States and Germany, where the fight against international corruption is most effective nowadays, Prosecutors don’t have an independent status, but are clearly considered as being part of the Executive Branch of government. In Italy, however, they are considered as being part of the Judiciary Branch. In the competition between criminal enforcement authorities in economic and financial matters, both Italian and French authorities were losing out. U.S. Prosecutors led the way, particularly through the use of pleas or DPAs, including against French and Italian companies severely sanctioned in the U.S. Finally, Italian criminal justice chose to abandon the inquisitorial system with investigating judges in favour of the adversarial system. While this shift might be possible in France, I stated that the Italian experience needs to be examined more carefully to retain its positive attributes and to avoid any negative consequences, like the length of trials in Italy. View in French |
- Details
caylorl@bennettjones.com www.bennett jones.com |
Address
3400 One First Canadian Place
P.O. Box 130 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1A4 Canada |
Telephone
+1 (416) 777 6121
|
Languages
English
|
What does Burford Capital’s deal with British Telecom mean for litigation funding? What does Burford Capital’s deal with British Telecom mean for litigation funding?
This week we gather insight on this question from our ICC FraudNet member in Toronto, Lincoln Caylor, a partner with Bennett Jones, who has written about litigation funding. TalkFraud provides thought leadership on important international legal and financial news related to large-scale fraud, asset recovery and insolvency. |
Last month’s announcement by Burford Capital Limited that it would provide $45 million in litigation financing to an FTSE 20 company, namely British Telecom, signals a significant change in the market. It also provides more evidence of an evolving landscape in the world of litigation finance. Within the same month, Augusta announced that it would fund pre-proceedings costs to allow claimants to determine the merits of an action. Why is this deal with British Telecom so significant? It marks a watershed moment confirming more broadly what many of us have acknowledged for years: that litigation is an asset or liability like just about any other property. Companies are used to dealing with most forms of property and how to use financing to maximize or minimize risk associated with them for the financial wellbeing of the corporation and its stakeholders. Litigation is now a more recognized, analyzed and quantified piece of property than it has ever been in the past. Some say these changes have been slow to happen. Why do you think we’re seeing them now? What’s changed? The legal market and in particular many lawyers are conservative. Assessing litigation and providing some certainty is a difficult business. However, the skills of financial analysis, underwriting and investment banking are now being applied to litigation and the business of law more than ever in the past. To the extent lawyers and law firms are not pursuing alternative ways to deal with litigation beyond the historical model, clients and business men and women are. Why has litigation funding been viewed as less suitable for commercial litigation than for consumer group action or individual claims? Big law wants to act for big business, act in big cases and get paid big fees. This model works until big business starts to balk at the big fee part and or looks for a more creative way to deal with the asset or liability that is litigation. Is this foray into the commercial market a good thing? Why or why not? Good or bad it is here to stay. It will create greater access to litigation, level the playing field in more big claims and more openly be addressed by the courts. As the market becomes more mature it will make litigation finance more accessible, common place and transparent. If this move does indeed signal an evolving marketplace, could it potentially have a negative impact on what has been the traditional market for litigation funding – victims without deep pockets to pursue and stay the course in a legal battle? Anything that expands and deepens the market will create more and different opportunities for law firms and their clients. What impact could the move by August have on the marketplace, and on the future of litigation? Could funding pre-proceedings costs potentially be a cost savings for companies who choose this route, and ultimately be helpful to victims who may secure a quicker settlement? The more front end loaded a case the clearer the merits are for both plaintiffs and defendants. This is a positive development and may get the parties to a determination faster. Lincoln Caylor of Bennett Jones is recognized as a “leading counsel and commentator in the asset recovery field,” by Chambers Canada 2016, and is listed as a Most Highly Regarded Individual in North America by Who’sWhoLegal: Asset Recovery 2015. The sole Toronto member of ICC FraudNet, he is internationally recognized for leading state-of-the-art asset tracing investigations and pursuing asset recovery litigation and enforcement actions in prominent, high-value international financial frauds and other economic crimes. ICC FraudNet is an international network of independent lawyers who are leading civil asset recovery specialists in each country. Recognized by Chambers Global as the world’s leading asset recovery legal network, our membership extends to every continent and the world’s major economies, as well as leading offshore wealth havens that have complex bank secrecy laws and institutions where the proceeds of fraud often are hidden. Founded in 2004 by the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the world’s business organization, FraudNet operates under the auspices of the ICC’s London-based Commercial Crime Services unit. |
Contact
Contact
© Commercial Crime Services, a division of the ICC Company limited by guarantee registered in England No 05716642 Registered office Cinnabar Wharf, 26 Wapping High Street LONDON E1W 1NG Tel: +44 (0)20 7423 6960 E-mail us your comments and remarks