Abstract
The Fund can decide whether or not to admit countries to membership. In considering applications, the Fund’s practice is to satisfy itself that the country is a state that conducts all of its international relations and that the obligations of the Articles will be performed. Membership in the Fund had grown to 103 states by the beginning of 1966. Among the non-members are the U.S.S.R. and countries of Eastern Europe, Switzerland, and certain small territories such as Liechtenstein, but this list is not complete. The Eastern European countries include two that are former members of the Fund: Czechoslovakia and Poland. Cuba and Indonesia are also ex-members.
Abstract
1.1. Countries recognize that strong regional and international cooperation on cross-border transactions, including the implementation of best practices concerning information sharing in criminal matters, are needed if they are to be successful in combating money laundering (ML) and the financing of terrorism (FT).
Abstract
1.1. The Commonwealth of The Bahamas is a sovereign nation, with a population of just over 300,000, lying southeast of the United States. There are some 30 inhabited islands out of a total of around 700. The two most populated are New Providence (with the capital, Nassau) and Grand Bahama.
Abstract
Article IX, Section 1, provides that to enable the Fund to fulfill its functions the status, privileges and immunities set forth in Article IX “shall be accorded to the Fund in the territories of each member.” Section 2 provides that the Fund “shall possess full juridical personality” and, in particular, the capacity to contract, acquire, and dispose of property, and institute legal proceedings. Notwithstanding the reference to the territories of members, it has never been doubted that the Fund has juridical personality and the capacity that flows from it in relations with non-members. Indeed, there is explicit evidence in the Articles that the reference to the territories of members in Article IX, Section 1, does not circumscribe the personality and capacity of the Fund. Under Article X, the Fund may make arrangements with other international organizations, and it has already been seen that under Article VII, Section 2, the Fund may borrow from sources “either within or outside the territories” of a member. Even these express provisions, however, do not exhaust the personality and capacity of the Fund. It is established in international law now that an international organization has an objective personality which goes beyond the express provisions of its charter. In its Advisory Opinion of April 11, 1949 (Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations),54 the International Court of Justice dealt, inter alia, with the question whether the United Nations had the capacity to bring international claims against a non-member state for injuries suffered by agents of the United Nations in the performance of their duties in circumstances involving the responsibility of the state for those injuries. The Charter of the United Nations is silent on this subject, and it contains language similar to Article IX, Section 1, of the Fund’s Articles.55 The Court declared that “fifty States, representing the vast majority of the members of the international community, had the power, in conformity with international law, to bring into being an entity possessing objective international personality, and not merely personality recognized by them alone, together with capacity to bring international claims.” 56 The reference to member territory in Article IX, Section 1, must be taken to deal with the status of the Fund under the municipal law of members and not with the position under international law.57
Abstract
1.1. This chapter discusses the role of formal cooperation agreements in facilitating international regulatory cooperation. It does so drawing on the experience of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APR A).
Abstract
1.1. Market integration increases the need for information exchange among supervisory authorities. Even if many supervisory issues are discussed in multilateral forums, information is generally exchanged between two authorities and it is therefore important to establish bilateral contacts.
Abstract
1.1. The ability to protect domestic securities markets turns on the ability to obtain and provide international cooperation. Capital markets today are increasingly global because transactions transcend national boundaries with greater frequency and speed; public companies raise capital beyond their geographic boundaries; and investors trade outside their countries. Fraudsters are equally unconstrained by borders; they engage in illegal conduct in a multitude of jurisdictions, often simultaneously, and they transfer illegal proceeds to numerous jurisdictions in an effort to evade detection and prosecution. This globalization of fraud is a critical issue for every securities regulator, because illegal conduct that goes without detection or prosecution affects each and every one of our markets. It affects the confidence of our investors and their willingness to invest, and it affects capital formation. And, if aspects of the illegal activity can occur within any of our borders, without fear of detection, we can be assured that those who are inclined to engage in fraud will migrate to these vulnerable markets.
Abstract
1.1. This chapter makes some general comments on Bermuda’s framework for regulatory cooperation, with specific regard to international cooperation in the context of Bermuda’s investment regulation.
Abstract
1.1. The British Virgin Islands (BVI) Financial Services Commission (FSC) is the authority that is responsible for regulating financial services business that is carried on in or from within the BVI. This includes banking and trust company business, company management business, mutual fund business, and insurance business.
Abstract
1.1. This chapter describes the experience of the Samoa offshore financial center (OFC) with cross-border cooperation and exchange of information.