Liability of Banks for Aiding Tax Evasion: A Comparative Analysis of German and UK Law

Malte Wilke, Alisdair Macpherson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article compares the regulatory liability of German banks for aiding tax evasion under the German Act on Regulatory Offences with the UK corporate offences of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion under the Criminal Finances Act (CFA) 2017. The study demonstrates that the approaches share some similarities; however, major differences are also evident. Unlike the German approach, the CFA provisions are designed as strict liability provisions, whereas the German regulatory offence requires an intentional or negligent omission to take the supervisory measures required to prevent contraventions of the law. Moreover, the scope of the offences under UK law is wider than the scope of their German equivalent. In addition, the CFA provisions do not place financial limits on the fines that can be imposed. Because of these differences, the CFA is likely to be more effective in preventing banks from aiding tax evasion than its German counterpart. Consideration should therefore be given to reforming German law to make it more like its UK equivalent, especially in the post-Panama Papers world.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)148-163
Number of pages16
JournalEuropean Journal of Risk Regulation
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

tax evasion
liability
bank
Law
act
finance
offense
Panama

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Safety Research

Cite this

Liability of Banks for Aiding Tax Evasion : A Comparative Analysis of German and UK Law. / Wilke, Malte; Macpherson, Alisdair.

In: European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 10, No. 1, 30.03.2019, p. 148-163.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{457c3d18580e4b06922888cc7fb467c7,
title = "Liability of Banks for Aiding Tax Evasion: A Comparative Analysis of German and UK Law",
abstract = "This article compares the regulatory liability of German banks for aiding tax evasion under the German Act on Regulatory Offences with the UK corporate offences of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion under the Criminal Finances Act (CFA) 2017. The study demonstrates that the approaches share some similarities; however, major differences are also evident. Unlike the German approach, the CFA provisions are designed as strict liability provisions, whereas the German regulatory offence requires an intentional or negligent omission to take the supervisory measures required to prevent contraventions of the law. Moreover, the scope of the offences under UK law is wider than the scope of their German equivalent. In addition, the CFA provisions do not place financial limits on the fines that can be imposed. Because of these differences, the CFA is likely to be more effective in preventing banks from aiding tax evasion than its German counterpart. Consideration should therefore be given to reforming German law to make it more like its UK equivalent, especially in the post-Panama Papers world.",
author = "Malte Wilke and Alisdair Macpherson",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1017/err.2019.15",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "148--163",
journal = "European Journal of Risk Regulation",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Liability of Banks for Aiding Tax Evasion

T2 - A Comparative Analysis of German and UK Law

AU - Wilke, Malte

AU - Macpherson, Alisdair

PY - 2019/3/30

Y1 - 2019/3/30

N2 - This article compares the regulatory liability of German banks for aiding tax evasion under the German Act on Regulatory Offences with the UK corporate offences of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion under the Criminal Finances Act (CFA) 2017. The study demonstrates that the approaches share some similarities; however, major differences are also evident. Unlike the German approach, the CFA provisions are designed as strict liability provisions, whereas the German regulatory offence requires an intentional or negligent omission to take the supervisory measures required to prevent contraventions of the law. Moreover, the scope of the offences under UK law is wider than the scope of their German equivalent. In addition, the CFA provisions do not place financial limits on the fines that can be imposed. Because of these differences, the CFA is likely to be more effective in preventing banks from aiding tax evasion than its German counterpart. Consideration should therefore be given to reforming German law to make it more like its UK equivalent, especially in the post-Panama Papers world.

AB - This article compares the regulatory liability of German banks for aiding tax evasion under the German Act on Regulatory Offences with the UK corporate offences of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion under the Criminal Finances Act (CFA) 2017. The study demonstrates that the approaches share some similarities; however, major differences are also evident. Unlike the German approach, the CFA provisions are designed as strict liability provisions, whereas the German regulatory offence requires an intentional or negligent omission to take the supervisory measures required to prevent contraventions of the law. Moreover, the scope of the offences under UK law is wider than the scope of their German equivalent. In addition, the CFA provisions do not place financial limits on the fines that can be imposed. Because of these differences, the CFA is likely to be more effective in preventing banks from aiding tax evasion than its German counterpart. Consideration should therefore be given to reforming German law to make it more like its UK equivalent, especially in the post-Panama Papers world.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066109646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/err.2019.15

DO - 10.1017/err.2019.15

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 148

EP - 163

JO - European Journal of Risk Regulation

JF - European Journal of Risk Regulation

IS - 1

ER -