The article examines the concept and scope of criminal (and punitive administrative) liability of heads of business in protecting the EU’s financial interests. While the 1995 PIF Convention innovatively introduced such liability, the subsequent PIF Directive dropped it, leaving a fragmented legal landscape across Member States. Ligeti contrasts this with developments in the financial sector, where post-crisis reforms (e.g., the UK Senior Managers’ Regime, CRD IV) strengthen individual liability of senior officials. She argues that inconsistent national approaches create enforcement gaps and undermine legal certainty for managers operating across borders. The article calls for a coherent EU framework that balances effective enforcement of PIF offences with the legal protection of individual heads of business.

The Evolving Nature of Financial Regulation Until the early 1970s, the various national systems of banking regulation had largely monetary objectives. Controls on commercial banking activity (including administratively set interest rates, quantitative limits on credit expansion, and reserve requirements) were imposed for the purpose of preventing the over- or under-expansion of the money and bank credit supply. In addition, in many countries, including the UK and France, the state sought to direct the flow of available credit towards certain economic areas and activities, and away from others. Another policy concern related to the conditions of competition within the banking industry;… Read more

In most publications that deal with the Banking Union, the global financial crisis of 2008 is mentioned in the introductory paragraph. It is also the unavoidable starting point of this contribution, as it is the collapse of the banking sector that has shown the necessity to rethink the mechanism of banking supervision. Economic growth and financial stability have been seriously damaged by the global crisis that has plagued the world since 2007. The financial and banking crisis shed some light on the need for stronger and more efficient supervision but also on the need for a more effective system of… Read more

The decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Soros v. France centered on questions regarding the principle of legality in article 7 ECHR. More precisely, the interpretation of “insider trading” was challenged and whether or not it was possible to appraise whether the French national law had forbade this kind of acts at the respective time. As the principle of legality is a fundamental right in the EU Charter, this decision could significantly influence the principle’s interpretation in the European criminal law area.