REGULATION OF OFFSHORE JURISDICTIONS’ ACTIVITIES: A ... · jurisdictions in the context of minimization and gradual neutralization of the laundering of illegal assets (money)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 612 [email protected]

International Journal of Management (IJM)

Volume 11, Issue 3, March 2020, pp.612–623, Article ID: IJM_11_03_063

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=3

Journal Impact Factor (2020): 10.1471 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510

©IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

REGULATION OF OFFSHORE JURISDICTIONS’

ACTIVITIES: A PRACTICAL ASPECT

Andrii V. Paziuk

Department of Public International Law, Institute of International Relations, Taras

Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine

Liliia M. Nevara

Department of International Law and Comparative Law, Faculty of International Relations,

National Aviation University, Kyiv, Ukraine

Ella M. Derkach

Department of Constitutional, International aYnd Criminal Law, Law Faculty, Vasyl’ Stus

Donetsk National University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine

Mykhailo A. Paziuk

International Relations Department, National Aviation University, Kyiv, Ukraine

Yuliia O. Yefimenko

The Department of International Law, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv,

Ukraine

ABSTRACT

As of today, there are significant violations of fiscal functions in almost every

country in the world, the main reasons for which are the illegal activities of offshore

jurisdictions and the constant struggle for capital among the countries. Based on the

above, the purpose of the scientific investigation is to study the key principles of

regulation of offshore jurisdictions from a practical point of view. Such method of

economic analysis as comparison was used to process statistical data. It has been

proposed to introduce new standards and norms for regulation of offshore

jurisdictions in the context of minimization and gradual neutralization of the

laundering of illegal assets (money). It has been revealed that existing international

regime AML / CFT instruments, aimed at regulating the activities of offshore

jurisdictions, are currently at the development stage. The dynamics of FDI inflows and

outflows of EU countries during the period 2012-2018 have been analyzed; and it has

been proven that significant volumes of direct investments both in the economy and

abroad were in Great Britain, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, the Czech

Republic and Sweden. It has been established that Luxembourg, the Netherlands,

Andrii V. Paziuk, Liliia M. Nevara, Ella M. Derkach, Mykhailo A. Paziuk and Yuliia O.

Yefimenko


Great Britain, Germany and Malta have the most opaque financial system, which is

displayed by s igni f icant ly high values of the f inancial secret index.

Keywords: Offshore jurisdiction, International anti-money laundering regime,

combating the financing of terrorism, Intermediaries for trust and corporate services.

Cite this Article: Viktoriia D. Filippova, Viktoriia A. Budnyk, Halyna V. Mykhailiv,

Liubov V. Hryniv and Olga I. Los, Public Private Partnership Project Management:

Benefits For The State And Business, International Journal of Management, 11 (3),

2020, pp. 612–623.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=3

1. INTRODUCTION

The problems of laundering illegal assets (dirty money) and the financing of terrorism are the

basic problems, facing the development of the world economy nowadays. Such tactics are

often associated with the activities of offshore jurisdictions. Thus, in recent years, it has

become known that in many cases law firms have in some ways become a key tool for

concealing illegal assets in offshore areas as a result of their tax optimization services. The

international community has still not found an appropriate tool to combat the laundering of

illegal assets in order to counteract this.

It is worth noting that today the scale of laundering of illegal assets and the financing of

terrorism are so large that they practically have no borders and are present in many countries

of the world. Thus, the relevance of the scientific investigation’s topic lies in the development

of a unified approach to counteracting these phenomena, while observing the principles of the

international AML / CFT regime. At the same time, particular attention should be focused on

the basic tendencies and problems of coercion against countries that pursue ineffective

national policies and have adverse legislation regarding the international AML / CFT regime.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

An analysis of the issues outlined in a scientific paper makes it possible to note that the

subject of regulation of offshore jurisdictions is today one of the most studied ones.

In view of the above, it should be noted that, according to conclusion in [1] it is difficult

to determine the amount of money laundering, as well as methods of tax evasion by offshore

jurisdictions in the context of studying the activities of international jurisdictions. Therefore,

as a way to solve this problem, the scientist proposes to reform international financial

institutions and organizations in the direction of improving the state of their financial flows

and avoiding imbalances. This will make the financial flows of these companies and

organizations transparent and open to others [1].

In the framework of the study [2] conducted, state that the leading, highly developed

countries of the world, such as the USA, Great Britain, France and Germany, are quite critical

towards a number of offshore jurisdictions (including Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the

Channel). Their distrust is manifested in the fact that a number of the offshore jurisdictions,

listed above, carry out various financial frauds and conduct criminal activities that are poorly

controlled by highly developed countries [2].

In turn, having conducted a thorough study [3] state, that a significant proportion of

distressed securities, protected by assets, are issued from offshore jurisdictions such as the

Cayman Islands, Jersey, Ireland.

At the same time, in [4] is stated, that the introduction of the Tax and Savings Directive in

2005 in European Union significantly contributed to the growth in the number of business

entities that are not owned by residents of European Union’s countries but are in ownership of

Regulation of Offshore Jurisdictions’ Activities: A Practical Aspect


foreign non-residents. However, the number of economic entities, owned by EU residents,

after the Directive was adopted, has decreased significantly. This is explained by the fact that

the provisions of the Directive have foreseen full reporting of jurisdictions on tax

withholding, as well as on income derived from interest [4].

Herewith, Researcher in [5] notes, that forcing countries to implement global standards

and practices, put forward by developed countries of the world, can lead to a significant gap

in the development of these countries and the formation of even greater inequality among

developed countries.

At the same time, Author in [6] believes, that the principle of reforming their policies

should be applied to countries that launder illegal assets. Moreover, countries will be required

to return illegal assets to countries, where those assets have been stolen [6].

3. DATA AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Herewith, such method of economic analysis as a comparison was used for statistical data

processing. At the same time, a correlation analysis of the foreign direct investment’ indicator

in the economy of European Union was carried out.

The scientific paper analyzes such indicators presented by Eurostat, the World Bank, Tax

Justice Network, in particular:

foreign direct investment of countries of European Union abroad (direct

investment abroad);

direct investments in the economy of the countries of European Union (foreign

direct investment);

Financial Secrecy Index;

level of country’s secrecy (according to 100 scale) (Secrecy Score);

share of the world offshore market (Global Scale Weight).

4. RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH

In the context of the disclosure of the subject matter of this scientific investigation, the

dynamics of such economic indicators as foreign direct investment of EU countries and direct

investments, made in the economy of European Union’s countries, should be analyzed.

Therefore, in the period of 2012–2018, significant volumes of foreign direct investment

were carried out from EU Member States such as Great Britain, Ireland, Spain, Italy,

Germany, France, the Czech Republic and Sweden (Table 1). It should be noted that, in

contradiction to 2012, the significant growth of FDI was recorded in 2018 by Great Britain

(35441 million of national currency), Denmark (66058 million of national currency), Ireland

(54109 million of national currency), Spain (27362 million of national currency), Italy (28471

million of national currency), Germany (55836 million of national currency), France (66259

million of national currency) and the Czech Republic (32256 million of national currency). In

contrast to these countries, as of 2018, such countries as: Belgium, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia,

Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and Hungary had negative direct investment values.

Herewith, a significant decrease of foreign direct investment in 2018, compared to the

beginning of the analyzed period, took place in Luxembourg (-770405 million of national

currency), the Netherlands (-398018 million of national currency) and Hungary (-21322168

million of national currency).


Yefimenko


Table 1. Dynamics of direct investments abroad, million units of national currency (Direct investment

abroad, main components – annual data, million units of national currency) [7]

No. Countries 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Austria 14216,0 8200,0 -551,0 -2002,0 -24728,0 8864,0 6037,0

2 Belgium 32373,0 -9424,0 -561,0 6243,0 31780,0 -5615,0 -45314,0

3 Bulgaria 616,0 520,3 1285,5 205,7 1475,3 872,8 1455,2

4 Great Britain 7662,0 28611,0 -70518,0 -39301,0 24262,0 107097,0 43103,0

5 Greece 525,0 -533,0 2276,0 1426,0 -1551,0 143,0 438,0

6 Denmark -62623,0 39352,0 56877,0 48484,0 121688,0 58699,0 3435,0

7 Estonia 996,0 641,1 846,9 -521,5 315,0 605,8 -220,6

8 Ireland 24867,0 37034,0 69607,0 170924,0 85429,0 8462,0 78976,0

9 Spain -1930,0 25045,0 34285,0 50689,0 50846,0 35041,0 25432,0

10 Italy 5241,0 15288,0 15267,0 13786,0 12249,0 10912,0 33712,0

11 Cyprus 57985,0 22539,0 49708,0 39940,0 5699,0 14836,0 -2617,0

12 Latvia 127,0 373,0 501,0 128,0 202,0 516,0 -290,0

13 Lithuania 329,9 253,7 424,7 324,5 841,9 353,1 844,1

14 Luxembourg 354221,0 362989,0 166164,0 771164,0 70086,0 214695,0 -416184,0

15 Malta -6431,1 -6605,0 -6546,5 -5942,1 -5770,6 -5930,0 -5701,4

16 Netherlands 196362,0 313182,0 88849,0 350366,0 227713,0 134515,0 -201656,

17 Germany 76835,0 70643,0 79539,0 117865,0 99180,0 123084,0 132671,0

18 Poland 4236,0 -10499,0 21299,0 18194,0 56011,0 14583,0 6706,0

19 Portugal 3477,0 5291,0 2626,0 -1013,0 2890,0 1941,0 391,0

20 Romania -818,0 -119,0 1012,0 n. a. 5134,0 1600,0 5860,0

21 Slovakia -957,9 976,1 94,1 1266,3 3684,4 1366,6 1354,1

22 Slovenia -438,9 23,6 155,1 291,6 433,9 570,0 361,9

23 Hungary 1746890,5 -845252,8 2192963,4 -2329735,3 19135999,6 -3834903,2 -19575277,6

24 Finland 6522,0 -5454,0 549,0 -713,0 n. a. n. a. 2194,0

25 France 40336,0 13287,0 39822,0 45887,0 67491,0 44661,0 106595,0

26 Croatia -360,0 -119,0 12277,0 -1443,0 -12266,0 -5171,0 1957,0

27 Czech

Republic 63459,0 151420,0 87707,0 91305,0 78628,0 217962,0 95715,0

28 Sweden 118956,0 181158,0 -33140,0 125899,0 6304,0 319417,0 98656,0

Regarding direct investment in the economy of European Union’s countries, during 2012–

2018, the largest amount of foreign direct investment was invested in the economy of Great

Britain, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, Romania, France and the Czech Republic.

(Table 2). In respect of growth in the volume of direct investment in the economy, in 2018,

compared to the beginning of the analyzed period, it was significant in Great Britain (31340

million of national currency), Denmark (100917 million of national currency), Italy (33927

million of national currency), Germany (38765 million of national currency) and Poland

(35657 million of national currency). As of 2018, such countries as Belgium, Luxembourg,

the Netherlands, Hungary, Finland and Sweden had negative direct investment in the

economy. At the same time, in comparison with 2012, a significant decrease in the volume of

direct investments in the economy in 2018 occurred in Belgium (-63383 million of national

currency), Cyprus (-49123 million of national currency), Luxembourg (-862295 million of

national currency), the Netherlands (-403286 million of national currency) and Hungary (-

21067107 million of national currency).



Table 2. Dynamics of direct investments in the economy of countries, million units of national

currency (Direct investment in the reporting economy, main components – annual data, million units

of national currency) [7]

No. Countries 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 Austria 4008,0 315,0 1421,0 -7225,0 -26657,0 11825,0 3303,0

2 Belgium 9123,0 -22066,0 -10747,0 -17972,0 52440,0 -30792,0 -54260,0

3 Bulgaria 2704,6 2951,7 1571,0 3824,6 2567,1 3441,1 2066,4

4 Great

Britain 29658,0 35770,0 36427,0 30086,0 243714,0 94427,0 60998,0

5 Greece 1352,0 2179,0 2027,0 1147,0 2452,0 3078,0 3399,0

6 Denmark -93529,0 3884,0 38689,0 12842,0 52919,0 19465,0 7388,0

7 Estonia 1393,9 833,0 1330,5 -653,6 832,0 1532,2 996,3

8 Ireland 45363,0 53171,0 74886,0 215433,0 93859,0 57045,0 54574,0

9 Spain 16031,0 35628,0 23603,0 20614,0 39664,0 23052,0 40619,0

10 Italy -52,0 14637,0 12928,0 11975,0 23350,0 10485,0 33875,0

11 Cyprus 53806,0 19585,0 38828,0 26119,0 7722,0 16216,0 4683,0

12 Latvia 842,0 743,0 784,0 729,0 302,0 991,0 390,0

13 Lithuania 533,3 545,0 279,9 941,8 1189,7 1203,8 1201,2

14 Luxembourg 428584,0 476212,0 137799,0 674557,0 105679,0 71785,0 -433711,0

15 Malta 2589,5 431,9 238,5 3280,4 2851,2 3508,0 4007,6

16 Netherlands 192297,0 247478,0 86978,0 289439,0 218393,0 90657,0 -210989,0

17 Germany 50386,0 50525,0 13981,0 56147,0 56018,0 74395,0 89151,0

18 Poland 23931,0 2809,0 62025,0 56857,0 72604,0 43415,0 59588,0

19 Portugal 16597,0 11742,0 9116,0 1155,0 6615,0 8819,0 5512,0

20 Romania 10671,0 12806,0 13022,0 17266,0 25402,0 23904,0 28870,0

21 Slovakia 1356,3 756,8 -324,2 1356,6 4326,1 3749,0 2158,2

22 Slovenia 26,7 70,7 739,0 1560,4 1297,6 1065,2 1294,6

23 Hungary 2377559,5 -803709,0 3122242,8 -1504328,0 19981490,9 -3179163,9 -18689547,5

24 Finland 3884,0 -3797,0 13216,0 15684,0 n. a. n. a. -9351,0

25 France 25253,0 23758,0 4309,0 38809,0 29755,0 34496,0 51419,0

26 Croatia 7608,0 5539,0 17515,0 259,0 2699,0 3372,0 7379,0

27 Czech

Republic 184719,0 143984,0 168088,0 41558,0 265177,0 263820,0 186979,0

28 Sweden 30109,0 9464,0 -68563,0 86706,0 129950,0 223179,0 -18346,0

The conducted correlation analysis of the dynamics of foreign direct investment in the

economy of EU countries showed that there is a correlation among the foreign direct

investment of EU countries, due to the fact that the coefficient of determination (R2) was

0.188 (Figure 1).


Yefimenko


Figure 1 Dynamics of foreign direct investment in the economy of EU countries during 2012-2018,

US dollar [8]

In the process of studying the issues of offshore jurisdictions’ regulation, it is advisable to

consider such basic models of money laundering, which are presented in Figure 2. Therefore,

money laundering by international offshore jurisdictions in national accounts is carried out

with the participation of a professional lawyer, when he purchases a fixed service, for which

he carries out payments with fictitious legal services (case a). In a similar vein, another option

for money laundering may be reflected in the balance of payments statistics when an offshore

company acts directly as a participant in these transactions (case b).

Figure 2. The primary model of money laundering: a) on national accounts; b) in the balance of

payments statistics [9]

Investigations show that the volume of offshore financial activity of each country can be

determined using the Financial Secrecy Index, which is calculated by the Tax Justice

Network. Therefore, according to the Tax Justice Network, presented in 2020, such countries

of European Union, as Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Malta have the most

opaque financial system; they are also among the twenty most opaque countries in the world

(based on surveys as of 2020) (Figure 3) and (Annex A).

-

99279778425.4

2

-

54611480694.0

8

1039416836.97

146091343151.

09

-

265116549512.

49

244845454144.

89

136248339699.

23

y = 1E+11ln(x) - 1E+11

R² = 0.1883

-300000000000.00

-200000000000.00

-100000000000.00

0.00

100000000000.00

200000000000.00

300000000000.00

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

PROFESSIONAL LAWYER

acquis

itio

n o

f fi

xed

ser

vic

es

pay

men

t fo

r fi

ctit

ious

legal

serv

ices

PRIMARY CRIMINAL PRIMARY CRIMINAL

OFFSHORE COMPANY

export

of

serv

ices

(cr

edit

s);

finan

cial

set

tlem

ents

thro

ugh

oth

er i

nves

tmen

ts (

net

ac

quis

itio

n o

f fi

nan

cial

as

sets

)

import

of

serv

ices

(deb

it);

oth

er f

inan

cial

set

tlem

ents

(n

et c

over

age

of

finan

cial

li

abil

itie

s)



Figure 3. The financial secrecy indices of European Union’s countries, presented in 2020

At the same time, the countries with the most secrecy indices, according to the same Tax

Justice Network study, are Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands, and Romania (Table 3). In turn, a

significant share of the global offshore market is held by Great Britain, Ireland, Luxembourg,

Germany and France.

27.5 46 57.5

89.8 91.3 91.7 103.5 112.3 119.3

151.2 151.5 163.3 164.3

182.8 182.9

212.1 224.1 236.2

287.8 317

350.5 363.8

383.4 442.2

499.7 534.7

682.2 849.4

1

Luxembourg Netherlands Great Britain Germany

Malta Cyprus Ireland France

Austria Italy Belgium Romania

Poland Sweden Latvia Spain

Czech Republic Hungary Portugal Finland

Croatia Denmark Greece Slovakia

Lithuania Bulgaria Estonia Slovenia


Yefimenko


Table 3. Assessment of secrecy and the share of the offshore market of European Union’s countries

[8]

No. Countries

2013 2015 2018 2020

Co

un

try

’s s

ecre

cy a

sses

smen

t

(by

10

0 s

cale

) (S

ecre

cy

Sco

re)

Sh

are

of

the

glo

bal

off

sho

re

mar

ket

, %

(G

lobal

Sca

le

Wei

gh

t)

Co

un

try

’s s

ecre

cy a

sses

smen

t

(by

10

0 s

cale

) (S

ecre

cy

Sco

re)

Sh

are

of

the

glo

bal

off

sho

re

mar

ket

, %

(G

lobal

Sca

le

Wei

gh

t)

Co

un

try

’s s

ecre

cy a

sses

smen

t

(by

10

0 s

cale

) (S

ecre

cy

Sco

re)

Sh

are

of

the

glo

bal

off

sho

re

mar

ket

, %

(G

lobal

Sca

le

Wei

gh

t)

Co

un

try

’s s

ecre

cy a

sses

smen

t

(by

10

0 s

cale

) (S

ecre

cy

Sco

re)

Sh

are

of

the

glo

bal

off

sho

re

mar

ket

, %

(G

lobal

Sca

le

Wei

gh

t)

1 Austria 64 0,37 54 0,69 55,90 0,56 56 0,54

2 Belgium 45 1,03 41 1,86 44,00 1,56 45 1,72

3 Bulgaria n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 54,18 0,02 49 0,01

4 Great

Britain 40 18,53 41 17,39 42,35 17,37 46 15,94

5 Greece n.a. n.a. 36 0,05 57,88 0,02 51 0,03

6 Denmark 33 0,605 31 0,219 52,50 0,15 45 0,14

7 Estonia n.a. n.a. 44 0,02 50,85 0,02 43 0,02

8 Ireland 37 2,65 40 2,31 50,65 2,66 48 3,46

9 Spain 36 1,50 33 1,09 47,70 0,77 44 0,72

10 Italy 39 0,75 35 1,22 49,48 0,92 50 1,14

11 Cyprus 52 0,26 50 0,52 61,25 0,55 61 0,48

12 Latvia 51 0,002 45 0,11 57,38 0,11 59 0,07

13 Lithuania n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 46,8 0,02 50 0,04

14 Luxembourg 67 12,05 55 11,63 58,20 12,13 55 12,36

15 Malta 44 0,08 50 0,99 60,53 0,71 62 0,66



16 Netherlands 50 0,43 48 0,32 66,03 0,90 67 1,11

17 Germany 59 4,33 56 6,03 59,10 5,17 52 4,71

18 Poland n.a. n.a. 36 0,17 57,35 0,15 56 0,19

19 Portugal 39 0,09 39 0,06 54,68 0,08 54 0,09

20 Romania n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 65,53 0,06 63 0,08

21 Slovakia n.a. n.a. 50 0,01 54,90 0,05 51 0,03

22 Slovenia n.a. n.a. 34 0,02 41,83 0,01 38 0,01

23 Hungary 40 0,06 36 0,05 54,70 0,05 54 0,09

24 Finland n.a. n.a. 31 0,03 52,70 0,09 52 0,06

25 France 41 2,14 43 3,10 51,65 2,52 50 2,25

26 Croatia n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 59,28 0,02 55 0,03

27 Czech

Republic n.a. n.a. 35 0,10 52,93 0,09 55 0,09

28 Sweden 32 0,44 36 1,00 45,48 1,01 46 0,71

For example, regulation of offshore jurisdictions in the USA is clearly carried out by law.

The calculation of the amount of possible budget losses from tax evasion is conducted in this

country, as well as a number of confrontations are introduced to these processes. In light of

this, it is appropriate to recollect the criminal case initiated by the USA against the Swiss

financial institution HSBC Switzerland in December 2019 (it should be noted that this

institution pleaded guilty in full). Therefore, HSBC Switzerland was accused of hiding

information on taxation of income of US citizens. The key method used by this financial

institution was quite widespread among the Swiss banks; this is the method of opening and

maintaining bank accounts for nominee owners, that is, for companies created in jurisdictions

of a tax haven, such as the British Virgin Islands, Liechtenstein or Panama [10].

Earlier in 2016, there had been an event that significantly affected the tendencies of

functioning of the global financial markets. The International Consortium of Investigative

Journalists (ICIJ) has published numerous documents of the Panamanian company Mossack

Fonseca, stating the fact that the company is the founder of more than 214 000 offshore

companies in the 21 jurisdiction country of tax haven. These facts testify to the connection of

this crime to the persons of 200 countries (including 12 heads of state, 128 politicians and

civil servants, etc.). According to European Parliament studies, the implementation of such

schemes has resulted in the failure of the European Union budget to receive 50-70 billion

EUR annually [11].


Yefimenko


Taking in consideration the above, it should be noted that such cases of formation and

development of offshore jurisdictions’ activities are very frequent, since the main purpose of

their creation and functioning is aimed at participating in global financial transactions and

rarely helps to alleviate financial abuse [12, 13].

Studies show that today reducing obligation level to customers and obtaining a permit for

ownership are the basic methods, directly used to solve issues concerning financial

transparency. These methods are interrelated and reflect the transparency of legal entities and

their legal arrangements.

5. DISCUSSION

Based on the studies conducted, it has been established that it is advisable, first of all, to

introduce new standards and norms for regulating the activities of offshore jurisdictions in

order to minimize and gradually neutralize the laundering of illegal assets (money). Herewith,

it has been found that the existing AML / CFT instruments of the international regime, which

are aimed at regulating the activities of offshore jurisdictions, are currently at the

development stage. Thus, in case the country implements an international AML / CFT regime

regarding the illegal activities of offshore jurisdictions, it will first and foremost need

technical assistance to reform its own legislation and conduct training.

A thorough analysis of the dynamics of European Union’s FDI inflows and outflows

makes it possible to note that the leading European countries, among which Great Britain,

Ireland, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, the Czech Republic and Sweden hold an honorable

place and play a significant role in the processes of functioning of the international financial

market.

In turn, a survey, conducted by the Tax Justice Network, shows that Luxembourg, the

Netherlands, Great Britain, Germany and Malta have the most opaque financial system, which

is displayed by significantly higher values of the financial secrecy index.

6. CONCLUSION

Thus, in the context of studying the key features of the activities of offshore jurisdictions in

the territory of European Union, it has been established that the existing AML / CFT

instruments of international regime should be applied to them.

At the same time, investigations prove that the existing international regime’s AML / CFT

instruments, aimed at regulating the activities of offshore jurisdictions, are currently in

development phase. It has been revealed that in case of implementation of AML / CFT

international regime by the country regarding the activities of offshore jurisdictions, first of

all, this country will need technical assistance to reform its own legislation and conduct

training.

It has been also established that in countries, where enforcement of the implementation of

AML / CFT international regime is applied to the activities of offshore jurisdictions, an

appropriate individual approach should be used, taking into account the peculiarities of their

economic development and support from developed countries.

It has been revealed that Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Malta have the

most opaque financial system, which, in addition, are among the twenty most opaque

countries in the world. Studies have shown that Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands and Romania

are the countries with the most secrecy indices, as well as the significant share of the global

offshore market is occupied by Great Britain, Ireland, Luxembourg, Germany and France.



REFERENCES

[1] Radu, D. The use of jurisdictions in international financial fittings. In: Challenges of the

Knowledge Society, Legal sciences. ProUniversitaria, 2012, pp. 967-973.

[2] Morriss, A. P., Henson, C. C. Regulatory Effectiveness & Offshore Financial Centers.

Virginia Journal of International Law, 5, 2013, pp. 417-466.

[3] Haberly, D. and Wojcik, D. Culprits or Bystanders? Offshore Jurisdiction and the Global

Financial Crisis. Journal of Financial Regulation, 3(2), 2017, pp. 233-261.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjx005.

[4] Caruana-Galizia, P. and Caruana-Galizia, M. Offshore financial activity and tax policy:

evidence from a leaked data set. Journal of Public Policy, 36(3), 2016, pp. 457-488.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X16000027.

[5] Khlopenko, O. International Anti-Money Laundering Regulations through thePrism of

Financial Inclusion and Competition. Yearbook of Antitrust and RegulatoryStudies, 19,

2019, pp. 75-90.

[6] Mugarura, N. The War against Corruption Is a Lost Cause without Robust Measures to

Repatriate Stolen Assets to Countries of Origin. Journal of Anti-Corruption Law, 1(1),

2017, pp. 53-69.

[7] Statiatic. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/

[8] Financial Secrecy Index - 2020 Results. Tax Justice Network.

https://fsi.taxjustice.net/en/introduction/fsi-results

[9] Handbook on the compilation of statistics on illegal economic activities in national

accounts and balance of payments. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-

manuals-and-guidelines/-/KS-05-17-202

[10] Zagaris, B. Int’l tax enforcement cooperation. International Enforcement LawReporter,

35(12), 2019, pp. 432-437.

[11] Request for the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions

and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering and

tax avoidance and tax evasion. European Parliament, 2016.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20160602RES30047/20160602RE

S30047.pdf

[12] The Misuse of Corporate Vehicles, Including Trust and Company Service Providers.

FATF. https://www.fatf-

gafi.org/documents/documents/themisuseofcorporatevehiclesincludingtrustandcompanyser

viceproviders.html

[13] Behind the Corporate Veil: Using Corporate Entities for Illicit Purposes. OECD.

https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/behindthecorporateveilusingcorporateentitiesforillicitpurposes

.htm


Yefimenko


ANNEX A

The Financial Secrecy Indexes (Financial Secrecy Index) and the corresponding European

Union rankings according to this index

No. Countries 2013 2015 2018 2020

Rank FSI Rank FSI Rank FSI Rank FSI

1 Austria 18 400,8 24 295,3 35 310,4 36 317,0

2 Belgium 40 199,3 38 181,2 53 213,0 50 236,2

3 Bulgaria n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 89 91,4 115 57,5

4 Great

Britain 21 361,3 15 380,2 23 423,8 12 534,7

5 Greece n.a. n.a. 85 37,2 80 118,6 103 91,7

6 Denmark 66 63,1 83 38,2 61 166,1 97 103,5

7 Estonia n.a. n.a. 77 52,9 93 79,5 121 46,0

8 Ireland 47 155,5 37 187,4 26 388,0 29 363,8

9 Spain 56 111,4 66 77,5 52 213,9 66 164,3

10 Italy 54 119,0 58 98,7 41 254,1 41 287,8

11 Cyprus 41 198,9 35 213,9 24 404,4 27 383,4

12 Latvia 53 128,1 59 92,8 55 195,7 65 182,8

13 Lithuania n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 97 58,75 105 89,8

14 Luxembourg 2 1454,5 6 817,0 6 975,9 6 849,4

15 Malta 64 78,1 27 260,9 20 426,3 18 442,2

16 Netherlands 39 204,9 41 168,4 14 598,8 8 682,2

17 Germany 8 738,3 8 701,9 7 769,0 14 499,7

18 Poland n.a. n.a. 75 57,2 51 215,4 59 212,1

19 Portugal 69 57,9 78 52,5 64 151,6 76 151,2

20 Romania n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 47 232,3 56 224,1

21 Slovakia n.a. n.a. 73 60,1 76 127,9 104 91,3

22 Slovenia n.a. n.a. 88 22,5 104 35,3 128 27,5

23 Hungary 72 54,7 84 37,3 74 132,7 75 151,5

24 Finland н.д н.д. 90 19,4 71 142,2 87 119,3

25 France 43 191,0 31 241,9 25 404,9 33 350,5

26 Croatia n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 79 119,4 93 112,3

27 Czech

Republic n.a. n.a. 81 44,2 70 145,1 67 163,3

28 Sweden 71 55,7 56 100,9 54 203,6 64 182,9

Documents

REGULATION OF OFFSHORE JURISDICTIONS’ ACTIVITIES: A ... · jurisdictions in the context of minimization and gradual neutralization of the laundering of illegal assets (money)