FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch – Page 58 – At the Crossroads of Law, Innovation and Commerce

Japan Aims to Facilitate Banking Institutions to Invest in Bank-Related FinTech Companies

Apr 21 2016

On March 4, 2016, the Cabinet of Japan approved and submitted to the Diet an amendment bill to the Banking Act of Japan that would enable banks and bank holding companies to acquire more than the permitted holding of nonbank interests (5% (banks) or 15% (bank holding companies)) of certain nonbank companies whose businesses involve innovative technologies that can be applied in banking business. Under the amendment bill, banking institutions are, with approval of the Financial Services of Agency of Japan (FSA), permitted to acquire and hold a controlling interest in various FinTech companies that would provide innovative technologies to advance banks’ operations or benefit bank customers. When proposing the amendment bill, the FSA explained that the amendment bill aims to facilitate banking institutions to invest in bank-related innovative technologies, IT technologies in particular.

The amendment bill is expected to pass the Diet during the current Diet session and to come into force within 1 year after the promulgation.

Text of the amendment bill can be found here (only in Japanese).

EU Fintech developments

Apr 19 2016

By Jacob Ghanty

In the linked article, Jacob Ghanty discusses some UK and EU regulatory developments affecting the FinTech sector. This article was first published on Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence on 1 April 2016.

EU Oversight on payments

Apr 18 2016

By Jacob Ghanty

The second EU Payment Services Directive is set to change the banking landscape in Europe. In the linked article, Jacob Ghanty describes some of the changes that PSD2 will bring about. This article was first published in inCOMPLIANCE, member publication of the International Compliance Association www.int-comp.org.

FCA Encouragement for Roboadvice

Apr 18 2016

By Jacob Ghanty

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority published its final report on the Financial Advice Market Review on 14 March, which stated that there is a “clear need for intervention by the regulator and the government” to aid the provision of new and more cost-effective ways of delivering financial advice and guidance. The FAMR sets out recommendations to address concerns relating to the affordability and accessibility of financial advice, which includes recommendations to help firms develop automated “robo-advice” models. In the linked article, first published in E-Finance & Payments Law & Policy, Jacob Ghanty expresses his views on robo-advice developments.

FinTechs get ready to play in the sandbox

Apr 17 2016

By Michelle Chasser and Daniel Knight

In a recent speech at the Innovate Finance Global Summit, Christopher Woolard of the UK Financial Conduct Agency (FCA) provided details about the UK regulatory sandbox due to launch 9 May 2016. The sandbox will allow two FinTech cohorts a year to test their ideas without incurring the significant regulatory set up costs usually associated with going to market.

Participants in the sandbox will be given restricted authorisations to provide financial services to allow them to market test their ideas. The FCA will also develop a streamlined application process. Full authorisation will need to be sought to operate outside the sandbox.

Australia and Singapore discussing cooperation agreement

Apr 15 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) are in discussions to enter into a cooperation agreement to ensure Australian and Singaporean FinTech businesses will not be hindered by regulation when trying to enter the other country’s market.

The agreement is expected to be similar to that entered into between ASIC and the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in March. Under the ASIC-FCA agreement the two regulators will share information and implement a referral process for FinTech businesses interested in entering the UK or Australian market.

These agreements reflect the increasingly collaborative approach to FinTech regulation internationally.

Further information about the ASIC-FCA agreement can be found in our earlier post here.

Lost cryptocurrency – Can you get your “money” back?

Apr 14 2016

By Jonathan Lawrence

Will English courts recognise cryptocurrency in tort and restitution claims? An article by Peter Susman QC in the March 2016 issue of the Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law considers that English common law is robust enough to facilitate the development of legal remedies for lost cryptocurrency (“Virtual money in the virtual bank: legal remedies for loss” (2016) 3 JIBFL 152).

A more complex issue is whether English law is ready to provide effective remedies in tort or restitution for misappropriated cryptocurrency. English courts have previously had difficulty applying criminal law to intangible assets. The Fraud Act 2006 helped remove any confusion by focusing on what has been done, rather than the type of property which has been affected.

So it should not be difficult to argue that the law of contract developed under English common law will apply on the same basis to cryptocurrencies. Principles developed under contract law may be used to answer questions about whether contractual obligations have been incurred, on what terms and what remedies may be available in relation to cryptocurrency.

In any event, many transactional and litigation lawyers tend to think of money less as personal property, and more as obligations owed by and to persons in respect of that money. The focus of courts should be then on remedies rather than proprietary rights.

China’s FinTech industry growth due in part to accommodative regulations

Apr 14 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

China’s biggest FinTech companies now have a similar number of clients as the country’s top banks, according to a report on digital disruption by Citi. China’s fintech industry has been growing rapidly over the past decade and is dominated by the largest payments and peer 2 peer lending markets in the world. According to Citi, 4 elements have led to the industry’s growth:

high internet and mobile device penetration in the market;
a large e-commerce system with companies focused on payments;
relatively unsophisticated incumbent consumer banks; and
accommodative regulations.

Don’t Look a Gift Card in the Mouth: Beware of Liability Under the Electronic Fund Transfers Act

Apr 08 2016

By Robert W. Sparkes, III, Brian M. Forbes, Soyong Cho

Many of us have had a similar experience. We receive a gift card, put it in a “safe” place with other gift cards, and forget it exists. Inevitably, we uncover the gift card and find ourselves asking questions such as: Does this card still have any value? Has it expired? Can it expire? Will I be charged a fee for use (or non-use)? Should I call the 800 number? The experience invariably ends by putting the card aside and promising to deal with it later. But, what really does happen to the value of those cards?

To read more, click here.

U.S. Regulatory Scrutiny of Robo-Advisers and Other Providers of Digital Investment Advice

Apr 07 2016

By C. Todd Gibson

Recently, regulators in the US have issued guidance with respect to providers of automated investment advice, including robo-advisers. On April 1, the Massachusetts Securities Division (“MSD”) issued guidance questioning whether a Massachusetts state-registered robo-adviser could fulfil its fiduciary obligations without some element of human-provided services (including initial and ongoing due diligence), stating that the registration of such advisers would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Of particular concern to the MSD were “fully-automated” robo-advisers, characterized as those that: 1) do not meet with or conduct significant (or any) due diligence on a client, 2) provide investment advice that is minimally personalized, 3) may fail to meet the high standard of care that is imposed on the appropriateness of investment advisers’ investment decision-making, and 4) specifically decline the obligation to act in a client’s best interests.

FINRA, the US self-regulatory organization for broker-dealers, also recently published a report after having discussions with member firms and others with respect to the use of “digital investment advice.” Although the report did not purport to create any new legal requirements or change any existing regulatory obligations for brokers, FINRA identified certain practices they believe brokers should consider when using digital tools. The report focused on digital tools (including robo-advice) used by firms to perform client services.

US investment advisers, through application of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and interpretations of US courts and regulators, owe a general fiduciary duty to their clients. With the recent proliferation and growth of complex, automated investment advice, regulators are becoming more focused on the use of such tools in the context of existing regulatory and fiduciary obligations.

The MSD policy statement can be found here and the FINRA report can be found here.