Australia – Page 6 – FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch

Will there be an Asia Pacific ‘FinTech Passport’ in the future?

Dec 14 2016

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Chairman, Greg Medcraft, has discussed cooperation between FinTech regulators at the recent International Institute of Finance Chief Risk Officer Forum in Singapore.

The Chairman noted “because the internet knows no boundaries” cooperation and collaboration between regulators is critical and developing responses to FinTech should not be done in isolation. The Chairman then highlighted the following steps required for cooperation.

1. Sharing information

Regulators in Australia, UK, Singapore, Canada, Kenya, South Korea, Switzerland and India have entered into various cooperation agreements with other regulators to share information about FinTech developments and emerging trends in their markets. Many of the cooperation agreements also allow FinTech businesses to access Innovation Hubs in other jurisdictions. The Chairman noted that ASIC was also informally in regular contact with regulators in the US and Europe.

2. Harmonisation

While ideally regulators would work towards harmonising their regulatory responses and approaches, it was acknowledged that this will be a challenge due to competition between countries to attract FinTech businesses. The Chairman raised the possibility of introducing a “fintech passport” which could ease entry into other jurisdictions for businesses. Another possible solution raised was to develop “equivalence processes” around regulation.

Regulating digital advice in Australia

Dec 13 2016

By Jim Bulling and Meera Sivanathan

Recently, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) presented its views on regulating digital advice at a Financial Services Council event. The discussion provided an overview of the regulator’s priorities in this space. Below are a few key takeaways relevant to those currently providing or seeking to provide digital advice:

Clear disclosure: ASIC would like to see clear disclosure in relation to the services and advice a consumer may expect to receive and express statements regarding advice that the consumer will not receive. Consumers need to be able to easily identify what advice will and will not be provided to them.
Testing consumer knowledge: ASIC suggests ‘testing’ potential consumers in the following ways:

With respect to consumer protection – implementing methods to test consumer understanding of the scope of advice provided – that is, what advice will and will not be provided. Such protocols may alleviate any risk that a potential consumer is unaware of the scope of advice to be provided.
With respect to better understanding your client, implementing ‘quizzes’ to gauge the consumer’s level of knowledge regarding different products, which may be offered. This could give the digital advice provider an idea of the level of knowledge and understanding that the consumer may possess in relation to complex products.

Record keeping: Companies providing digital advice should have appropriate and robust algorithm record keeping systems. Ideally, the systems in place should control, monitor, review and effectively record any changes made to the algorithms. Digital advice providers should be able to substantiate the reasons for updating the algorithm, which underpins the advice given. Some examples of possible record keeping measures relating to algorithms include automated reports which can be downloaded and provided to ASIC if requested or snap shots in time.

UK Department for International Trade announces FinTech mission to Australia

Dec 07 2016

By Jonathan Lawrence

The UK’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has announced its first FinTech mission to Australia taking place in Sydney and Melbourne from 20-23 March 2017.

DIT will select 8-12 UK FinTech companies to participate in the mission to Australia where they will participate in a programme of events and activities. Delegates will spend two days in Sydney, two days in Melbourne and an optional fifth day in Australia or New Zealand. The delegates will meet with and pitch to Australian financial institutions and venture capital firms, visit FinTech hubs, meet the regulator and government ministers, network with the Australian FinTech community, hear from UK FinTech companies that have found success in Australia and schedule meetings with potential customers and partners.

British Consul General in Sydney and Director-General UK Trade & Investment for Australia and New Zealand, Nick McInnes said: “We are very pleased to have the opportunity to bring a group of UK FinTech companies to Australia for the first time and introduce them to the local market. While FinTech in Australia is still in relatively early stages, the industry is growing rapidly and there are many opportunities for UK companies to set up, collaborate and succeed. The FinTech market in Australia is forecast to grow to over AU $4 billion by 2020, of which AU $1 billion will be completely new added value to the Australian economy, so now is an ideal time for UK companies to enter the market”.

For more details, please click here.

Australian and Kenyan financial regulators sign co-operation agreement

Nov 16 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Capital Markets Authority of Kenya (CMA) have signed a co-operation agreement to share information about innovation in their markets including:

emerging market trends and developments; and
regulatory issues relating to innovation in financial services.

Kenya was an early adopter of FinTech with the launch of mobile phone based payments system M-Pesa back in 2007. It has since become one of the leading FinTech countries in Africa particularly in payments and credit innovations.

FinTech in Canada – Towards Leading the Global Financial Technology Transition

Nov 15 2016

By Robert Zinn and Jim Bulling

The Digital Finance Institute is a prestigious Canadian-based think tank for FinTech established in 2013 with a mandate to address the balance of innovation and regulation; support initiatives for financial inclusion; and advocate for diversity in FinTech. The Digital Finance Institute also promotes FinTech in Canada through conferences and international alliances; the creation of Canada’s national FinTech Awards; the FinTech Cup, the new university FinTech startup challenge and by preparing research papers on FinTech.

Robert Zinn and Jim Bulling contributed insight and content to the U.S. and Australian FinTech ecyosystems.

To read this publication, click here.

Possible AML implications for FinTechs

Nov 07 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) is encouraging FinTech businesses to make contact about Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime (AML/CTF regime) and how it may affect their business. A dedicated online contact form has been established which allows enquiries to be made directly to the Policy and Guidance team.

Businesses which provide a ‘designated service’ are reporting entities which have obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. There are a number of designated services that a FinTech business may provide including making loans, issuing a stored value card, giving effect to remittance arrangements, issuing interests in a managed investment scheme and (in the capacity of an Australian financial services licensee) arranging for a person to receive a designated service.

Currently activities relating to digital currencies such as BitCoin are not designated services. However, in October 2016 the Attorney General’s Department released its draft project plan for the implementation of the recommendations from the statutory review of the AML/CTF regime. Under the project plan, legislative proposals to regulate digital currencies under the AML/CTF regime will be developed by the first half of 2017.

Regulators in Australia and Ontario sign co-operation agreement

Nov 07 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) have signed a co-operation agreement to promote FinTech innovation. The agreement will make expansion into the Australian and Ontarian markets easier for growing FinTech businesses.

A referral mechanism has been created under the new agreement which allows ASIC to refer Australian FinTech businesses wanting to enter the Ontarian market to OSC and vice versa. Referred businesses will receive support to understand the market’s regulatory framework and how it applies to them from dedicated staff at the relevant regulator. To qualify for support FinTech businesses will need to meet the eligibility criteria of their home regulator including being a new or early stage FinTech business which has an innovation or product which will likely provide benefits to investors and consumers.

Both ASIC and OSC have established internal teams to assist FinTech businesses with their regulatory obligations and encourage development of the FinTech industry. ASIC’s Innovation Hub was established in April 2015 and OSC recently established LaunchPad in October 2016.

ASIC and OCS have also committed to share information about emerging market trends and potential impacts on regulation.

ASIC has entered into similar co-operation agreements with the UK Financial Conduct Authority and the Monetary Authority of Singapore amongst others this year.

Developing smart contracts for the financial services industry

Nov 03 2016

By Jim Bulling and Meera Sivanathan

With promised benefits such as risk reduction (through blockchain execution), cost reduction and enhanced efficiencies it is easy to understand why the use of smart contracts in the financial services industry is highly anticipated.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has successfully used smart contracts in relation to trade finance and the ASX is considering there use in clearing and settlement systems. However, before smart contracts can operate successfully, a few factors must still be addressed:

Immutability: ‘Immutability’ is a key feature of a smart contract stored on a blockchain. A smart contract’s program code does not change once stored on the blockchain – in essence it is permanent. While immutability creates certainty in a smart contract, it does not allow for flexibility. Methods to modify and correct terms of smart contracts are being developed.
Due diligence and accuracy: One risk presented by smart contracts is the possibility that the terms and conditions agreed upon by the contracting parties are not accurately programmed in the smart contract code. In this respect, it is likely that the due diligence process for smart contracts may evolve to be collaboration between both legal and IT professionals.
Legal recognition and framework: In Australia, there is uncertainty about enforceability of a smart contract. A hybrid model using smart contracts for verification and performance combined with using traditional contracts to record the terms and conditions of an arrangement could be a possible solution.
Contractual confidentiality: While smart contracts on a public blockchain generally preserve the anonymity of the contracting parties, it is possible that terms of the smart contract, including those that are highly confidential may be accessible to third parties. Possible solutions, such as the use of private blockchains, are currently being explored.

What happens when electronic signatures are affixed without authority?

Nov 03 2016

By Jim Bulling and Julia Baldi

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision, Williams Group Australia Pty Ltd v Crocker [2016] NSWCA 265, found that a personal guarantee was not enforceable against an individual where the electronic signature had been affixed without the knowledge or authority of the individual.

This finding applied notwithstanding that the electronic signature was a ‘genuine’ signature uploaded to the relevant execution system “HelloFax”, and that Williams Group Australia Pty, who sought to rely on the signature, had no knowledge of any impropriety with respect to the affixation of the signature.

The Court appeared to approve existing authority which provided the placement of a ‘genuine’ electronic signature on a document without any authority would likely amount to forgery at common law. Such a forgery could not be ratified, and would render the contract void.

The case is a reminder for any person seeking to rely on electronically signed documents to have in place adequate steps and protections to ensure all electronic signatures have been affixed with proper authority. Even a ‘genuine’ electronic signature may be unenforceable against an individual if it is affixed without proper authority.

More regulatory sandboxes

Oct 26 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) has released details of the framework for Malaysia’s regulatory sandbox. The finalisation of the framework follows a consultation which began in July.

Under the sandbox framework BNM may consider granting regulatory exemptions to applicants for the purpose of testing an innovative product, service or solution for a period of up to 12 months.

Applicants wishing to apply for the sandbox should have innovations which are ready for testing and have the potential to:

improve the accessibility, efficiency, security and quality of financial services;
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of Malaysian financial institutions’ management of risks; or
address gaps in or open up new opportunities for financing or investments in the Malaysian economy.

Tag:Australia