Anti-forestalling meaning

Checklist The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), a part of HM Treasury, is responsible for communicating, implementing and enforcing financial sanctions in the UK. It also holds powers to grant licences that permit an activity or transaction which would otherwise be prohibited under the UK financial sanctions regime. OFSI may only issue licences connected to financial sanctions. If your application concerns a different sanction, such as trade or immigration, you must send it to the appropriate Department. See further Practice Note: Understanding the financial sanctions regime. This Checklist brings together the requirements for applying to OFSI for a financial sanctions licence, alongside recommendations to help make your application faster and easier. These are drawn from multiple sources, including the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018) and regulations made under it, various OFSI guidance materials, and guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). This Checklist also signposts relevant content to support compliance with these requirements and suggestions. A section is provided for you to indicate completion...

This timeline charts activity from 1 January 2024 onwards concerning the EU-facing legal and supervisory frameworks for anti-money laundering (AML), counter-terrorist financing (CTF) and counter‑proliferation financing (CPF) within the financial services sector. It traces both milestones and roll-out of the European AML, CTF and CPF rulebook. It also tracks cross-border initiatives in AML/CTF/CPF from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), IOSCO, the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and the Wolfsberg Group. For added detail on the EU AML/CTF regime, consult the Financial crime and sanctions (EU Law)—overview, including Practice Notes on AMLA—direct oversight of qualifying financial services firms, the EU Sixth Money Laundering Directive (MLD6) and the EU Recast Second Wire Transfer Regulation (Recast WTR2) on cryptoasset transfers... 2026 16 March 2026 — AMLA — AMLA starts a data collection exercise to test risk assessment models. AMLA has issued the reporting package for this data collection and testing exercise...

Within this Checklist, the table outlines the points to bear in mind about follower notices and accelerated payment notices (APNs)/partner payment notices (PPNs)...

This Flowchart It outlines the competent authorities tasked with implementing UN and UK sanctions pursuant to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018) within the United Kingdom jurisdiction...

Does the business maintain a due diligence policy that covers every party to a commercial relationship, including the company’s supply chain, agents, joint ventures, intermediaries, or any comparable or similar arrangement? Has this policy been rolled out and properly enforced in all of the markets in which the company trades and operates? See Precedent: Anti‑bribery and corruption policy The company must know who it is engaging with to carry out an effective risk assessment. It should use a due diligence information form that the contracting party completes and signs, so the due diligence information supplied can be reviewed and assessed by the company...

Is the risk assessment overseen at the highest level in the company? To demonstrate commitment from the top to anti-bribery controls, a company officer or a member of the Board should be designated to supervise the anti-bribery and risk assessment process. See Practice Note: Anti-bribery and corruption policy. Consider: Do senior management or the Board hold ultimate responsibility for the risk assessment process? Have duties for anti-bribery and corruption been delegated; if so, to whom and on what basis? How is this recorded? Has the company allocated bribery risk assessment to employees (for example, a compliance officer) who report directly to the Board? How has the company ensured the risk assessment is fit for purpose and able to withstand scrutiny?...

Nick Ephgrave Nick Ephgrave acknowledged it was no secret that the SFO has witnessed a slight drop-off in the number of companies approaching the specialist anti-corruption body with suspected fraud and bribery within their organisation. To address this, the SFO intends to invest further in covert intelligence-gathering so it can better understand what is happening in corporate settings and, in turn, either pursue targets or encourage them to come forward, he told Law360 and reporters from other news outlets. Ephgrave said he wants to be more in control of the referrals received by an agency that largely depends on businesses volunteering information, with the aim of invigorating and provoking self-reporting by companies. He added that he is really seeking to drive up the number of corporates the SFO deals with, whether through self-reporting supported by revised corporate guidance, via intelligence from whistleblowers, or by relying on good old-fashioned covert policing techniques such as surveillance, the deployment of undercover officers, and the use of informants...

Bayerische Landesbank and another v Ruschemalliance LLC [2024] EWHC 1822 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? In keeping with comparable determinations, this judgment succinctly sets out the jurisdictional thresholds and principal considerations the court applies when evaluating applications for anti‑suit injunctions. It underscores the judiciary’s practical bent and operates as a constructive illustration of inter‑court co‑ordination, projecting a clear signal where numerous contests flow from identical underlying events, even though such matters are dealt with at varying moments and tiers of the court structure. In sum, the outcome reasserts the English courts’ steadfast commitment to upholding arbitration, including in circumstances where the arbitral seat is situated in a foreign state. What was the background? In 2021, the defendant, Ruschemalliance LLC (“RCA”), a Russian entity, entered into two Engineering, Procurement and Construction agreements for the development of liquefied natural gas and gas processing plant facilities in Russia. The obligations owed by RCA’s counterparties, the German companies Linde GmbH and Renaissance Heavy Industries LLC (together,...

On 6 March 2025, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published a consultation paper setting out draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS). These draft RTS were issued following the European Commission’s (Commission) Call for Advice. They constitute a component of the European Union’s (EU) Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CTF) package, which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 19 June 2024...

Stop Press : From accounting periods starting on or after 1 January 2026, the Diverted Profits Tax is superseded by the unassessed transfer pricing profits rules. This Practice Note, alongside Transactions in UK land—tax rules, examines the anti-avoidance provisions aimed at countering attempts to sidestep tax on income, profits or gains connected with arrangements concerning, or trades of dealing in, land. The main anti-avoidance measure seeks to treat gains of a capital character realised on the disposal of land as income, bringing them within income tax or corporation tax. Further detail appears in Practice Note: Transactions in UK land—tax rules. From 5 July 2016 these rules superseded and expanded the former transactions in land rules (for information on prior rules, see Practice Note: Real estate—anti-avoidance: disposals of land and taxing capital gains as income (pre 5 July 2016) [Archived])...

The enterprise investment scheme (EIS) It is primarily intended to boost investment in smaller, higher‑risk trading companies by granting a range of tax reliefs to individual investors who acquire newly issued shares in such companies. The EIS rules are prescriptive and contain numerous conditions that must be satisfied, including those relating to: the individual investors the issued shares the issuing company This Practice Note centres on the conditions that apply to the individual investor. Those conditions are outlined in the context of the income tax relief afforded by Part 5 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). References to the equivalent capital gains tax (CGT) provisions are included where appropriate. For information on the remaining conditions, see the following Practice Notes: EIS—conditions for relief: issued shares, the funds raised and the arrangements in general EIS—conditions for relief: issuing company EIS—conditions for relief: qualifying trades For a summary of tax reliefs available...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the abandonment of the transaction on 13 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger review of Clariant’s intended purchase of the Kilfrost Group’s European aircraft de-icing fluid and rail de-icing fluid business. The deal presented a horizontal overlap in the supply of aircraft de-/anti-icing fluids. Latest developments On 13 June 2016, the CMA stated the investigation was cancelled after the parties chose to abandon the deal. On 10 June 2016, the parties had announced their decision to withdraw following the CMA’s provisional findings and the expectation that the transaction would have been prohibited. Parties Clariant AG: a Swiss-based speciality chemicals company, headquartered near Basle, operating in 150 countries worldwide. Kilfrost plc: a UK-based firm in Newcastle specialising in heating and cooling products. The target business is Kilfrost’s European aircraft de-icing fluid and rail de-icing fluid operations. Kilfrost’s...

As offerings become more technologically advanced and include integrated systems and features, assessing whether tying or bundling might be seen as anti-competitive grows more complex. This checklist is designed to help you weigh key competition law considerations before linking or packaging products. Always seek advice from [ insert, eg the legal team ] where indicated below, and if you have any queries or concerns... 1 Products and market Evaluate whether the items proposed for a bundle or tie are genuinely separate products. Can the products being bundled or tied be treated as distinct offerings? Yes — consult [ insert, eg the legal team ], as bundling may adversely affect suppliers of stand‑alone products and thus harm competition No — [Insert comments] Do other organisations in the market use bundling and tying?...

Behaviour red flags are situations that should prompt you to probe further. Though they can be hard to spot, many scenarios can indicate the presence of anti-competitive conduct. This awareness tool highlights potential competition law warning signs, indicators, traits or behaviours to be especially alert to at all times. Even a single red flag may suggest anti-competitive conduct. 1 Cartel behaviour Any attempt to fix prices. Any attempt to engage in bid-rigging. ...

The Schedule 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Schedule: Adequate Procedures – must be interpreted in line with BA 2010 and any guidance issued under it; Associated Person – means any or all of: (a) the officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and individuals Associated With a party (Associates); and (b) persons Associated With any of those Associates, in every instance engaged in carrying out services for, or on behalf of, that party, the Services, and/or this Agreement; and Associated With – where used: (a) in paragraph 2 and in relation to bribery, is to be construed in accordance with BA 2010 and guidance issued under it; (b) in paragraph 4 and regarding the facilitation of tax evasion, is to be construed in accordance with Part 3 of CFA 2017 and guidance issued under it; (c) in paragraph 5 and as regards fraud, is to be construed in accordance with Part 5 of ECCTA 2023 and guidance issued under it; BA 2010 – means the...

Please note, this Q&A deals exclusively with UK bribery legislation. Payment of commissions We refer you to Practice Note: How to identify when a commission might become a bribe, which explains that any commission involves providing a financial advantage, albeit it will not invariably amount to a bribe. The Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) adopts a wide view of what can constitute a bribe. It is characterised as a 'financial or other advantage' offered or received in a business setting, which amounts to, or induces, the improper performance of a relevant function or activity...

Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) provides: (1) A relevant commercial organisation (“C”) is guilty of an offence under this section if a person (“A”) associated with C offers a bribe to another person with the intention of: (a) securing or retaining business for C; or (b) securing or retaining an advantage in the conduct of C’s business. (2) However, it is a defence for C to prove that it had in place adequate procedures devised to prevent persons associated with C from carrying out such conduct. BA 2010, s 8 defines an associated person: (1) For the purposes of section 7, a person (“A”) is associated with C if (disregarding any bribe under consideration) A is a person who performs services for or on behalf of C. (2) The capacity in which A performs services for or on behalf of C does not matter. (3) Accordingly A may (for example) be C’s...