Publication
La Cour suprême du Canada tranche : les cadres ne pourront se syndiquer au Québec
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Royaume-Uni | Publication | juillet 2022
OFSI’s existing power to impose civil monetary penalties derives from the Policing and Crime Act 2017, and enables it to levy penalties against ‘persons’ (including natural persons, legal persons, bodies and entities) that breach a prohibition or fail to comply with an obligation, that is imposed by or under financial sanctions legislation. In the case of individuals, OFSI can take action against such persons both in their personal capacity (i.e. where the individual themselves breaches a prohibition or fails to comply with an obligation) and, in the case of ‘officers of a body’1, for breaches or failures by their relevant body corporate or unincorporated association that took place with the consent or connivance of the officer or which was attributable to any neglect on the part of the officer.
Previously OFSI could impose such civil monetary penalties only if it was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that:
(a) the person had breached a prohibition, or failed to comply with an obligation, that is imposed by or under financial sanctions legislation, and
(b) the person knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that the person was in breach of the prohibition or (as the case may be) had failed to comply with the obligation.
The Act removed limb (b) above, and OFSI is now able to impose civil monetary penalties on a ‘strict liability’ basis (i.e. to impose a civil monetary penalty, OFSI only needs to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a breach of financial sanctions occurred, not whether or not the person had knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect that such a breach had occurred). However, as set out in updated guidance (see OFSI enforcement guidance), the question of knowledge and suspicion remains relevant as OFSI will consider whether a person “knew or suspected that their conduct amounted to a breach” when assessing the severity of the breach and determining a “proportionate” response to enforcement.
Notwithstanding that OFSI has retained “knowledge or suspicion” as a case factor, the introduction of a strict liability offence significantly expands the scope for sanctions enforcement in the UK. It has also created legal complexity, not least because the underlying provisions of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the Regulations) have not similarly been updated to remove concepts of knowledge and / or reasonable cause to suspect. The effect of this is that, to be considered to have breached the asset freeze restriction, a person (“A”) will need to have known or have reasonable cause to suspect that they were dealing with funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by a designated person. However, OFSI has the power to impose a monetary penalty if A dealt with funds or economic resources that were owned, held or controlled by a designated person, even if A did not know or have reasonable cause to suspect that was the case. Added complexity arises when considering how this strict liability impacts the potential exposure that officers of a body corporate or unincorporated association might have for breach or failure by such firms. While OFSI does acknowledge in its updated guidance that it is possible for a mistake to cause a breach, it notes that even without the knowledge that the action would be a breach or any reasonable cause to suspect this, the matter would still meet the legal standard to impose a monetary penalty (subject to all relevant factors and the public interest).
It remains to be seen whether further guidance will be published by OFSI on how it views the strict liability test under the Act interplaying with the underlying sanctions restrictions in the Regulations, and in particular what impact it may have for individuals / officers, or whether the market will need to await the outcome of enforcement actions to learn how these legal complexities will apply in practice.
Publication
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Publication
Le budget 2024 propose d’élargir la portée de certains pouvoirs permettant à l’ARC de demander des renseignements aux contribuables tout en prévoyant de nouvelles conséquences pour les contribuables contrevenants.
Publication
L'impôt minimum de remplacement (IMR) est un impôt sur le revenu additionnel prévu dans la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada) (la « Loi ») auquel sont assujettis les particuliers et certaines fiducies qui pourraient autrement avoir recours à certaines déductions et exemptions et à certains crédits pour réduire leur impôt sur le revenu fédéral canadien régulier.
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023