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.
Mondial | Publication | July 16, 2020
In response to the national security law introduced in Hong Kong on June 30, 2020, US President Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act (Act) into law on July 14, 2020. The Act introduces property- and visa-blocking sanctions on foreign persons who have “materially contributed” to China’s recent actions in Hong Kong (Material Contributors), as well as a variety of sanctions on foreign financial institutions who “knowingly conduct significant transactions” with such persons.
We explain the entities targeted by the Act and its impact in further detail below.
The impact on Material Contributors
The Act requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to submit a report to Congress identifying foreign individuals and entities who have “materially contributed to the failure of the Government of China to meet its obligations under the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law”. While this appears intended to target the Chinese officials behind Hong Kong’s new national security law, many other individuals and entities could also be considered to be Material Contributors, as the Act defines material contribution generally as any action that reduces the autonomy of Hong Kong or prevents the people of Hong Kong from enjoying certain rights and democratic processes.
Persons who are identified in the report will be subject to mandatory sanctions, such as asset freezes and travel and visa restrictions, which must be imposed within a year of identification. The first report must be submitted within 90 days of the enactment of the Act, and must be updated in an ongoing manner and resubmitted annually.
The impact on financial institutions
The Act is also designed to target financial institutions assisting Material Contributors. Although the accompanying political rhetoric suggested that the Act would primarily target Chinese state-owned banks, the reach of the Act is potentially much wider, as it requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to submit a separate report to Congress identifying any foreign financial institution that “knowingly conducts a significant transaction” with a Material Contributor.
This wording enables OFAC to target a wide range of financial institutions, not least because the term “significant transaction” is not defined in the Act. It is anticipated that, in this regard, OFAC will adopt the same approach used under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (in relation to Russia), namely that a “transaction” will include any transfer of value, and its “significance” will be judged using a multi-factor test, taking into account, among other things, the transaction’s size, nature and impact on the Act’s statutory objectives. Additionally, the term “financial institution” is defined unusually broadly and extends beyond commercial and investment banks to insurance companies, currency exchanges and even travel agencies and car dealers.
Furthermore, there is no requirement that the financial institution have knowledge of the fact that the counterparty has been identified as a Material Contributor, as the term “knowingly” refers only to actual knowledge of the conduct of the transaction. And while it is likely that the “significant transaction” must take place after the counterparty has been identified as a Material Contributor, the text of the Act is not entirely clear in this respect.
Any foreign financial institution so identified (Identified Institution) would be subject to a menu of 10 mandatory sanctions (Menu), including prohibitions on US financial institutions making loans to the Identified Institution, prohibitions on transfers or payments between financial institutions involving the Identified Institution and a “US Nexus” (e.g. the US Dollar), as well as asset freezes. The Act requires the Menu to be phased in over time—within a year of identification, the President is required to impose at least five of the 10 mandatory sanctions on the Identified Institution and, within two years of identification, the entire Menu.
Conclusion
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