Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau.

The law is stated as at July 2006, before the enactment of the United Kingdom Fraud Act 2006. This thesis covers ‘serious’ corporate fraud and not commonplace petty fraud. I examined corporate fraud, concentrating on a comparison of the United Kingdom’s fraud with that of two civil law neighbouring countries, France and Germany, both with high financial activity, and also with a few American states, common law systems like the English legal system. The objective of this study is to identify ways of combating fraud in the UK by enquiry and discovery as to how fraud occurs and how the two different legal systems- civil and common law- treat fraud. The study reveals factors contributing to corporate fraud and recommendations for combating corporate fraud. Exploring the concept of fraud, my findings are that corporate fraud is facing exponential increase, with the UK government beginning to acknowledge this. I examined the agencies that combat fraud in the states mentioned above including the UK. Although the UK is party to an impressive number of Treaties, which help to combat fraud, treaties dealing with terrorism, drug dealing, money laundering, and other organised crime, corporate fraud is still a serious problem. The conclusions can be summarised as follows. The UK could learn much from the French legal system and the way France prosecutes corporations as per Articles 132, 222, 432, 433 and 435 of the French Penal Code. Germany’s Criminal Code is equally comprehensive in its prescriptive definitions of frauds including corporate frauds as in chapters 8, 19, 2, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 30 of the German Criminal Code. The new UK’s non-codified general, core, offence of fraud, with fraud offences maintained in other statutes such as the Companies Act, likens the UK fraud regulation closer to the US’s with its Criminal Code and other statutes that deal with fraud. The UK has not yet caught up with the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 as regards electronic business systems’ rules. The USA’s federal prescriptive code for fraud offences is akin to the French and German criminal codes and these are found in US Federal Penal Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, sections 1020 to 1084. Legal privilege is fraud exempt in the United but not in France and Germany. Legal privilege in the UK is partly exempt for SFO investigations and mandatory money laundering reporting.

Univ., Diss.--Mainz, 2003. / Literaturverz. S. XV - XXXV.

La notion fiscale d’abus de droit est un sujet d’une grande actualité qui intéresse tous les acteurs de la vie des affaires. On parle de plus en plus dans nos médias, dans nos facultés, dans nos entreprises, comme dans nos foyers des termes d’optimisation fiscale, d’évasion fiscale, de fraude fiscale et d’abus de droit. De plus, l’actualité est marquée par la lutte contre les pratiques fiscales abusives des contribuables qui s’est opérée à divers échelons. Au niveau international avec l'initiative de l'OCDE et du G20 contre l'érosion de la base taxable et le transfert de bénéfices dit BEPS, au plan communautaire, avec l'action du législateur européen, de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne et de la Commission européenne, et à l’échelon interne par les travaux du parlement. En droit interne, l’article 100 du projet de loi de finances pour 2014 prévoyait que l’adverbe « exclusivement », qui représente l’un des critères caractéristiques de l’abus de droit par fraude à la loi, soit remplacé par l’adverbe « principalement » fiscal dans l’article L. 64 du Livre des procédures fiscales. Le Conseil constitutionnel a censuré cette tentative du législateur dans une décision en date du 29 décembre 2013. Cette décision de censure pourrait être interprétée comme demandant au législateur de définir avec une plus grande précision le motif « principalement » fiscal, mais de manière générale de définir la notion même d’abus de droit. Rappelons que l’article L. 64 du LPF siège de la notion française d’abus de droit, ne définit pas l’abus de droit stricto-sensu, mais plutôt la procédure d’abus de droit. Il ne nous dit pas "qu'est ce que l'abus de droit", mais plutôt "comment l'abus de droit". Si les implications constitutionnelles ont été rapidement connues, les soubassements théoriques méritent d’être approfondis, notamment dans une approche comparative, et le cas échéant européenne et internationale de la question. Il s’est donc agit de mettre en lumière la notion fiscale d’abus de droit, à savoir son caractère saisissable ou non. Cette démonstration conduit nécessairement à répondre à plusieurs interrogations. Notamment, existe-t-il une notion unique et unanimement admise d'abus de droit ? En quoi la notion d’abus de droit est-elle insaisissable? La notion d’abus de droit se doit-elle d’être insaisissable? S’obliger à trouver une notion commune d’abus de droit, n’est-ce pas remettre en cause la logique intrinsèque de l’institution et lui retirer toute efficacité ? Faut-il privilégier une approche commune aux Etats-Membres de l’UE ? Une approche internationale de la question est-elle réalisable ? Quid de l’articulation des dispositifs anti-abus entre eux. C’est entre autre ces différentes interrogations qui ont été évoquées dans les développements de la thèse. / The fiscal notion of law abuse is a high profil topic which interests all business life actors. We hear more and more in our Medias, schools, businesses, as in our homes, such terms as tax optimization, tax evasion, tax fraud and abuse of law. In addition, news is marked by the fight against abusive tax practices of taxpayers that has taken place at various levels. Internationally, with the initiative of the OECD and G20 in the BEPS project. At EU level, with the measures taken by the European Commission and, at national level, by the work of parliament.In national law, recently, the article 100 of the Finance Bill for 2014, as passed by the Parliament, provided that the word "exclusively" which represents one of the characteristic criteria of abuse of law by legal fraud, be replaced with the word "primarily" tax in the article L. 64 of Tax Procedure Handbook.The Constitutional Council censured this legislative attempt in a decision dated December 29, 2013 on two grounds: It held that that article was against the objective of a constitutional value of accessibility and intelligibility of the law, and the principle of legality of offenses and penalties.This censorship decision is a decision which could be interpreted as asking to the Legislator to define with greater precision what it meant by "primarily" fiscal motive, but also generally define the concept of abuse of law in tax matters.It should be recalled in this regard that article L. 64 of the Tax Procedure Handbook, heart of the French concept of abuse of law, does not define abuse of law in the strict sense, but rather the abuse of law procedure. If the constitutional implications were quickly known, the theoretical foundations merit further examination, including a comparative approach, and if applicable European and international questions.It is therefore to clarify the tax concept of abuse of law, defining the abuse of law, namely its comprehensible aspect or not. It is the choice of that last idea that we made, namely to demonstrate the elusiveness of a notion of abuse of law.This demonstration leads necessarily to answer several questions. In particular, does a unique unanimously accepted concept exist? To what extend the notion of abuse of law cannot be found? Should the concept of abuse of law be elusive? If forced to find a common concept of abuse of law, isn’t it a challenge the institution’s logic and a withdraw of its efficiently? Should priority be given to a common approach of abuse of law definition by the European Union Member-States? What about the articulation of anti-abuse devices between them. It is among others the questions that have been raised in the developments.

O presente trabalho tem por objeto o estudo do instituto da incorporação de ações. Para tanto, será analisado, (i) no primeiro capítulo, o regime legal vigente e sua natureza jurídica, apresentando-se as diferenças em relação à operação de incorporação de sociedade, fazendo inclusive um contraste com o direito norte-americano; (ii) no segundo capítulo, a proteção dos acionistas minoritários em operações de incorporação de controlada e eventual impedimento de voto do acionista controlador, analisando-se os recentes pareceres de orientação emitidos pela CVM; (iii) no terceiro capítulo, o estudo do instituto do tag along e do fechamento de capital e necessidade de realização de oferta pública em operações de incorporação de ações que impliquem transferência de controle ou cancelamento de registro de companhia aberta, à luz das últimas operações realizadas no mercado; (iv) no quarto capítulo, a discussão dos principais precedentes nos quais a CVM decidiu impor restrições ou impedir a realização de operações de incorporação de ações por entender ter havido um tratamento não equitativo entre os acionistas minoritários e controladores, com o objetivo de demonstrar a alteração do comportamento do órgão regulador no decorrer dos anos / The present work aims the study of the stock-for-stock exchange transactions (incorporação de ações). For this purpose, it will be examined (i) in the first part, the current legal regime and legal nature, contemplating differences with the statutory merger (incorporação de sociedade), including a comparison with the US law, (ii) in the second part, the protection of minority shareholders in the context of parent-subsidiary mergers and possible exclusion from voting of the controlling shareholder, taking into account the recent opinions issued by the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), (iii) in the third part, the study of the tag along rights and the regulation for delisting companies and the need to conduct a tender offer in stock-for-stock exchange transactions involving transfer of control or delisting of a publicly-held company in light of recent transactions, and (iv) in the fourth part, the discussion of the key precedents on which CVM has decided to impose restrictions or prevent the conduct of stock-for-stock transaction under the understanding that there was inequitable treatment of minority shareholders and controlling shareholders, in order to demonstrate the change of the CVMs understanding over the years.

O presente trabalho tem por objeto o estudo do instituto da incorporação de ações. Para tanto, será analisado, (i) no primeiro capítulo, o regime legal vigente e sua natureza jurídica, apresentando-se as diferenças em relação à operação de incorporação de sociedade, fazendo inclusive um contraste com o direito norte-americano; (ii) no segundo capítulo, a proteção dos acionistas minoritários em operações de incorporação de controlada e eventual impedimento de voto do acionista controlador, analisando-se os recentes pareceres de orientação emitidos pela CVM; (iii) no terceiro capítulo, o estudo do instituto do tag along e do fechamento de capital e necessidade de realização de oferta pública em operações de incorporação de ações que impliquem transferência de controle ou cancelamento de registro de companhia aberta, à luz das últimas operações realizadas no mercado; (iv) no quarto capítulo, a discussão dos principais precedentes nos quais a CVM decidiu impor restrições ou impedir a realização de operações de incorporação de ações por entender ter havido um tratamento não equitativo entre os acionistas minoritários e controladores, com o objetivo de demonstrar a alteração do comportamento do órgão regulador no decorrer dos anos / The present work aims the study of the stock-for-stock exchange transactions (incorporação de ações). For this purpose, it will be examined (i) in the first part, the current legal regime and legal nature, contemplating differences with the statutory merger (incorporação de sociedade), including a comparison with the US law, (ii) in the second part, the protection of minority shareholders in the context of parent-subsidiary mergers and possible exclusion from voting of the controlling shareholder, taking into account the recent opinions issued by the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), (iii) in the third part, the study of the tag along rights and the regulation for delisting companies and the need to conduct a tender offer in stock-for-stock exchange transactions involving transfer of control or delisting of a publicly-held company in light of recent transactions, and (iv) in the fourth part, the discussion of the key precedents on which CVM has decided to impose restrictions or prevent the conduct of stock-for-stock transaction under the understanding that there was inequitable treatment of minority shareholders and controlling shareholders, in order to demonstrate the change of the CVMs understanding over the years.