Technology is developing at a rapid pace. With high-speed data connectivity (5G), innovations are not likely to be curbed. New products, concepts and ideas are being introduced daily, with the sky as the limit.
Financial technology has seen the introduction of products which may seemingly pose a threat to the manner the conventional financial sector operates.
“The anonymity that online financial services provide poses risks to AMLA and KYC regulations as cybercriminals and money launderers may see FinTechs as instruments for financial crimes.”
~ Suits The C-Suite by Armando N Cajayon, Jr
AML/CFT is a self-compliance programme — it is the obligation of each reporting institution to comply, using its own method and policies. Materials that are being provided or made available are mere guidelines.
Are there grey areas that will give lawyers cause for concern?
The reality that the legal industry faces is that it is being burdened with foreseeing something that is not within its expertise. Is the burden justifiable? Will lawyers face additional challenges to be providers of financial intelligence? Can the compliance programme be simplified? Will it be part of the Bar’s continuing professional development programme?
Ignorance of the Publicity Rules has resulted in lawyers assuming that they cannot publicise their practice. Social media updates by their fellow colleagues are considered a disgrace to the profession.
Letterheads with awards printed on them, are regarded by some as unfair and causing disadvantage to others. Having a logo of legal firms on their vehicles, including passenger vehicles, is viewed as unusual advertisement.
Without reading and understanding the current laws and rulings, many have criticised and even condemned the Bar Council for not being progressive to ideas of opening up more areas for firms to publicise their practice.
What then, should the future look like in terms of publicising a legal firm? Come join us for a straightforward discussion on this long-ambiguous matter.
In Gulf Azov Shipping Co Ltd v Idisi [2004] EWCA Civ 292, Lord Phillips said that “public policy now recognises that it is desirable, in order to facilitate access to justice, that third parties should provide assistance designed to ensure that those who are involved in litigation have the benefit of legal representation”.
What is the availability of litigation funding in Malaysia? A right is illusory when it cannot be exercised or enforced. If such inability is by reason of lack of financial means, should the party be funded in return for a share in the remedy obtained? Is Malaysia ready to do away with the rather antiquated restrictions of champerty and maintenance in line with the United Kingdom, USA and South Africa? Shouldn’t parties have recourse to litigation funding to ensure a level playing field besides equality of arms to enjoy their rights provided by the rule of law?
In this regard, Bar Council Malaysia has approved a regulated conditional fee regime based on the South African model, but is litigation funding much more than this?