Warning Savings protection Warning The AMF and the ACPR warn the public against the activities of several entities offering investments in Forex and in crypto-assets derivatives in France without being authorized to do so

1.1 Fri 29/10/2021 - 12:00 Reference texts article 223-1 du règlement général de l’AMF Book 1 Recommendation Closing of the 2021 financial statements and financial statements examination work Closing of the 2021…

Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SECO) hat eine Änderung der Liste der sanktionierten natürlichen Personen, Unternehmen und Organisationen der Verordnung vom 21. März 2025 über Massnahmen gegenüber Personen und Organisationen, die mit den Organisationen ISIL (Da'esh) und Al-Kaida in Verbindung stehen (SR 946.231.08), publiziert. 

At this year’s Americas Lodging Investment Summit (ALIS) in Los Angeles, the sun was out, the discussions outside of the Starbucks at the JW Marriott were upbeat, and everyone was looking for their next deal....By: Goodwin

Good morning and welcome to Central Bank of Ireland. Thank you for joining us for this inaugural gathering of the Savings and Investment Forum. I want to extend a particular welcome to the Tánaiste.Today marks an important milestone.  The Department of Finance's 2024 Funds Review recognised the importance of enabling more retail investment in Ireland.  It recommended establishing this Forum to address that challenge and today provides a timely opportunity to do so.Let me place this initiative within a broader European context. Last week I spoke about the fact that European households and institutions collectively held substantial savings.  In the euro area alone, the stock of deposits is nearing €10 trillion.  Yet investment has not kept pace with the growth in savings.  European Central Bank survey data shows that only a fraction of EU household wealth is held directly in capital markets instruments.  This matters because in order to fund the investments our European economies need – be that for innovation, infrastructure, or the digital and green transitions – we need strong capital markets to complement a strong banking sector in financing a more productive and competitive Europe.The Savings and Investments Union agenda speaks directly to this challenge.  It recognises that unlocking retail participation in capital markets is not merely a financial services matter. It is central to Europe's economic and financial resilience and the welfare of our people.Ireland's position within this narrative is distinctive.  Irish household wealth is heavily concentrated in housing, accounting for roughly two-thirds of total net wealth.  Where households do hold financial assets, these are indirectly in occupational pensions and life insurance and, most importantly, approximately €170 billion sit idle in deposits in Irish banks.The result is that Irish retail participation in financial markets is very limited, even compared to our European peers.  As outlined in our research on retail investor participation, published at the end of last year, Irish households hold just 2.3% of their financial assets in direct investments such as listed equity and debt securities, compared to the EU average of 7.5%.  And Ireland has one of the lowest levels of direct holdings in investment funds in the EU at just above 2.2%, despite being an international financial hub and one of the largest global centres for investment funds, with over €5 trillion in assets under management domiciled here.This low level of direct retail participation reflects a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and structural factors that have shaped how we think about savings and investment.  Yet our research shows that Irish consumers are motivated to invest. They recognise the importance of securing retirement income, providing for their children's futures, and building long-term financial security. However, significant barriers persist.  Psychological and emotional barriers are deeply rooted, perhaps in Ireland's economic history and the financial crises we have experienced. There are knowledge and understanding gaps, including a perception that investment is complex, the preserve of the wealthy and a sense that the investment ecosystem does not serve the full spectrum of potential retail investors.Given the complexity of the issue, no one intervention is enough and it probably requires multiple and sustained efforts from many stakeholders. From my point of view there are three important ingredients to enhancing retail investor participation in Ireland: first, the availability of suitable products; second, that retail investors have the financial education, autonomy and advice to invest; and, third, that retail investors are protected when they do invest, with strong consumer protection frameworks and firms securing their interests.I am heartened by the efforts of policymakers and regulators – domestically and in the rest of Europe – to progress and reinforce these ingredients.  The Central Bank supports efforts to reduce barriers to retail investment.  Products to encourage investment need to be flexible enough to allow product producers to design bespoke offerings that meet genuine consumer needs whilst maintaining sufficient standardisation to ensure comparability and reduce administrative burdens.In my view such endeavours should be accompanied by sustained efforts to improve financial literacy and investment knowledge.  Consumers need to understand not only what they are investing in, but how any investment aligns with their financial goals, and what risks they are taking.  In short, I suggest it must be part of a broader effort to build financial literacy, foster a positive investment culture, and restore public trust and confidence in capital markets.The Government's National Financial Literacy Strategy, launched just over a year ago, recognises this challenge and commits to building the financial capability of Irish citizens. That strategy will be essential to the success of any initiative aimed at broadening retail participation.  Research has shown that financial literacy levels can play an important role in shaping household financial behaviour.  The Central Bank is committed to playing its part, including through our consumer protection framework and supervisory engagements. This Forum is the right place to work through these considerations, bringing together policymakers, regulators, consumer advocates, and industry participants, all of whom have a role to play in contributing to this initiative. We will play our role in supporting the Savings and Investments Union agenda, in line with our mission to ensure the financial system is operating in the best interests of consumers and the wider economy.  For me this means that the regulatory framework supports retail investment, that consumer protections are robust and that trust and confidence in capital markets are restored and sustained.  And, to that end, we are committed to working collaboratively with our colleagues at home and abroad.I am sure today’s discussions will make a valuable contribution to the delivery of better outcomes for our citizens and our economy. Thank you. 

31 March 2026 The International Capital Market Association (ICMA), with support from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), is pleased to announce the publication of the sixth edition of its report, The Asian International Bond Markets: Issuance Trends and Dynamics.The report provides a data-driven overview of how Asian issuers are accessing international bond markets, examining issuance trends by jurisdiction, currency, tenor, debut issuance and sustainable bonds. This latest edition is based on the full-year 2025 dataset and offers a detailed picture of the forces shaping Asia’s international funding landscape.Key findings Latest issuance trends: Asian international bond issuance rose to USD527 billion in 2025, up 14% year on year, continuing the recovery from the 2022 to 2023 trough. Jurisdictional highlights: Japan and China remained the region’s largest markets covering over half of the region’s total issuance, while ASEAN jurisdictions’ combined issuance volume grew by one-third year-on-year. Currency and tenor: The US dollar remained the principal currency of issuance, representing two-thirds of the region’s issuance. Tenor-wise, 1-5 year maturities remained the core of supply, with growing preference for longer-dated funding. Sustainable bonds: Issuance in Asia totalled USD94 billion, maintaining a share of roughly one fifth of the region’s overall international bond issuance. Download the report now for an in-depth look into the trends shaping Asia’s bond markets in 2026. 

effective from 18 march 2026, the government of jersey introduced significant amendments to the sanctions and asset-freezing (jersey) law 2019. these changes aim to align jersey’s sanctions framework more closely with international standards, particularly those of the uk and to strengthen jersey’s commitment to combating financial crime and ensuring compliance with global sanctions regimes. key changes include: expanded prohibitions: restrictions on providing economic resources, funds, or financial services to designated persons now explicitly extend to entities owned or controlled by such persons. broader reporting obligations: relevant financial institutions (rfis) must report to the minister for external relations if they know or suspect someone is a designated person or involved in an offence under the law. this obligation applies regardless of whether the institution has a direct connection (e.g., account or dealings) with the individual. enhanced disclosure powers: the minister may disclose information obtained under the law to competent authorities outside the uk and eu or to other parties if deemed appropriate. clarifications on indirect availability: new provisions define "indirectly making resources available" to include entities controlled by designated persons. rfis and other stakeholders are advised to review their compliance processes and submit reports promptly if required. for further details read the government of jersey’s update here the sanctions and asset-freezing law (jersey) amendment regulations 2026 can be found here

We are going ahead with a scheme to compensate motor finance customers who were treated unfairly. Courts have found that firms broke the law by failing to disclose important information to customers. An industry-wide scheme is the quickest and most cost effective way to deliver fair compensation.We had over 1,000 consultation responses and engaged extensively with consumer groups, professional representatives, firms, manufacturers, investors and industry bodies. While most respondents supported a scheme, we received much conflicting feedback on its details.We have listened and made several changes, set out in detail below, to design a final scheme which strikes the balance between sometimes competing principles such as simplicity and cost effectiveness, comprehensiveness and fairness.Our final approach is fair for consumers and proportionate for firms.We have tightened eligibility so only those treated unfairly receive compensation. Agreements involving minimal commission or zero APRs will not receive redress. Where a lender can prove there were visible links with a manufacturer and dealer, a contractual tie alone will not trigger compensation. The threshold for high commission cases has been modestly raised. These and other changes mean 12.1m agreements are now eligible for compensation, down from 14.2m at consultation.We have adjusted how compensation is calculated to better reflect greater loss between 2007-2014. We have also ensured that consumers are not put back in a better position than they would have been had they been treated fairly, so in around 1 in 3 cases compensation will be capped. Firms are expected to pay out around £7.5 billion in redress, down from £8.2 billion at consultation.We have also streamlined the scheme so consumers are compensated quickly and it is cost effective for firms to deliver. Millions of consumers will be compensated this year, most of the rest by the end of 2027. Lenders will only need to contact complainants or those due compensation and recorded delivery will not be required, helping to cut the cost to firms of delivering the scheme by over 40%.The estimated total bill to firms is down from £11 billion to £9.1 billion.We want to provide certainty for consumers and finality for firms and investors, supporting the ongoing availability of competitively priced motor finance. Our approach is the best way to resolve this issue in the interests of consumers, firms, investors and the market. We estimate the cost of dealing with complaints would be over £6bn more without a scheme.We expect everyone to get behind the scheme, and lenders to put things right promptly for their customers. We need to draw a line under the past and support a healthy motor finance market for the future.ScopeMotor finance agreements taken out between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024 where commission was payable by the lender to the broker will be considered for compensation.Firms owe liabilities from 2007. If complaints from that date were not covered they would need to be dealt with individually by firms, the Financial Ombudsman Service and through the courts, resulting in higher costs, lengthy delays and greater uncertainty.We have the powers to include agreements before 2014. However, this was questioned by some consultation respondents. So, we will implement two schemes, one covering 6 April 2007 - 31 March 2014 and one from 1 April 2014 - 1 November 2024. If the earlier period is subject to legal challenge on these grounds, redress for consumers with agreements from April 2014 shouldn’t be delayed.EligibilityConsumers will only be considered for compensation if they weren’t told details of at least one of 3 arrangements between the lender and the broker (usually the dealer):A discretionary commission arrangement (DCA), which allowed the broker to adjust the interest rate the customer would pay to obtain a higher commission.A high commission arrangement (at least 39% of the total cost of credit and 10% of the loan).Contractual ties that gave a lender exclusivity or a right of first refusal, except where the lender can prove there were visible links with the manufacturer and dealer.There will be some exceptions, with cases considered fair, if:The commission was £120 or less for agreements beginning before 1 April 2014 and £150 or less from that date. Commission amounts below those levels are unlikely to have influenced the consumer’s decision or broker’s behaviour.The borrower wasn’t charged interest.The DCA wasn’t used to earn discretionary commission.The lender can prove, in certain limited circumstances, it was fair not to disclose one of the arrangements above or that the consumer did not suffer any loss. This includes if a tie wasn’t operated in practice or no better deal was available.Consumers who have successfully complained to the Financial Ombudsman, had their claim determined by a court or accepted redress will be excluded from the scheme.Claims for high value loans - higher than 99.5% of other loans that year - are also excluded, as they are not suitable for a mass-market redress scheme. These consumers can still complain to their lender and the Financial Ombudsman.Consumers generally have 6 years to bring a claim, but that may be extended where information about commission or a tie was deliberately concealed. We do not expect lenders to routinely find that cases are out of time to be considered for the scheme, given how poor disclosure was.However, firms can exclude cases only involving high commission and ending before 26 March 2020 if they can show that the fact commission was payable was clearly and prominently disclosed. If firms rule consumers out of the scheme on this basis, they must inform them and explain why. The consumer will have the right to challenge this with the Financial Ombudsman.Consumers whose arrangement is deemed fair under the scheme can ask the Financial Ombudsman to review whether the scheme rules were followed. They could still make a claim in court.Calculating redressApproximately 90,000 consumers whose cases align closely with the Johnson case considered by the Supreme Court will receive redress of all commission plus interest. We define these as cases involving an undisclosed contractual tie and/or DCA and very high commission of at least 50% of the total cost of credit and 22.5% of the loan.For all other cases, consumers will receive the average of estimated loss and the commission paid, plus interest (the hybrid remedy). The estimated loss is based on economic analysis that shows there was a difference in the APR on DCA loans compared to those with flat fee arrangements.Following feedback, we have enhanced our analysis, incorporating more agreement data and covering a longer period of 2017-2021. We estimate average loss to be equivalent to an APR adjustment of 17% for this period and apply it to agreements from 1 April 2014.Firms have advised that the availability of pre-2014 data is limited. Collecting such data risks delaying compensation for consumers and certainty for firms with no guarantee it would materially improve any estimate of loss.Feedback and supporting evidence from respondents indicate that more harmful forms of DCA were more prevalent in earlier years. Differences between average DCA and non-DCA APRs were also larger during this period, indicating greater financial loss.To reflect that, we have set an APR adjustment of 21% for pre 2014 cases. This sits at the mid-point between a 17% and 26% APR adjustment. The latter figure is, on average, equivalent to being repaid commission, which is the remedy reserved for those who suffered the most unfairness. The difference between APR-17% and APR-21% results in an increase to average redress of £31 for pre 2014 cases.We are also using these APR adjustments for the relatively small number of cases that didn’t involve a DCA, but involved high commission or a tie.Consumers should not be compensated more than if they had been treated fairly or than those who suffered the most unfairness. So in around 1 in 3 cases receiving the hybrid remedy, compensation will be capped at the lowest of:90% of commission plus interest.The total cost of credit, adjusted to account for a minimal cost offered to only 5% of the market at the time, excluding 0% APR deals.The actual total cost of credit, calculated on a simpler basis. This may be the lower figure if the adjusted cost of credit can’t be accurately calculated, for example, if the lender doesn’t have the payment schedule.This means that about 64,000 agreements, where the APR was in the lowest 5% offered in the market at the time, excluding 0% deals, will not get compensation.Simple interest will be paid on compensation, based on the annual average Bank of England base rate per year plus 1% from the date of overpayment to the date compensation is paid. We have introduced a floor so the minimum interest rate consumers will receive for any year is 3%. Consumers will no longer be able to challenge the rate they get.How the scheme will operateThere will be a short implementation period so firms can prepare. This will be up to:30 June 2026 for loans taken out from 1 April 2014.31 August 2026 for those agreed earlier.People who have already complained or complain before the end of the relevant implementation period will be compensated sooner. Lenders will have 3 months from the end of the implementation period to let complainants know whether they’re owed compensation and how much.Firms will only have to contact people who haven’t complained if they are potentially owed money or those who are timed out of the scheme, avoiding unnecessary and costly communication with customers who are not owed redress. Firms have 6 months from the end of the relevant implementation period to do so. Consumers must respond within 6 months if they wish to join the scheme. Consumers who are not contacted can still complain to their firm by 31 August 2027.Lenders can use a range of communication channels that best meet consumers’ needs, with appropriate safeguards to prevent fraud.Cost of redressBased on further analysis, we now estimate 75% of eligible consumers will take part, resulting in firms paying redress of £7.5 billion. Non redress costs are estimated to be £1.6 billion, taking the likely total bill to firms to £9.1 billion.Our consultation set out indicative cost estimates. We have since refined our methodology to fully align with our consultation proposals and incorporated further lender data into our modelling. We have updated estimated redress liabilities and non redress costs under our proposals, compared to under our final rules, below.Consultation proposalsConsultation proposals, updatedFinal policyRedress at estimated uptake£8.2bn(85% uptake)*£9.3bn(75% uptake)£7.5bn(75% uptake)Non redress costs£2.8bn£2.5bn£1.6bnTOTAL (at estimated uptake)£11bn£11.8bn£9.1bnRedress liabilities(100% uptake)£9.7bn£12.5bn£10bnEligible agreements14.2m16.8m12.1mAverage redress per agreement£695£775£829*At 75% uptake this would have been £7.3bn.Ensuring compliance with the schemeWe have established a dedicated supervisory team, led by a Director. We will supervise firms closely to make sure they follow the rules, including assessing whether any exclusions of agreements have been applied appropriately. Firms’ senior managers will be required to attest to responsibility for their firm’s overall oversight and delivery of the scheme.We will intervene if firms fail to comply, including using enforcement powers if necessary. Firms will have to report regularly so we can closely monitor compliance, and we will publish updates on the scheme’s progress.We have set up a taskforce with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Advertising Standards Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office to tackle the poor handling of motor finance claims by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms.Market impactThe motor finance market has continued to attract investment and function well since we announced our intention to introduce a compensation scheme.Share prices of affected UK listed lenders increased by a range of 2.1% to 29.7% in the two weeks following the Supreme Court judgment and continued to rise steadily until the recent conflict in the Middle East. There have been 5 public securitisations of UK automotive loans since September 2025. New car sales in February reached a 22-year high and a record £41bn was lent on motor finance in 2025, 6% up on 2024.We have updated our analysis of the scheme’s potential market impact. We conclude there will be limited impact on the new car finance market.Changes we have made to how the scheme operates, such as removing the need to write to all customers, will benefit sub-prime and smaller lenders by ensuring the scheme is cost-effective to deliver. While there may be some short-term effects in the used and subprime segments, these are expected to be modest, with any affected lending volumes replaced over time.Overall, we anticipate continued availability of motor finance and strong competition between lenders. Without a scheme, the impact on access to motor finance and prices for consumers could be significantly higher with uncertainty continuing for many more years.

François-Louis Michaud will take up his position as Chair of the European Banking Authority (EBA) as from the 16 April 2026, following today’s formal appointment by the Council of the European Union.

On 24 March 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it will set out its approach to motor finance redress on Monday 30 March 2026 shortly after markets close. This follows the FCA’s consultation on establishing a compensation scheme in October 2025.

 The FSMA is receiving increasing numbers of reports of dubious WhatsApp groups, in which fraudsters share so-called exclusive investment tips or promote fraudulent trading apps.  How does the fraud work?Consumers find advertisements on social media (often Facebook or Instagram) for WhatsApp groups where, it is claimed, exclusive analyses of financial markets and profitable investment tips are shared. These advertisements are often published via pages that fraudulently use the name and logo of well-known banks and news services. These are cases of identity theft.Consumers who click on the advertisement are added to WhatsApp groups. These groups are managed by people who pose as prominent economists or CEOs of investment firms. These are also cases of identity theft.In these WhatsApp groups, consumers are encouraged to participate in lotteries. This is most likely a way to obtain consumers’ personal data. In addition, consumers are urged to purchase specific American listed shares. The aim appears to be to manipulate those share prices. This is also known as a 'pump and dump' operation. Lastly, these WhatsApp groups also promote fake applications for trading in cryptocurrencies. Which entities are involved in this scam?The FSMA notes that the fraudsters who manage the WhatsApp groups often pretend to be economists, people from the academic or business world, and well-known figures. For example, the FSMA has received reports of identity theft involving the following people:Colmant BrunoDe Bondt JanDe Bondt WernerGuenter ThomasHendelman SeanLynch PeterMckay RandyNoels GeertPraet PeterRutsaert Nicolas In addition, the fraudsters also claim that they work for authorized (often foreign) financial service providers, in particular: Bolero (KBC Bank NV)Loomis Sayles (Netherlands) B.V.SFM UK Management LLPUniversa Investments LPWilliams Jones Wealth Management LLCWatch out! These are cases of identity theft. The WhatsApp groups have, in fact, no connection whatsoever with authorized institutions. Consumers also reported that they were referred to a company called Nanolite Foundation, which uses the website nanolite-foundationnlf.com.The managers of the WhatsApp groups also try to persuade consumers to download fake applications, such as:BLRKXGS FLUXLSCINVNLF INTSFM VALORSXMKTUNIVLPThe FSMA has added these companies to the list of companies that are operating unlawfully in Belgium. Please note, the list is not exhaustive. In order to determine whether or not a company is authorized to offer financial products and services, please visit the ‘Check your provider’ page. If you have any doubts, feel free to contact the FSMA. I’ve fallen victim. What should I do?If you are a member of such a WhatsApp group, the FSMA advises you to leave it as soon as possible. Also block the telephone number of the WhatsApp group administrator and break off all contact. Do not follow the investment tips and do not download any applications promoted in these WhatsApp groups. Not only are the investments made through these applications completely false, but malware may also be installed through them.Do not transfer any (more) money and contact your bank. Inform your bank immediately if you have transferred money.Report the fraud to the competent authorities. Contact the FSMA and file a complaint with the police.Document all exchanges of information and transactions. Gather all evidence of your exchanges of information with the platform, including emails, messages, account statements and screen shots of the transactions. These items will, of course, be very valuable when you report the fraud.Beware of so-called ‘recovery rooms’: fraudsters contact victims of a scam in the past and offer to help them, for a fee, to recover their lost money. Often these constitute yet another attempt at fraud. For more recommendations on how to avoid investment fraud, please consult the ‘How to recognize and avoid fraud’ page on the FSMA website. Please watch the awareness-raising videos as well (available in French and Dutch only).

March 9, Chicago – NFA has ordered Commodity Asset Management LLC (Commodity Asset Management), a former NFA Member commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor located in New York, N.Y., not to reapply for NFA membership or act as a principal of an NFA Member at any time in the future. NFA also ordered Jonathan Mark Tulkoff, a prior associated person and principal of Commodity Asset Management and former NFA Associate, not to reapply for NFA membership or act as a principal of an NFA Member for nine months and further order him to pay a $100,000 fine and comply with an undertaking if he reapplies for NFA membership or principal status in the future.