Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Known for all of its high-end flamboyance, Dubai is on most people’s bucket list destination of travel. And we do not blame them; fear not of conforming to the ‘wanna-be’ celebrity WAG’s ideal home away from home, because Dubai truly will baffle you.
Grandeur being her middle name, the United Arab Emirate city overshadows the Middle East with its ultramodern architecture and skyscrapers. From luxury designer shops to serene beaches, once branded as the Middle East’s most expensive city, Dubai’s character is to feed the slight hedonism in all of us.
She also feeds the adventure in us. From the tamer dune bashing and sandboarding, to the extreme paragliding and parachuting, this city has the perfect climate and atmosphere for you to overdose on adrenaline; and to try and stop you from changing your mind, hotels such as Amwaj Rotana are a quick two-minute walk from the beach you will be jet skiing across.
But for those who indulge in the history of a nation, Dubai also flaunts true Emirati culture; it will feel like you have travelled back in time. Step off the metro to hop on an abra – a traditional wooden boat – to discover tantalising cuisine and your hidden talent of haggling (the locals love a challenge).
The Old Souq is packed with stalls selling traditional Arabian textiles, including fine silk and cotton in every colour, intricately woven rugs and dazzling sequined footwear. Spoil your eyes awing at the vividly colourful, fresh spices and treat your nose to the musky scent of ‘liquid gold’: Oud. It is no surprise that with Oud being one of the most expensive raw scent ingredients, that Tom Ford, Gucci, Guerlian and an array of designers have snatched up the unique fragrance. At Dubai’s Deira Souq, you can be your own version of Jo Malone; from essential oils to incense sticks, vendors will be more than happy to give a crash course in perfumes for you to personally create your own.
And of course, the most famous market: The Gold Souq. Covered with bespoke jewellery and statement pieces that would even make the Queen’s diamond collection look dry, the Gold Souq has an overwhelming choice of gold and diamonds. My tip? Have a good look around before you settle on the perfect ring.
Amwaj Rotana is situated near the metro line, where you can be in Deira via public transport in around an hour. You can also get a taxi (which aren’t too dear), which will take around half an hour.
If haggling and bustling market is not your thing and you much prefer shopping in luxury, the infamous Dubai Mall is for you. The Mall itself, I think, could easily be the size of a town. It is also home to the aquarium which is much loved by adults and children, as well as an ice rink, cinema, the Emirates ‘flight’ experience, a virtual reality park, and of course, a mass array of designer shops, Emirati shops and places to fine dine or casual eateries.
If that is not enough (you must be a tough one to please), but the Mall is also the neighbour of the tallest building of the world: the Burj Khalifa. Standing 828 metres tall, the tower not only showcases the entire city, but you can treat yourselves to afternoon tea on the outskirts of heaven.
Amwaj Rotana is situated 50 minutes away via public transport, or a short 20 minute drive via taxi.
Where to stay
Amwaj Rotana is situated a short two minute (101 steps, to be accurate) walk from the Jumeirah Beach; if the swimming pool isn’t enough for you, you can be dipping your toes in the sea in no time.
For special VIP guests, you can bask in the comfort and feel at home at Atrium Lobby Lounge as you indulge on an array of juices, cocktails and freshly made cakes, treats and delicious pastries. A fine selection of tea and coffees is also available should you wish to enjoy a relaxed cup of tea or discuss business over coffee.
The spacious rooms overlook the city and coast, or, if you want to get out of the room and join those you’re overlooking, you can order a limousine to drive you around. The hotel staff are happy to organise day trips to the desert where you can befriend camels and enjoy a night of Arabian entertainment, or if you fancy something more subdued, enjoy a relaxing massage at Rotana’s spa.
With award-winning dining concepts offering Italian, American/Japanese, British/American and international cuisine as well as live entertainment, and the friendly staff are more than happy to cook something on the spot for those with dietary requirements.
The staff at Rotana are friendly in nature and are more than happy to offer advice for those who are new to Dubai.
Kids? If you want to enjoy the jacuzzi in peace, send them off to Amwaj’s Flipper’s Kids’ Club or, try and find a willing member to babysit them at Dubai’s much-loved waterpark, or at the Splashpad located at the Jumeirah Beach.
Emirati hospitality is something you must experience for yourself. A perfected mix of luxury and warmth, Dubai is an ever-growing city that is grand in nature.
Stay at the five-star Amwaj Rotana in Dubai from 795 AED (approx. £155) per night inclusive of breakfast based on two adults sharing a Classic Room. To book or for further information, please visit www.rotana.com.
Geoff Hussey, Nick South and Varuni Paranavitane, of AA Thornton, write on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys.
It is now around two years since the UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, and around 9 months until it does in fact leave. Precisely how the UK will exit the EU and what arrangements will be put in place between the UK and the EU is very much still to be decided.
However, a provisional agreement has been made between the UK and EU in relation to a proposed transitional period after the UK’s exit, during which the UK will comply with all current arrangements it has with the EU and adhere to EU regulations and directives, etc. This proposed transitional agreement addresses many aspects of intellectual property law that are currently harmonised across the EU, and particularly trade mark law in relation to which the UK is currently part of the EU-wide EU trade mark system operated by the European Union Intellectual Property Office under various pieces of EU legislation.
From an intellectual property perspective, one noticeable absence from the provisional agreement on the transitional period is any reference to patents or patent law. This is, of course, not unexpected since patents and patent law across Europe have no connection with the EU. Patents are either national rights granted on a national level under national law by national patent offices; or they are national rights granted on a centralised European level under the European Patent Convention (EPC) by the European Patent Office (EPO) and governed by national law after grant. In the context of Brexit, it is important to note that neither the EPC nor the EPO are connected to the EU. The EPC is an international treaty and not a piece of EU legislation, and the EPO is an international governmental organisation and not an EU institution. Therefore, Brexit cannot have any impact on existing European patent law, nor on the effect of European Patents in the UK. This important fact was recently recognised by the President of the EPO, Benoît Battistelli, who has confirmed that “Brexit will have no impact on UK membership of the EPO. For a very simple reason - the EPO is not an EU agency but an independent international organisation, of which the UK is a founding member”. Accordingly, European patent attorneys based in the UK will continue to be able to represent applicants before the EPO, even after Brexit.
One issue that has been the subject of much discussion since the Brexit referendum is its impact on the forthcoming Unified Patent Court (UPC) system, which is a proposed new international court intended to hear cases relating to European patents, including the proposed European Unitary Patent (UP). In particular, the debate has focussed on whether or not the UK can and will remain part of the UPC and UP system. Very soon after the referendum, in November 2016, the UK government confirmed that it was proceeding with preparations to ratify the UPC Agreement (UPCA), sending a positive signal to users of the patent system during the uncertainty following the Brexit referendum. More recently, and more importantly, the UK has, as of 26 April 2018, ratified the UPCA, which leaves us waiting for only Germany to do likewise before the UPC system can start operating. As the UK is one of three states that are required to ratify in order for the UPCA to come into force, this is a significant sign that the UK intends to continue to be a part of the UPC system; after all, this gave the UK an effective veto on the currently proposed UPC system.
In some ways the UPC is similar to the EPO in that it is not an EU institution and therefore it may seem that Brexit could have no impact on the UK membership of the UPC. This is only partly true. It is correct that the UPCA is an international treaty, which is technically unrelated to the EU, but the contracting states to the UPCA are all EU member states and the UPCA contains a series of references to EU regulations and EU law, including the ultimate jurisdiction of the CJEU for certain matters. In fact, there are many provisions of the UPCA that currently require the contracting states to be EU members. In addition, the Unitary Patent itself is a patent that will exist by virtue of an EU Regulation (Regulation EU1257/2012) and there are other aspects of the UP system that are put in place via EU Regulations, such as translation requirements (Regulation EU1260/2012).
The effect of this interrelation between the UPC and the EU is that certain amendments to the UPCA would be required for the UK to continue to be a contracting state to it once it leaves the EU. Also, to the extent that the UK intends to be a part of the UP, arrangements would need to be agreed between the UK and EU to facilitate the UK’s adherence to the EU Regulations that are necessary for the UP.
As for the UPCA, the necessary amendments have already been identified. These primarily relate to uncoupling the contracting states from a requirement to be EU member states. This may sound straightforward, and indeed Alexander Ramsay, Chair of the UPC Preparatory Committee was recently quoted as saying: “Some of the wording [of the UPCA] will have to be amended after the UK leaves the EU but I would very much like Britain to participate in the UPC in the long term.” However, the prospect of such amendments is likely to re-raise concerns that initially led to the UPCA being restricted to EU member states. In 2009, when both EU and non-EU Member States such as Switzerland and Turkey were potential parties to the UPCA, the European Commission requested the CJEU to give an opinion on whether such a UPCA would be compatible with EU law. The CJEU, in Opinion 1/09, held that it would not. In 2011, the European Commission stated that “as a result of Opinion 1/09 of the CJEU it appears that the participation of third countries must be excluded.” The UPCA was then amended to limit participation to EU Member States only and the European Council concluded in 2011 that the removal of non-EU Member States facilitates “the respect by the UPC of Union law”. The result was that Switzerland and Turkey were excluded from the UPCA when it was signed on 19 February 2013.
The UK has to date been a major player in putting in place everything necessary for the UPC system. The UK has been responsible for the UPC IT systems, and UK law has contributed significantly to the legal principles being adopted in the UPC Rules of Procedure, which themselves have been contributed to significantly by UK lawyers. UK patent law and patent judgments are well respected across Europe and the experience of the UK judges who will form part of the UPC judiciary is seen as an important factor in lending the UPC credibility from day one. As a result, there is an apparent desire across Europe for the UK to remain a part of the UPC after Brexit and an apparent desire also from the UK to do so.
Whether or not the UK can remain part of the UPC system after Brexit then becomes a political question. Despite the encouraging sounds from the UPC Preparatory Committee, is there the political will from the UPCA contracting states to amend the UPCA to enable the UK to continue its part without being an EU member state? Is the UK willing to form an agreement with the EU in respect of the relevant EU Regulations?
Intermixed with these questions is whether the UK’s publicly stated Brexit stance of ending the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK is compatible with the UPC system, which will presumably always be subject to CJEU jurisdiction. There is one school of thought that tried to draw a distinction between UK courts being bound by the CJEU (which they will not be following Brexit), and an international patent litigation court such as the UPC, of which the UK is a part, being bound by the CJEU. There is some rationale to this distinction, particularly given that UK national patents will be unaffected by the UPC system and that all international cooperation requires some form of dispute resolution institution. However, it is possibly a tricky political issue for the UK at this time.
In essence, the UK’s continuing participation in the UPC is certainly possible following Brexit, though there will be some changes to its legal basis. All current indications are that such changes are likely to be made and agreed to facilitate the UK’s continuing participation, which is likely to be seen as good news for the UPC system as a whole and is certainly welcomed by the UK patent profession. As and when this is enabled for post-Brexit, it may even allow other countries that are keen to join, such as Switzerland, to do just that.
Geoff Hussey
Partner
Geoff is a Partner and Solicitor whose main practice areas are IP litigation, and Commercial IP. His experience includes acting for a broad range of clients in many sectors including life sciences, electronics, telecoms, chemicals, aviation, food & beverages and financial services.
Nick South
Senior Associate
Nick is a Senior Associate and a UK Chartered and European Patent Attorney in the Electrical Engineering, Electronics, Telecoms & IT patents department. Nick deals with patent issues across a wide range of areas, including electromagnetic sensors, semiconductor technology, electric motors, overhead power cables and medical instruments.
Mezzalira Investment Group (MIG) announced the acquisition of Sitland, the leading Italian company in the design seating sector. This deal was to increase strategic synergies in the furniture sector. Domino spa - sole shareholder of Sitland who sold its subsidiary to Mig Seating srl of the Mezzalira Group -, was assisted by Ceccon & Associates (ACLAW) with Founder Roberto Ceccon. He was assisted by lawyers Silvia Salmaso, Alessia Ceccon and Federica Ceccon.
Mig Seating srl was assisted by the lawyer Alessandro Rostello, Partner of the Vicenza-based law firm AR & A.
The operation was carried out with the financial support of UniCredit led by Sebastiano Musso and Andrea Del Moretto and assisted by lawyer Federica Greggio partner of Osborne Clarke, while the notary was Diego Trentin of the Vicenza studio Rizzi Trentin.
MIG is led by Gianmaria Mezzalira, who commented: "From the first day I became part of the furniture world, I have always heard of Sitland. An important name in this sector, recognised for its design, quality and reliability. The entry into the Group, on the one hand consolidates the product range and the production and distribution synergies, on the other creates new opportunities for Sitland to establish itself also in contract projects, in which the complete furnishing solution is a decisive element. I collect another challenge in the design field with Sitland, with another all-Italian excellence.”
Acque Minerali d'Italia spa and the Coridel Group have signed a joint venture for the distribution of Norda water, the leading brand in the food and beverage sector.
CREA law, with Gianluca Fucci (partner) and Chiara Mantelli (senior associate), assisted Acque Minerali d'Italia in the constitution of NewCo and in the negotiation of the distribution agreement and of other ancillary arrangements. NewCo is based in Hong Kong, which will distribute Norda brand products in China, South Korea and Hong Kong, with plans for future expansion into additional Asian countries.
Coridel Group have a well-established activity in Asia in entertainment and aim to ensure that the important distribution channels together with marketing and communication services, including digital ones, will guarantee engagement for the launch of Norda in Asia.
Lorenzo Falconi, CEO of Acque Minerali d'Italia said, "In the growth plan of Acque Minerali d'Italia, the internationalization and expansion of the market of our waters towards the East is a strategic and indispensable factor. It is only the first of a series of operations that aim to raise awareness of the excellence of our brands in the world."
Citizenship by Investment:
What Defines this Path to Citizenship and What Drives its Popularity
The measure of success for citizenship by investment is a combination of transparent legislation and an eye to due diligence.
Interest in second citizenship has never been higher. The demand for more than one citizenship is stirred by a growing sensitivity to globalisation, and piqued by daily headlines on Brexit, President Trump’s promises on immigration control, and scandals such as the plight of the Windrush generation. Simultaneously, supply is growing, with an increasing number of nations opening citizenship to applicants who can generate foreign direct investment.
Second citizenship can be obtained in a variety of ways, with some paths more commonly travelled than others. Common paths include birth within a nation’s recognised territory, descent, marriage, and long-term residence. Increasingly, however, individuals and families from around the world are looking at a more time-efficient path to guarantee their physical security, financial stability and a more global lifestyle. These desires can be achieved through citizenship by investment.
The path less trodden
Citizenship by investment (also known as ‘economic citizenship’) is, to some extent, an exclusive means of acquiring second citizenship. It is a legal process, entrenched in legislation, whereby an applicant is awarded citizenship in return for a significant investment into a nation’s economy. There are no more than a dozen countries around the world who have official government-led, legitimate programmes. At the same time, however, and in contrast to more typical ways of achieving second citizenship, it is also more open: allowing applicants to apply even if they do not necessarily have a previous connection to a nation, or a deep-set understanding of its culture and history. Rather, access to economic citizenship is contingent on the individual’s ability to provide the nation with a significant monetary contribution, driving growth and ensuring future prosperity. In practice, this means that most citizenship by investment countries do not impose residence or travel requirements, mandatory interviews, or language requirements. Importantly however, this does not mean that anyone can obtain citizenship – all applicants must show good moral standing and a clean criminal background.
A growing trend
First introduced by the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis in 1984, citizenship by investment (CBI) remained a hidden gem for decades but, as recession hit economies large and small, more and more nations turned to citizenship by investment as a solution to their economic troubles. CBI thus began to flourish, not merely in the Caribbean – where five nations have well-established programmes – but also across Europe, Asia, and Oceania.
Once the prerogative of small nations, in 2018 citizenship by investment programmes were also launched in more populated countries, evidencing a growing appetite for economic citizenship across a variety of nations. Why this appetite is growing among governments is clear: they receive significant contributions that they can channel to communities and projects in need. But the economic citizen has also a lot to look forward to: a new citizenship and the benefit of becoming a part of a nation whose development is being bolstered by an influx of investment. For this reason, the process is often described as a win-win: a win for the applicant (or eventual citizen), and a win for the country.
The investment an individual or family is required to make to the country is specified in the legislation of each CBI nation. One of the most affordable economic citizenship routes – Dominica’s Citizenship by Investment Programme – requires a main applicant to contribute a minimum of US$100,000. Price-points, however, vary widely depending on the nation, with European-based programmes typically seeking ten to twenty times more than those located elsewhere. Investment requirements have shifted a great deal in the past 12 months, as countries seek to find a sustainable balance between being competitive in an expanding market and presenting a programme of worth.
Other indicators, aside from investment thresholds, are also essential to differentiate programmes and their value. The CBI Index – a special report issued annually by the Financial Times subsidiary Professional Wealth Management magazine – ranks citizenship by investment programmes by utilising seven indicators:
The data evaluated for the CBI Index considers the most critical components of today’s citizenship by investment programmes, according to an applicant’s needs. The comprehensiveness of the research, demonstrating extensive use of quantitative and qualitative data, provides an unparalleled study of the citizenship by investment industry.
Those working within the industry should be able to steer applicants in the direction that best suits their needs. CBI programmes and the corresponding government departments do not accept applications directly from investors, and so depend on a trusted list of agents who are authorised to submit applications on their clients’ behalf. CS Global Partners works extensively within this network of agents and is a leader in providing accurate advice and guidance to applicants seeking a second citizenship. It is also officially mandated by a number of governments offering citizenship by investment.
Growing pains?
With the proliferation of citizenship programmes around the world, there is a danger that prospective applicants may fail to distinguish genuine programmes from illegitimate ones. Genuine programmes are always entrenched in the legislation of the nations that offer them, running from their constitutions, to their laws, and ultimately their regulations. Late last year, an illegitimate Guatemalan citizenship programme surfaced, purporting to offer clients a “new identity with a Latin name”. This was an example of exploitation in a niche, but expanding, market where awareness is still growing. It was also an attempt to prey on those who may currently hold nationality to countries of unstable governance and politics, and who were desperate to protect their identity. The industry is collectively responsible for distilling myths such as these, as well as reiterating that the programmes that do exist are rooted in law.
The due diligence factor
All industries, to some extent, are vulnerable to abuse. Happily, well-established citizenship by investment programmes, such of those of the Caribbean, have taken steps to significantly reduce this vulnerability. Those involved in the illegitimate Guatemalan programme, for example, could never claim to act for one of the Caribbean governments, as these governments publish lists of the agents that they work with on their official websites. To feature on these lists, agents must pass thorough checks, obtain a licence, and ensure that each of their clients are risk-free.
As with agents, due diligence is at the heart of the relationship between a citizenship by investment jurisdiction and its economic citizens. Indeed, the more a country performs checks on prospective economic citizens, the more it safeguards its current citizens – ultimately protecting its reputation and the attractiveness of any citizenship by investment programme it may choose to institute.
Dominica, Malta, and St Kitts and Nevis are considered the frontrunners in due diligence – something that was confirmed in the CBI Index, where they were each awarded full scores. With longevity on their side, Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis have had decades to refine their processes, developing a multi-tiered approach that sees applicants examined both in-house and by external due diligence agencies. Applicants understand that these countries are reaching out to persons of quality, and welcome steps to ensure that programmes will only be used by respectable persons who will not damage the reputation of the country they too have chosen for their second home.
This search for quality finds a strong proponent in the Commonwealth of Dominica, which has seen the effects of seeking out excellence among its applicants. Here, in addition to making a one-off contribution or purchasing real-estate, economic citizens offer their new nation a strong business network and gifted persons eager to work together to tackle global issues. Dominica refers to this as its Global Community, acknowledging the collective strength of its diaspora. The value of citizenship by investment to Dominica, therefore, is more than the sum of applicants’ investments; it includes the potential for additional contributions flowing from the talent, expertise, and goodwill of economic citizens, and, by doing so, highlights the importance of due diligence in selecting the ideal citizen.
Improvements are routinely occurring to ensure due diligence adapts to market growth and demand. St Kitts and Nevis, for example, added an new layer to its screening process last year, placing more responsibility on its agents to perform know-your-client checks. This was on top of agents’ existing responsibility to ensure that submission are complete and truthful. Completion means the inclusion of extensive due diligence documentation, such as police clearance records from an applicant’s country of citizenship and any country where the applicant lived for more than one year over the past ten years. St Kitts and Nevis is also among the most vociferous proponents of a shared system of best practices to be used by all Caribbean CBI nations, confirming the Federation’s role as an industry leader.
Many of these best practices are already in place in St Kitts and Nevis. Here, the Citizenship by Investment Unit that reviews applications can boast staff trained in anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF), as well as professional relationships with eminent international firms that review all aspects of an applicant’s life and business, ranging from family ties to source of funds. Only firms with the highest quality standards and reputation are used, and both online and on-the-ground checks are requested. They also typically hold expertise in obtaining information from specific countries and regions, depending on the origin of the application.
It is important to note that due diligence does not stop at the application. In many CBI nations, applicants who are later found guilty of providing misleading or incorrect information can have their citizenship revoked or their passport blocked. The legislation governing these provisions differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but countries are overwhelmingly in favour of such strict controls on their economic citizens.
Global compliance
It is an exciting time to be in an industry shifting and expanding to meet the market. But with an increased number of countries and applicants poised to enter the investor immigration scene, comes the need to commit to robust legal frameworks and to find solutions to common issues. Collective action is, unsurprisingly, viewed by many as necessary to the sustainability of the industry.
Earlier this year, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), a forum that aims to promote sound economic policies worldwide, released a consultation document entitled Preventing Abuse of Residence by Investment Schemes to Circumvent the CRS*. The document related to the suspected misuse of residence by investment and CBI programmes as a means of tax avoidance. The OECD invited stakeholders from the industry to comment and share their views to find mechanisms to mitigate potential abuse. Many citizenship by investment jurisdictions took the opportunity to come together to alleviate the OECD’s fears.
Indeed, almost all CBI jurisdictions sought to first clarify the important distinctions between residence and citizenship, as lack of clarity with respect to these two statuses was partly responsible for the OECD’s apprehensions. The key factors that separate citizenship and residence by investment programmes, in the context of the CRS, are as follows:
The OECD consultation document drew attention to the need to raise awareness of the legal distinctions that exist between residence and citizenship, and to the benefit of transparency and education. It also provided a platform for citizenship by investment nations to speak in a concerted voice, and to examine the issues that may be raised by external, international entities, as the industry continues to grow. Finally, it invited the question of what future considerations citizenship by investment nations may need to take into account.
Future requirements
Technology is certainly one important consideration. While technological innovation generally brings exciting developments and facilitates processes, it can also create some challenges. One example is cryptocurrency. For some time, it was rumoured that Vanuatu, an island-nation in Oceania with its own citizenship by investment programme, would accept cryptocurrency in lieu of US dollars. This was later discredited by the government. Yet the question of how cryptocurrency could affect CBI remains. How could a ‘citizenship coin’ adhere to the strict anti-money laundering policies that govern the most successful CBI programmes? How can blockchain systems be used to verify the source of funds when the identity remains anonymous by design? Will one cryptocurrency be used, and if so, which one? Or will multiple cryptocurrencies be accepted? And how will governments prepare for rapid cryptocurrency depreciation, if and when it occurs?
Currently, most programmes deal in the US dollar or euro, which implies a level of certainty for nations and applicants alike. Cryptocurrency may allow citizens of the world to more readily transfer funds, but the lack of regulation, mixed with the volatility of an uncertain currency, may leave nations open to criticism, and the ultimate depreciation of the value of their citizenship. Foreign investors from all corners of the globe have welcomed citizenship by investment as a route to stability and safety that is open to everyone, even when there is no pre-existing relationship with a country. In ever greater numbers, they have embraced it for its ability to deliver permanent rights and freedoms, beyond those that residence could ever provide. To remove the certainty of a strong citizenship may not be a risk worth taking, notwithstanding the potential attraction of cryptocurrency.
There is no end in sight to the growing popularity of citizenship by investment, but its survival is dependent on how well countries will be able to continue to offer programmes that are trusted and transparent. Continuing to move in the direction of greater due diligence is one means of doing this, as is ensuring that there is widespread understanding of the legislation that is at the core of citizenship by investment. Collaboration between nations and organisations will also be key. Finally, governments and agents alike must proactively engage others in platforms of discussion, such as the OECD’s consultation document, to ensure that the legitimacy and integrity of the industry is brought to light.
*The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) is a system of information exchange between nations that enables financial institutions such as banks to automatically share details of users to combat tax evasion. The CRS is part of the OECD’s framework, and was first approved for execution on request from the G20 Summit in 2014.
Micha-Rose Emmett
CEO
CS Global Partners
Telephone: +44 (0) 207 318 4343
Fax: +44 (0) 203 608 0368
Email: info@csglobalpartners.com
Micha provides intelligent citizenship solutions to investors seeking to diversify their business and lifestyle opportunities.
She specifically advises on the world’s leading CITIZENSHIP BY INVESTMENT (CBI) and INVESTOR IMMIGRATION programmes, including the most eminent CBI programmes in the Caribbean: those of the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis and the Commonwealth of Dominica.
CS Global Partners is an award-winning industry-leading legal consultancy firm specialising in citizenship and residence solutions. Its international team liaises between governments wishing to promote foreign investments in their countries, and individuals wanting to secure their future and become global citizens through intelligent economic citizenship.
Bernd Fabry has been a lecturer in IP management at the Otto Beisheim Business School of Management (WHU Vallendar) for many years and is the author of numerous articles and books in the field of intellectual property law. As an expert in the field, he talks about the progression of patenting and how China has a huge role to play in its future.
What was your main motivation to move from a lecturer of Organic Chemistry to patenting?
After my graduation, it was pure luck to immediately get a lecturer position at a university. In the late 1980s, however, the financial resources associated with such activity were very limited. With a small family to feed on, I had no choice but to look for a better-paid job in the business world. After several years in chemical research, I realized that the intellectual narrowness of a laboratory with its constantly similar topics was not the right path for me. At that time, I had already made initial contacts with patent attorneys and found that the combination of science and law was extremely exciting and, most of all, gave me the opportunity to deal with very different topics. Later on, as a completely new and exciting discipline economics and controlling of intellectual property rights as well as innovation management were added. With my teaching at the WHU and the variety of my seminars and publications, the circle has now even closed again.
What challenges do you expect for patent attorney forms in the coming years?
There will be different answers depending on their strategic orientation. For example, IP2 is more classical in the technology fields we work with: chemistry, pharmacy, and engineering are still dominating the business. In these areas, you have earned good money for decades and I am confident that this will be the case in the future. However, we also note that the market is increasingly saturated in both, the number of mandates and the number of patent attorney firms that need to share this cake. In a classic SWOT analysis, under "T" such as "threats", one would probably have to formulate that it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain new large mandates in these fields and, conversely, the loss of existing mandates can hardly, if at all, be adequately compensated.
What conclusions do you draw from this?
Let's stay with the SWOT analysis for a moment: "O" stands for "opportunities", so we need to look for real growth sectors, either in terms of technology or geography.
A future-oriented technology assessment is naturally associated with risks. For example, ten to fifteen years ago, there was a brief hype about nanotechnology, of which there is not much left today. Nevertheless, I am convinced that from a patent law perspective, the coming years will be shaped by the technologies that we call "life sciences". These include, first and foremost, new processes and products characterized by invasion of the genome of plants and animals. One current example is the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, also known as "gene scissor" which can be used to disrupt nucleic acid strands and incorporate specific vectors. This technology is not only a potential candidate for a Nobel Prize, but as far as it is about licensing, it is already commercially extremely successful. Life sciences are, therefore, a unique growth segment and patent attorney firms are well advised to position themselves here in a timely manner.
Is it enough to simply offer a new focus as a patent attorney?
Certainly not, because now in the SWOT analysis we come to the two remaining letters "S" and "W" which stand for "Strengths" and "Weaknesses".
It is obvious that a law firm’s success is directly linked to the quality of work and, most of all, to the quality of advice. The term "life sciences", however, hides a technology that has emerged in recent years from biology, chemistry and medicine and has developed an incredible dynamic. Classical training, for example as a chemist, does not help much here. The fact is that there are, so far, only a few experts on the patent attorney side for the clients who are traveling in this area who are really able to advise here. Also fact is, however, that right now many young, first-class scientists leave the universities, which have exactly this factual background.
We have come to the conclusion that colleagues who are new on board must have a scientific background that fits in with the topic of "life sciences". The growing number of assignments and mandates from this area also seems to prove us right here.
Do you also see challenges at the regional level?
No doubt, even if it does not require a crystal ball. It is enough to have a look at the statistics of the EPO and WIPO, especially taking into account the trend of the last 5 years. No other country has gained in foreign registrations as much as China did and among the top 5 applicants for PCT applications are currently two Chinese companies. Every year, Chinese universities dismiss tens of thousands of new scientists and in the countryside, campus after campus is being built on which research is to be conducted on a grand scale.
Here, it is important to position oneself in time as well. We have also found that it is very helpful as a distinguishing feature when it is possible to communicate with Chinese clients not in English, but in Chinese.
Is the logical consequence that European law firms go to China?
Basically, yes. The old principle of "size matters" still counts, but it has probably received a new meaning in our globalised world: While it used to be the way that you needed to have sufficient local capacity, clients who no longer think locally but globally and are set up today, expect that the patent law support also takes place globally from one single source. This requires patent law firms that are represented at least in Europe, the USA and Asia - preferably in China. Law firms that do not meet this expectation will, in my opinion, have an increasingly difficult time.
Doesn’t this mean that major patent attorney firms are gaining more and more market power?
Unfortunately this cannot be excluded but, however, it is no automatism. As it is not enough, for example, if one of these mammoth law firms with hundreds of lawyers we know from the United States decides to open a new office in Shanghai. For a branch like this, it will always be "the new kid on the block" and it will take many years of hard work to make a name for itself and to gain acceptance. In this way, no quick success can be expected. It is more reasonable to join forces with a local well-established law firm of similar size.
If IP2 offers pragmatic solutions instead of academic approaches, why is this important and how does it gain the results your clients need?
When I thought about entering new ground and becoming self-employed, after having spent more than 25 years in the chemical industry, almost half of them as Vice President of a large industrial patent department, the most important question was how to enter a highly competitive environment and how to achieve a unique selling point. Then, I pragmatically considered what has kept me away from working as an industrial lawyer with outside patent attorneys over the past few decades. There were exactly two reasons for this; the first was relatively trivial: the costs. In industry, there are budgets and internal clients for whom you have to explain these expenses. It is useless if a vague reference to the agreed hourly rate is given when the question about the estimated costs arises. My first approach to self-employment was, therefore, to never leave my clients in the dark about the expected costs. And this is one of the basics of IP2: for each of our services, there are fixed prices and if the volume is also right, we offer discounts which are a pleasure for both parties. We do not believe in zero-sum games, but in win-win situations.
The second reason was more complex: what should one think of it, for example, if granting a patent interferes with the marketing of a new product and the lawyer merely recommends filing an opposition? Until a decision has been made, the product has long since survived. Or: what benefit do I get from an external lawyer if he sends me an office action with the request to discuss the facts with the inventors and to tell him in which direction he should change the claims? In this case, I do the work myself and pay for it. This is the second principle of IP2: we do not push work back and forth, we just do it. That's what our clients appreciate about us.
Bernd Fabry
IP2 Patentanwalts GmbH
Address: Schlossstraße 523-525, 41238 Mönchengladbach (DE)
Telephone: +49.2166.398.4651
Telefax: +49.2166.398.4650
Email: fabry@ip-two.de
Homepage: www.ip-two.de
Bernd Fabry, born in 1957, completed his chemistry studies at the RWTH Aachen University and received his doctorate in the field of technical chemistry. Following positions as lecturer in Chemical Engineering at the University of Applied Sciences Jülich and as Invited Professor of Colloid Chemistry at the University of Louvain, he worked for several years in the research department of Henkel KGaA before he started his training as a German and European Patent Attorney. From 1999 to 2012, he was Head of the Intellectual Capital division of Cognis GmbH, before he founded his own company IP2 Patentanwalts GmbH, of which he is the Managing Director. He has just been re-elected to the IAM 300, making him one of the top IP lawyers in the world.
Sexual harassment is an ongoing issue in the workplace and it has been an issue well before the #MeToo movement started. As a plaintiff side employment lawyer, Brittany Alexandra Stevens represents individuals who have been sexually harassed at their place of employment or at a place of a public accommodation, such as a doctor’s office, amusement park, or a store. Following on from their previous article, Brittany expands on how to tackle sexual harassment cases.
Sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination and can be unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as under State or City laws. Sexual harassment can occur in many forms. For example, sexual harassment can be physical touching of one’s body parts, verbal harassment that is sexual in nature, or requests for sexual favors. The individual who is harassing an employee can be a male or female, or a supervisor or a co-worker. In New York, regardless of who the harasser is, sexual harassment must be unwelcomed and must rise above a petty slight or trivial inconvenience.[1]
The #MeToo movement has certainly sparked a lot of debate and discussion that will hopefully have a positive impact on the lives of many employees. As a plaintiff side employment lawyer, I would not necessarily say that more employees are calling our firm for consultations about current incidents of sexual harassment, but rather more individuals are calling about prior acts of sexual harassment. Individuals are finally speaking out about unlawful conduct that may have taken place a while ago, but realize now that it is okay to complain about unfairness in the workplace and that their stories should not be silenced in fear of a possible backlash.
What are three key things you must remember when tackling a sexual harassment case?
Being subjected to sexual harassment often has devasting affects to an individual, which can cause both physical and emotional distress. We understand that most people go to work and expect to feel safe and protected and when another employee crosses the line, it can cause an enormous amount of uneasiness and discomfort. Sometimes in extremely egregious sexual harassment matters, clients develop physical ailments that require medical attention. More frequently, clients become emotionally distressed by the sexual harassment. While we are not medically trained, having compassion and understanding of what the client is going through is an important part of practicing law. As lawyers, we are also in the service industry. Customer service is a vital part of our job and we can only advocate effectively for our clients if we understand the emotional suffering our clients endure during these difficult times of their lives.
There is no cookie cutter equation as to how to handle a sexual harassment case. Each case is unique and requires us to take a different detailed approach to achieve the best results for our clients. Each client that walks through our door gets a detailed assessment of their case from day one. It is important to remember that each client has a different story to tell and it would be a disservice to our clients to treat each case the same. Besides the obvious notion that each case has different facts, each client also has different needs. Some clients are more affected than others. Some clients want to be involved in the day to day operations of their case, while other clients prefer to take more of a back seat. Whatever the case may be, we ensure that our clients get the quality representation that they deserve.
As lawyers we cannot take back what happened when someone is sexually harassed and there is never any amount of money that can ever fully make a plaintiff whole again. What we strive for is to try and recover as much value as we can to make the employee as whole as possible. Most of the time the recovery is monetary. However, many times we are able to get our clients non-monetary things such as a transfer, reference letters, or counseling. A plaintiff is typically able to recover lost wages, emotional distress damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, or punitive damages. Using our detailed approach to each case, we try to obtain the maximum value for our clients.
What are some of the hurdles of proving sexual harassment?
Often clients come to us and say that they have been sexually harassed, but they do not have any evidence to prove it. The reality is that often, an individual who sexually harasses another individual will not do so in an open forum. When this happens, the individual’s testimony becomes evidence and the jury is left to decide the merits of the case based on the individual’s credibility. Credibility is key and often cases are won or lost based on the credibility of the plaintiff or the defendants.
It is important to remember however, that the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their case. Therefore, the plaintiffs still need to establish that they were sexually harassed and that the corporate entity and/or the individual defendants should bear liability for the sexual harassment. Sometimes proving sexual harassment can be done by providing direct evidence. For example, sometimes plaintiffs can prove sexual harassment by showing sexually harassing text messages, emails, pictures, or recordings. When plaintiffs have such evidence, it often makes it easier to prove the sexual harassment.
When is best to file a lawsuit for sexual harassment? What is the best method of tackling sexual harassment?
Often individuals are afraid to come forward because litigation is such a daunting experience. It is important to know that before a complaint gets filed in court and becomes a public document, attorneys can try to remedy the situation. This is particularly important for individuals who still work in a place where they are being subjected to sexual harassment. Having an attorney step in at this point can be lifechanging, especially if an attorney can get that employee out of harms way.
Often cases are mediated before a case is filed in court and mediation can be very helpful in sexual harassment cases. We typically mediate through private mediators. Mediations are a confidential process where both sides talk to a neutral third party about their allegations or defenses. Not only can this be therapeutic for a plaintiff, but it also allows the attorneys to work together to resolve the matter potentially before filing in court.
If mediation proves to be unsuccessful or our firm determines that filing the case is the best option for our clients, then we file the complaint in court. At this time the case is litigated in the justice system and we continue to advocate for our client in court.
Retaliation is Unlawful
A lot of times employees do not come forward about the harassment in fear of retaliation. This is usually because an employer holds a lot of power on an individual’s career trajectory. Employees are often afraid of being terminated, transferred, losing out on a promotion, or having their complaint become publicized around the office. Sometimes employees are afraid of looking like troublemakers or developing unfavorable reputations. To many of us, our careers are one of the most important things in our lives, other than family. To know that an employer can take that away from us is terrifying. These threats often having chilling effects that keep individuals from complaining about harassment.
However, it is unlawful for an employer to take an adverse action against an employee for complaining about sexual harassment. An adverse employment action can be a termination, a demotion in pay, or a failure to promote. The reason behind this law, is that employees are encouraged to complain about sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination and should not be retaliated against for making that complaint. This right to complain is a protected activity under the law and is one of the most sacred rights we have as employees.
It happens more often than we would like, where we see that an employee complains of sexual harassment and suffers retaliation. In fact, retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. When this happens, the emotional distress can be heightened. Sometimes the employee not only has to deal with the distress of getting sexually harassed but now must cope with losing their job or other possible ramifications from complaining.
Brittany Alexandra Stevens
Associate Attorney
PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES
45 Broadway, Suite 620
New York, New York 10006
Tel: 212-248-7431
www.newyorkcitydiscriminationlawyer.com
Ms. Stevens is a passionate litigator who believes strongly in civil rights and fairness throughout the work environment. In 2018, Ms. Stevens was recognized as a "Rising Star" by New York Super Lawyers for her contributions in employment discrimination. Ms. Stevens has also been recognized as a 2018 "Best Attorney" by both the Best Attorneys of America Association and by the American Institute of Legal Counsel. Most notably, Ms. Stevens has been added as a member of the "Million Dollar Advocates Forum" where she is recognized as a top trial lawyer in America. The Million Dollar Advocates Forum is recognized as one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers across America.
[1] This is the standard in New York City. Each state or city has a different standard of proving a hostile work environment based on gender.
Over the years, Julien Rivet has developed a particularly focused expertise in the fashion and garment industry.
“Being highly involved at the operational level, my experience gave me valuable insight into the practical workings of the industry, beyond merely the legal aspects.” He speaks on disputes regarding agency agreements and what clients are often unaware about.
What are the most recent talking points on the matter of international distribution agreements?
The question of exactly which laws are applicable to a given contract and the issue of dispute resolution provisions have quite often been important talking points.
Problems related to the store environment made available by retail outlets for product distributors are also frequently the object of discussion, as the supplier inevitably seeks to obtain the best possible visibility for its products.
Have there been any recent regulatory developments to affect your work in this legal segment?
The change in GDPR, or General Data Protection Regulation, has been a cause for concern for distributors, especially those doing business online.
Financial transparency requirements, as well as the obligations imposed on certain parties under distribution agreements, have become increasingly restrictive, especially when the distributor agrees to comply with the transparency laws of the supplier’s home country. The full implications are often difficult to assess and such an undertaking can potentially provide the Supplier with grounds for termination of the contract, at the distributor’s exclusive liability.
What are common disputes you deal with regarding agency agreements?
The ramifications are difficult to assess. The termination or end of the term of agency agreements is, in Europe and notably in France, a genuine source of contention. In EU member states, at the end of an agency agreement, the agent is entitled to receive compensation, except in case of termination for serious misconduct or breach. That underlying idea is to compensate the agent for having brought in clients (which belong to the principal) or for losses it may have incurred due to termination of the contract. The principal often seeks to limit the amount of the compensation as much as possible—while sometimes trying to avoid paying it altogether.
What changes are you advocating for which could lessen such disputes?
Avoid conflict and be fair. If the agent has not committed an act of serious misconduct or a breach, there is no need to invoke improper performance against him, as a way to avoid paying compensation. The agent is not an employee and has the right to compensation for termination of contract. That’s the law. It is far more worthwhile to work out a basis for calculating the amount of compensation while trying to limit it, and then negotiate the amount.
What are clients often unaware about when they approach you for assistance for agency or distributing agreements? How do you work them through this?
Quite often, clients think that a distribution agreement can be drawn up very easily, while relying on a boilerplate. That is sometimes the case, but very rarely. A distribution agreement works best when it translates into legal terms the client’s operational and financial reality. Getting the client to understand that idea requires an extended discussion, aimed at allowing the lawyer to acquire a full understanding of all the ins and outs of the client’s business. A lawyer’s complete familiarity with an industry helps him to ask the right questions and anticipate any potential operational constraints. An agreement ought to read like a well-thought-out cooking recipe about to be put into practice.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
I am convinced that, when it comes to the international distribution of products, a brand generally cannot afford to go to litigation with a defaulting distributor. Its primary objective is to sell its products and, in doing so, do its utmost to protect its image. That is the very reason why I became a CEDR and CMAP accredited Mediator, and I encourage my clients to include a mediation clause in their agreements. Mediation is a powerful, swift, and effective tool—and far less costly than court litigation and arbitration.
Julien Rivet
Partner
rivet@bnravocats.com
BERTHEZÈNE NEVOUET RIVET | SOCIÉTÉ D’AVOCATS
Julien Rivet is a member of the Paris Bar and is the Founding Partner of the law office Berthezène Nevouet Rivet, which was created in 2007. He heads the firm’s Commercial Law and Litigation practices.
Julien handles matters dealing mainly with retail distribution and franchising. His clients are, for the most part, companies operating in the fashion, restaurant, hospitality and optics industries.
For the past 10 years, he has been a reference lawyer for the French Knitwear and Lingerie Federation. Also, for 6 years, he was an active partner for a children’s fashion brand distributed from 2007 to 2013 to more than 90 retail fashion outlets worldwide.
BAFTA and Oscar awarding winning Creative Studio Framestore announced their partnership with Pune based Anibrain at a glittering ceremony at the India – UK Createch Summit 2018 held at Taj Lands’ End, Mumbai. Jesh Krishna Murthy, Anibrain’s Founder & CEO and Mike McGee, Chief Creative Officer and Co-Founder of Framestore were in Mumbai for the announcement.
“Our partnership with Anibrain came about through a shared vision and values. We had collaborated with Anibrain over a number of years and we consider them to be the best talent team in India. Anibrain is a key part of our future development as a global company.” said Sir William Sargent, CEO & Co-Founder of Framestore.
Anibrain is an award winning visual and creative studio specializing in creating stunning visuals for Film, TV, Apps & Mobiles.
Since its inception in 1986 Framestore has a proud history of creating extraordinary images and scenes collecting every possible industry award on the way.
Indian Law Partners (ILP) and Ashurst London office advised Framestore, UK on its joint venture with Anibrain Digital Technologies Pvt Ltd.
ILP team was led by Partners Gopika Pant and Kanika Premnarayen, along with Counsel Vineet Gupta, Senior Associate Abhimanyu Kaul and Associates Pranay Kapoor, Abhishek Kumar and Ira Swain and Ashurst London Partner David Carter and Solicitor Jack Mendelssohn acted for Framestore.
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised Anibrain and its Founder Jesh with a team led by Mumbai Partner Abhishek Guha along with Principal Associate Ekta Tyagi.
This month, Dennis Miralis speaks on international criminal law. He touches on why this area of law is prevalent, common types of international crime, when cases can be tried and challenges in international cybercrime investigations.
Why is international criminal law becoming increasingly prevalent?
The rise of international criminal law is intrinsically linked to the rise of globalisation. As the world economy has globalised, so has the rise of international crime. Criminal groups have appropriated new technologies, implemented untraceable network structures, and diversified their activities.
The inherent problem that comes with crimes that are committed extra-territorially is determining which jurisdiction will apply once the offender has been caught.
Additionally, the question remains as to whether such entrenched human rights principles (such as the right to a fair trial and the right to due process) effectively translate to international criminal justice, or whether such fundamental rights are simply lost in a legal vacuum of competing national jurisdictions.
Can you be punished twice for an international criminal offence?
At present, the right to punish the accused of an offence lies with the particular nation state where the offence occurred. However, an individual that faces parallel prosecutions in numerous jurisdictions will encounter different substantive and procedural laws in each country. The fundamental problem for the individual is whether taking a globalised approach to international criminal law will increase the risk of double prosecution and double punishment of the accused. Presently, as long as the offence does not breach the double jeopardy provisions it is possible to be extradited to a foreign jurisdiction at the conclusion of your trial.
The manner and way in which this presently occurs is not subject to any comprehensive guidelines, with the result that persons may be exposed to trials in foreign jurisdictions where the concept of a “fair trial” falls short of international standards.
It is my view that the right to a fair trial needs to become a general principle of international criminal justice so that defendants can present their case under conditions which do not place them at a substantial disadvantage.
What are the most common types of international crime?
The investigation and prosecution of cybercrime is becoming increasingly international with multiple agencies around the world often involved in the process. Individuals and businesses may therefore become the subject of parallel criminal investigations and prosecutions raising complex jurisdictional and procedural issues. By its very nature, cybercrime is borderless and therefore the exposure to penalties outside the jurisdiction where an individual or business is physically located is often a real possibility.
What are some of the challenges in international cybercrime investigations?
Effective investigation of cybercrime and the related proceeds requires cooperation across borders and within different jurisdictions. The institutions involved can include cybercrime units, financial investigation units, Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and prosecution services.
Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is the formal process of sharing evidence about criminal investigations or prosecutions between countries. MLA is considered as the primary method to enforce court orders, gather evidence abroad (including electronic evidence) and recover proceeds of crime.
Many states rely on mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) to govern the MLA process. An MLAT is an agreement between states outlining the terms for managing cross-jurisdictional requests for evidence.
How effective is the Mutual Legal Assistance process?
There have been many criticisms that the Mutual Legal Assistance process is inefficient. Response times to MLA requests can range from 6-24 months, and therefore many requests and investigations are abandoned.
Furthermore, parties appear not to make full use of the opportunities offered by the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, as well as other agreements for the purposes of effective MLA related to cybercrime and electronic evidence. States can elect to provide MLA without a treaty, however MLATs are the best way to outline a streamlined process. The lack of an MLAT can add to the general problem of inefficiency in the MLA process, magnifying uncertainty around how to deal with government requests for data across jurisdictions.
Where can an international criminal case be tried?
Currently, there is an absence of a coherent and comprehensive set of international rules on international criminal justice that coordinates competing jurisdictional claims. Whilst steps have been taken, through the establishment of Europol and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime that have established mechanisms for sharing information (and have even granted authority to perform acts of investigation on their territory to agents of other states), the jurisdictional problem remains.
The absence of even written policies concerning how citizens will be affected by international investigations has the potential to create enormous prejudice to the human rights and procedural fairness of those that find themselves the subject of investigations and prosecutions.
What do you see as being important for criminal defence law firms considering the rise of international crime?
Lawyers now need to be “across international issues”. They need to be capable of gathering evidence from countries throughout the world – in a landscape that is changing rapidly and is very different to even 10 years ago.
There is more cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of different countries, because it’s become “more necessary” and this means that people’s rights have the potential to be threatened in multiple jurisdictions and people can become caught up in much more complex situations than ever before.
A business person might be a naive, honest trader conducting an internet business and without realising it, might have breached the regulatory or security laws of another country.
Or they might be trading in a cyber currency and not have dealt with the different regulatory and security requirements of a number of countries.
More complex cases involve the defence of those accused of international economic crimes, international money laundering, cartels, breaches of UN sanctions, bribery and corruption, and cybercrime.
People can be arrested and extradited or have their assets frozen and for us this involves awareness of other jurisdictions and the capacity to work effectively with local law firms in those jurisdictions to protect our clients’ rights to a fair trial.
How does Nyman Gibson Miralis deal with international crime cases involving extradition?
Our role is to deal firstly with the law enforcement and prosecutors of the person’s home country and to advise them about whether there are grounds to resist their extradition. We aim to get involved before the process of extradition starts, since it can be a difficult process to stop once it starts.
This requires a full working knowledge of how Interpol operates. Some countries will arrest a person on the basis that Interpol has issued a ‘red notice’. The system is open to abuse, especially by countries that don’t have extradition treaties.
Which countries and government agencies have you worked with in international cases?
We have been involved in cases concerning the USA’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and its Department of Justice and the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom.
We see ourselves as part of an emerging trend of truly international criminal defence law firms.
Dennis Miralis
Partner
Nyman Gibson Miralis
Level 9
299 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Australia
Tel: +61 2 9264 8884
dm@ngm.com.au
Dennis Miralis is a leading Australian defence lawyer who acts and advises in complex domestic and international criminal law matters in the following areas: white-collar and corporate crime; money laundering; serious fraud; cybercrime; international asset forfeiture; international proceeds of crime law; bribery and corruption law; international crime law; extradition law; mutual assistance in criminal law matters; anti-terrorism law; national security law; criminal intelligence law; and encryption law.
