Here we look further into the challenges facing In-house and General Counsel by speaking exclusively to Dónall Crehan, General Counsel to all3Media, a group of 21 leading production companies around the world, who operate as independent creators of TV and multi-platform programming and are creative and commercial leaders in their markets.

Q: As General Counsel to a media company which produces TV, film and digital content, what unique legal challenges are raised within your role? How complex does the regulation become?

The scope and breadth of our business, already wide and complex as a result of the different markets in which we operate, is constantly changing, and the pace of that change is increasing every year.  As the audience for our content fragments across multiple platforms (old and new) and an increasing number of viewing destinations on those platforms, the challenge for the business is to keep pace with and use this change to build a stronger connection with that audience and take advantage of the opportunities for producers that are generated by these new ways of viewing our content. A focus on digital is almost a cliché for a production business now, but the opportunities that the new digital platforms offer to have a direct relationship with our audience and with the brands that want to reach that audience are real, and producers ignore them at their peril. And of course the disruption has lead to the emergence of new and powerful digital buyers who are fundamentally changing the dynamics of the more traditional side of the market.

In this context, the biggest challenge for me and my team, and for the teams of lawyers advising our production businesses around the all3media group, is to anticipate these new directions in which our business is moving so that we understand the legal issues (old and new) that it will face. It is important to our ability to successfully support the business in achieving its strategic goals that we are ever ready to advise on the new and evolving regulatory frameworks we encounter and developing and refining flexible ways of transacting this new business with these new clients.

In addition to this general international challenge, the consolidation which the TV production sector has undergone over the past decade in the UK (and in which all3media itself has been heavily involved) has brought its own challenges for lawyers and deal makers here. As the larger broadcaster affiliated production groups have  been pushed outside the scope of the terms of trade protections afforded to independent producers by law, there has resulted a renewed industry focus on the regulatory environment and the terms of business between those production groups and certain of the public service broadcasters.

Q: The aim of the company is to produce ‘first class content’ across all of its platforms; how do you approach your work in order to assist the company in succeeding in this goal?

To be an effective lawyer for any business, in my view, requires a deep understanding of creative and commercial drivers of that business. Of course it is important for me and my team to be across the regulatory frameworks and transactional structures in and through which the international content industry operates, but it is just as important that we understand the trends that are shaping that industry and driving change in it.  This is what connects us to the heart of the business. Without that understanding and connection it is too easy for a lawyer to forget that it is our job not only to point out and explain the rules and regulations to which we are subject, but also to help the business find a way through them without compromising on its values or goals. My aim is that we are a team of lawyers who say ‘yes’, if not always, then almost always – and that means we must be expert enough in our fields (both regulatory and transactional) and confident enough in our expertise that we are able to find a secure way for the business to transact in all the ways necessary for the achievement of its strategic objectives. To succeed we must manage the business’ legal risk effectively while restricting its operations as little as possible. The easier we make this seem, the less our creatives and their businesses will worry about the legals, and the better they will be able to focus on creating world class content.

Q: As general counsel, you must manage all aspects of the company's legal affairs, including corporate governance, compliance, labor and employment, litigation, contracts, and M&A concerns. How do you juggle so many different practice areas and keep on top of the different regulatory frameworks that surround each one?

The only way to do it well is to be surrounded by people who are better than you at it! At alll3media the General Counsel is part of a multidisciplinary and highly experienced executive team lead by the CEO and consisting of COO, CFO, Director of Corporate Development and Group HR Director – so as a business, we have deep wells of commercial, financial and regulatory expertise to draw on, and every issue is considered from more than one perspective.  In terms of legal risk management, I think it is most important as a General Counsel to be well informed, and that means being well connected to your business units and to your advisers; and after that, you must know when to seek advice as well as how to give it. My corporate legal team at head office is lean and flexible, and we are very good at identifying risk and making sure we have or procure the expertise to mitigate it appropriately. Most of our production companies have their own in-house legal team, and each of those teams have an excellent understanding of their company’s business and the regulatory framework in which it operates – their transactional, advisory and risk management skills are uniformly best in class. I speak to each of them regularly and I rely on them to keep their businesses safe and my team informed. And finally we have a network of excellent external legal advisers in each territory in which we operate who keep us abreast of regulatory and legal developments affecting the industry, and trends in transactional structures which enable us to be competitive at all times.

Q: All3Media recently acquired New Pictures Limited; can you tell me a little about this deal?

This was a great deal for all3media – the New Pictures creative team is world class, and we are tremendously excited that we were able to bring them into the group. The Missing was one of my favourite shows of 2014, and I can’t wait to see what they do with series 2 later this year! On the legal side, the deal was an interesting one – combining a number of complex structural issues with a very tight timetable for delivery. My team worked very closely with Olswang, who provided an excellent service – incredibly supportive and flexible at all times. A unique challenge of the deal for the all3media  legal team was the fact that we did the legal due diligence in-house, and I was very proud of the thorough but commercial approach that we took to identifying and managing legal risk through that process. By keeping the strategic rationale for the deal at the forefront of our minds throughout the process, we were able to deliver a well-structured and risk-mitigated deal quickly and efficiently and without compromising on any of the business’ strategic aims for the acquisition.

Q: What common challenges do you think face general counsel in the year ahead?

I think that in many fields, coping with the transactional and regulatory challenges presented by industry disruption will dominate the corporate legal agenda for 2016; whether the impact is consolidation or fragmentation – there will be work to do in helping businesses adapt to and take best advantage of change. For businesses who are reacting to consolidation in their industries, then I expect that M&A and investment will be a continued focus and challenge, with signs pointing to a lot of deal activity across the corporate spectrum in the next 12 months. And of course there will be the constant challenge to add risk management and strategic value to the business while keeping overhead and external adviser fees low. Be right, be quick, be lean, be mean – same old imperatives, no matter how new the world!

For more stories like this please view the latest magazine http://www.lawyer-monthly.com/magazine-lm/

Cyber breaches and insider threats, which include malicious employees stealing, manipulating or destroying data, are the fastest-growing risks for UK companies according to EY’s 2016 Global Forensic Data Analytics Survey, Shifting into high gear: mitigating risks and demonstrating returns.

The survey was conducted with 665 executives globally across nine industry sectors, including financial services, life sciences, manufacturing and power and utilities.

In the UK, the survey asked 66 respondents to outline their biggest concerns around fraud and corruption. 83% of respondents - the highest percentage globally - felt that cyber breaches and insider threats posed the fastest growing fraud risk. 65% said that internal fraud, such as submitting false travel expenses and entertainment abuse posed the second highest risk – also significantly higher than other countries surveyed. 68% of UK businesses also said that they needed to do more to improve their current anti-fraud procedures.

Paul Walker, EY’s UK Head of Forensic Technology & Discovery Services, explained: “UK companies are facing both old and new challenges in fraud prevention. It is interesting to see that the more ‘low tech’ forms of fraud, such as submitting false receipts, still pose a big concern for many companies as well as the evolving threat of cybercrime,  which is now an everyday reality and a relentless challenge in order to stay ahead of the hackers.

“We are therefore seeing more boards and senior management looking towards advanced technology such as forensic data analytics as a critical component of their risk management and compliance programmes. This is especially critical given the current regulatory enforcement environment and market reaction to instances of alleged corporate fraud, bribery and cyber breaches.”

Advanced tech to track down fraud

In response to these increased risks, the use of advanced Forensic Data Analytics (FDA) is becoming more mainstream, with new technologies and surveillance monitoring techniques widely used to help companies manage current and emerging fraud and cyber risks.

The use of visualisation tools, which can show patterns in suspect activity, has doubled over the last two years. Respondents also reported the increasing use of social and web monitoring tools as well as statistical analysis and data mining packages to track down fraudsters.

Paul continues: “Given the level of pressure organisations are facing on fraud prevention, it is no surprise that businesses are taking a more sophisticated approach. Surveillance monitoring programmes which use FDA can help organisations to strengthen their compliance programmes and bolster the confidence of regulators and other stakeholders.”

Increased FDA investment – the global picture

Globally, three out of five respondents said that they plan to spend more on FDA in the next two years. When looking at the reasons for increased investment, the survey found that responding to growing cybercrime risks and increased regulatory scrutiny are the top drivers at 53% and 43%, respectively. How FDA tools are deployed is also changing, with 63% of respondents saying they invest at least half of their FDA budget on proactive monitoring activities.

Paul continued: “The UK Government and regulators have a strong track record of tackling fraud and corruption. Our survey shows that businesses are also taking these threats seriously, especially as fraudsters and hackers find new ways of perpetrating crimes.

“There is, of course, always more to be done and a focus on proactive monitoring as well as continued investment in new technology will ensure UK businesses continue to lead the way in addressing fraud and corruption risks.”

For more stories like this please view the latest magazine http://www.lawyer-monthly.com/magazine-lm/

As the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill nears the end of its legislative journey, the Charity Commission is set to get a windfall of new powers. The origins of the Bill date back nearly two and a half years and, in spite of considerable consultation, charity law experts are still concerned that certain provisions could seriously damage charity independence and cede too much to the sector’s regulator.

Sector leaders such as ACEVO, Charity Finance Group, the Directory of Social Change, the Association of Charitable Foundations, Bond and solicitors BWB, have expressed concerns about the highly discretionary nature of a number of the powers to be bestowed upon the regulator. Here, Jay Kennedy, Director of Policy and Research at the charity Directory of Social Change (DSC), discusses the main concerns that have arisen and shed light on the potential impact.

Background

In 2013 the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office produced reports that were highly critical of the Charity Commission’s performance. This started a process of consultation and scrutiny of draft legislation throughout 2014, including a Draft Protection of Charities Bill which was examined by a joint House of Commons / House of Lords committee at the end of 2014.

Much of the current Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords during 2015, flows from that draft bill and the previous consultation phases. The passage of the current bill also coincided with a media-storm and crisis in the sector around the issue of fundraising, resulting in reserve powers being introduced into the Bill which would enable the Commission to regulate fundraising in the future if the planned reform of fundraising self-regulation fails.

The legislation is quite technical, and much of it is not controversial, but a number of elements are extremely problematic. In summary if enacted it would enhance the Charity Commission’s powers to issue official warnings to charities, to wind up charities and move their assets to other charities, and to disqualify trustees with certain criminal records or if the Commission believes them to be unfit to be charity trustees.

Powers to remove trustees

At the moment, charity law disqualifies any person with unspent convictions for crimes involving dishonesty and deception from volunteering as a trustee. The Bill will expand the list of specified offences to include terrorism, sexual offenses, and money laundering for example. Clause 10 would also see the disqualification of trustees for these crimes extended to positions of senior management in charities, a provision added in at a late stage at the behest of the Minister for Civil Society and met by criticism from the sector over what this would mean for employment rights. Despite the Joint Committee raising this problem in its February 2014 report, nothing has been done to address the issue.

Clause 11 of the Bill goes even further, giving the Charity Commission extraordinary discretionary power to remove any trustee if it judges that ‘any other past or continuing conduct by the person, whether or not in relation to a charity, is damaging or likely to be damaging to public trust and confidence in charities’.

This is not a minor detail in the Bill - it actually represents a tectonic shift in power between the state (in the form of the regulator) and civil society. The discretion afforded by the language is so wide it essentially means the Commission could disqualify anybody for practically any reason from being a trustee, regardless of whether that person had been convicted of any crime or found guilty of wrongdoing.

It is a kind of ‘carte blanche’ power for the Commission over charity trustees - fundamentally illiberal, granting huge authority to a government agency – making the Commission judge, jury and executioner regarding any citizen’s ability to engage in voluntary action. The judgment about who can volunteer to be a charity trustee could be made based on the subjective views and opinions of whoever is running the Charity Commission – which might be unduly influenced by media or political pressure as opposed to an objective consideration of the facts and legal due process.

The Commission wants this power to deal with a handful of tricky enforcement cases, and has said that it will use it sparingly and will consult further. But ultimately the enactment of Clause 11 would not be in the interest of a free and liberal society or the charity sector at large. The Commission has plenty of other powers to deal with bad trustees, including a raft of new measures in the current Bill. Even if we have faith in the Charity Commission of 2015 to use this power proportionately and judiciously, what about in five or ten years’ time?

The organisations mentioned at the beginning of this article have called for significant amendments to Clause 11 that would reduce its breadth of scope but it looks likely to become a feature of the law as it reaches its final stages in the House of Commons.

Power to issue statutory warnings

Clause 1 of the Bill would allow the Commission to issue an official warning to a charity when it considers there to have been a breach of trust or duty or other misconduct or mismanagement. The Commission wants a way to publicly warn (or name and shame) charities and charity trustees without the full process of opening a statutory enquiry under Section 46 of the Charities Act 2011.

The Bill requires the Commission to issue advanced notice to the charity of its intention to issue a warning, but notice can be issued within 24 hours of a warning ‘going live’. Considering that trustees are volunteers, this is unreasonable and would not allow time for the charity to prepare a considered response or make representations. In a recent High Court case, the Lord Chief Justice referred to short time limits imposed by the Commission as “ludicrous”.

The organisations mentioned above have argued that the Charity Commission should be required to issue advanced notice of its intention to issue a warning of no less than 28 days.

This clause represents a severe risk of unwarranted reputational damage to charities. What if the Commission is wrong, but the charity is damaged by bad headlines anyway? It is also a threat hanging over the heads of trustees which may make them more averse to risk – when many of today’s social problems require a more risk-tolerant approach. The only option for redress currently is to seek a judicial review which can be long and costly. An option suggested to the Public Bill Committee is that charities are given the right to appeal a warning directly to the Charity Tribunal, but this has been rebuffed.

What next?

The Bill is due a third reading in the Commons at which these issues may be put to further discussion. As of the time of writing a date has not been set. This is the last opportunity to avoid what looks like a potential backwards step in the regulation of charities. We are all too aware that it is far more difficult to take powers away from regulators if they are wrongly used, than it is to not grant them in the first place.

For more stories like this please view the latest magazine http://www.lawyer-monthly.com/magazine-lm/

It was recently announced that the UK government is calling for migrants to have to wait four years before they can claim tax credits, in a bid to reduce immigration. To find out how feasible this is, and what impact it would have on Immigration Law, Lawyer Monthly speaks to Katie Harris, Solicitor at Mackrell Turner Garrett.

Q: What are your initial reactions to the Government’s announcement?

David Cameron formally set out the government’s objective to restrict EU migrants’ access to in-work benefits, such as tax credits, in a recent letter to the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk.

He stated that although the UK believes in an open economy, it is finding it increasingly difficult to cope with all the pressures that free movement can bring - on our schools, our hospitals and our public services.

He notes that with our net migration running at over 300,000 a year, immigration policy must be changed to alleviate this pressure on the UK.

David Cameron insists that the UK be allowed to restrict in-work benefits for EU workers until they have lived in the UK for 4 years.

Whilst the Prime Minister may be feeling the pressure to curb EU immigration, implementation of this particular proposed policy is problematic for a number of reasons explained below.

Q: Do you think the law will be passed? How quickly?

The major stumbling block with this type of policy is that its implementation would cause EU migrants to be treated less favourably than UK citizens.  Discriminating against EU workers, whether deliberate or inadvertently, goes against one of the EU’s founding principles - the freedom to live and work anywhere in the EU.

Applying a blanket policy to EU migrants alone is likely to be challenged in the courts by the European Commission under EU anti-discriminatory laws.

Indeed, the European Commission has already taken the UK Government to court over alleged breaches of EU anti-discrimination laws when Labour introduced the right to reside test back in 2004; a test that led to citizens of other EU states being refused social benefits on the grounds that they did not have a right of residence in the UK.

Such cases, which are ultimately heard in the European Court of Justice - the EU's top court - can take years to conclude.

The Government will have to be careful and precise when implementing any current proposed policy to avoid such a challenge and to avoid a lengthy and expensive battle against the European Commission.

Q: If it is passed, how effective do you think it will be in cutting immigration to the UK?

The policy is based on the assumption that the attractiveness of the UK as a country to live and work is influenced in some degree by the attractiveness of its welfare system.   If the policy is intended to have a dramatic effect on net migration, it assumes that there many migrants coming to the UK that would be persuaded not to come to the UK if it were more difficult to claim benefits.

How influential and effective this policy will be is therefore ultimately dependant on the factual accuracy of that assumption.

The attractiveness of the UK is of course determined by other influential factors which are responsible for driving the influx of migrants to the UK.  The UK’s economic recovery makes it a destination for many EU migrants seeking work, with unemployment rates high in their native country. It is an attractive place for people to study, having some of the best universities in the world.  The UK will of course be more attractive for those that speak English, which is a typically universal language.  Ultimately becoming a UK citizen allows access to a British passport; one of the most powerful in the world in terms of unrestricted travel around the globe.

Accordingly, although curbing any potential for welfare shopping is favourable, it is unlikely to be the UK’s benefit system (which is arguably not actually overly generous compared with other EU countries) that attracts the majority of migrants to the UK and for that reason there are doubts over the effectiveness of such a policy in dramatically reducing net migration.

Q: What other impact will this move have? Positives and negatives?

It is also likely that the policy will have an impact on the British people.  The first reason for this is that, in order to circumvent the EU anti-discrimination laws, it is likely that the Government would also have to apply restrictions to UK citizens.  One option that has been canvased is to implement a 4 year residency rule for Britons, meaning that even if they had lived in the UK all their lives, from their 18th birthday they would be ineligible for the benefits until they reach 22 years old.

It may also impact on British people who have a foreign partner/spouse or parent.  Potentially, those families may be classed as “non-UK families” and be subject to the restrictions.

Positively, the policy may at least be seen by some – particularly those in the press - as an attempt by the Government to negotiate a better position for the UK within the EU.  However, in reality the effect on net migration may actually be negligible.  Further, a policy that prevents EU migrants from drawing from a welfare system that they are actively contributing to, is questionable.

Q: Do you feel there are any other ways in which immigration to the UK could be reduced?

Other options to reduce net migration to the UK include cracking down on those who obtain entry to the UK illegally, and implementing tougher and longer re-entry bans for those that attempt to enter the UK dishonestly. Longer bans, for example, should be given to those people who collude in sham marriages or those who abuse student visas.  Stronger powers prevent criminals from entering the UK and to stop them coming back would also help.

Q: Do you agree that immigration does need to be cut? Please explain.

Net migration needs to be controlled at a level that is sustainable for the UK.  However, with the UK economy on the rise, more and more people will want to come to the UK.  The attractiveness of the welfare system is a micro “pull factor” for migrants.  The larger pull factor will ultimately be that the UK is a great place to live.

 For more stories like this please view the latest magazine http://www.lawyer-monthly.com/magazine-lm/

The European Union’s competition commissioner continues to take on industrial Goliaths, part of a renewed EU push to keep the continent’s markets open and competitive for Davids to thrive as well. Commissioner Margarethe Vestager’s focus on American technology giants, such as Google and Qualcomm, and other stalwarts like McDonald’s, has drawn accusations of an anti-U.S. bias.  But she has also courted political peril by targeting Russia’s Gazprom, and taken aim at European ethanol producers, continental utility companies, and French fiscal policies. There is no question that so-called dominant companies have been in the commission’s spotlight, according to Morrison & Foerster antitrust partner Tom McQuail, and here, he tells us more.

Q: Why do you feel the Competition Commissioner is making such a determined attack on so-called ‘dominant’ companies at the moment? What do you think was the catalyst for such action?

Margrethe Vestager, the Competition Commissioner, made a very public statement of intent by bringing abuse of dominance cases against Google, Gazprom and Qualcomm.  She wants companies to know that she is not afraid to use the Commission’s considerable powers of enforcement, even in highly politicized cases.  Her decision to announce the Google Shopping Statement of Objections in Washington DC in April 2015 was almost provocative – the US authorities had not brought an equivalent case in the US.

In some ways, the Commissioner was in the right place at the right time.  The cases were already before the Commission and are in sectors that are considered strategically important.  The Google and (to a lesser extent) Qualcomm cases can be seen as logical cases in the context of the Commission’s overall Digital Single Market strategy.  Likewise, the Gazprom investigation reflects broader Commission concerns in relation to energy policy.

Q: How long is this effort likely to last?

The Commission has limited resources so its ability to take new cases will largely depend on how the current investigations unfold.  If these investigations become bogged down, as they often do in complex cases, the Commission may be reluctant or unable to take on new cases.

The competition authorities in the 28 EU Member States also enforce abuse of dominance rules at national level.  For example, Orange was fined €350 million in France in December 2015 for hindering competition in the markets for telecommunications services for businesses.

Q: What do you predict will be the impact on business in the long run? Will it give smaller companies the chance to bloom?

Complex abuse of dominance investigations often take several years from the initial complaint.  By the time Commission Decisions are made, the markets and technology have often moved on.  Companies most affected by the alleged abuse may well no longer be around to benefit from the Decision.

That said, the high profile of these abuse of dominance cases may affect the commercial behaviour of potentially dominant companies who will not want to be embroiled in a long and complex investigation.

Q: Do you think the Commission will seek settlements with defendants or push for rulings that impose fines?

The Commission often prefers to settle abuse of dominance cases if it can obtain acceptable binding commitments from the defendants, for example, the recent commitments by Bulgarian Energy Holding to open up the Bulgarian wholesale electricity market).  Settlements enable the Commission to change how the dominant company conducts business in the market (and set a precedent that will apply in equivalent cases).  The Commission may also prefer a settlement rather than issuing a Decision which is likely to be challenged before the European Courts.  However, finding an acceptable settlement can be very difficult especially where there are strong organised complainants (as is the case in the Google investigation).

Q: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

The Commissioner maintains that the Commission considers cases on their merits and that it does not discriminate against US companies.  However there remains a widespread perception in the US that successful US companies are unfairly targeted by the Commission.   The irony is that many of the cases against US companies stem in part from complaints by large US companies.

For more stories like this please view the latest magazine http://www.lawyer-monthly.com/magazine-lm/

It was recently announced that Facebook at Work will now be offered to all companies, after spending a year in tests. The new system will mean that employees can utilise Facebook for professional purposes, but in a way that will keep it separate from their personal profiles. To find out more, Lawyer Monthly speaks to Marian Bloodworth, employment partner at Kemp Little, the technology and digital media law firm.

The arrival of Facebook at work will no doubt be welcomed by employees used to managing their personal lives and interests outside of work– as it will now allow them to do the same for their work lives with similar levels of functionality.  For millennials and those who have grown up in an internet age, the extension of Facebook to the workplace may seem an obvious step – and one that is long overdue.

Employers too will be keen to harness the benefits of a work based interaction system that should only increase opportunities for employees to connect and collaborate. This could be particularly beneficial in larger organisations where teams are spread across the business, and those where employees tend to work remotely. As a result it could prove a useful tool for increasing employee engagement, and thus help with retention and recruitment.

However, such a system does not come without risk. Businesses will need to be alive to the potential mis-use of the system by employees – given that it provides another forum – in addition to existing email, phone and instant messaging functions – for employees to express personal views, and potentially, discuss sensitive and confidential business and customer issues. The need to protect sensitive customer information has been highlighted recently by several high profile hacking incidents of customer data and by the FCA’s very recent report (10/12/15) on the need for financial services organisations to do more internally to protect the flow of confidential and inside information. In addition, the recent data protection decision in the Schrems case has highlighted the need for all organisations to consider how data is transmitted, particularly on a global basis.

Employers will therefore need to be very clear with employees about how the system should be used. In particular they will need to:

• Remind employees of the need to ensure that posts and conversations are not discriminatory, offensive or defamatory – and to update both their diversity and disciplinary policies and guidelines accordingly
• Consider the data protection issues that may arise where Facebook at Work is used on a global basis
• Enforce clear guidelines regarding the topics that can be discussed, which may include for example, limiting or prohibiting discussion of customer information or company confidential information such as financial results, trade secrets and future plans
• Check the membership and security of the groups to ensure that they are appropriate and maintained
• Monitor the use of the groups to ensure that they are not being mis-used

For a large organisation, monitoring and enforcing the above is likely to require an additional level of resources, with HR, risk and compliance functions all needing to be aware of the potential challenges the system could present.

For more stories like this please view the latest magazine http://www.lawyer-monthly.com/magazine-lm/

 This month, as part of our In-house Counsel interview series, Lawyer Monthly takes a look at the work of Claire Russell, In-House Counsel at Anglian Water Group. She tells us exclusively about her role, the challenges she faces on a daily basis and how she keeps on top of the ever changing regulation that Anglian Water is bound by.

The news of a young woman being duped into handing over £1.35 million to a person purporting to be the legal owner of the property was reported in the Daily Mail last week.  It serves as another stark reminder of the risk of fraud in the conveyancing sector.

Maud Rousseau, Group Marketing and Communications Director of SearchFlow, conveyancing search provider, looks at why the industry needs to hand over the baton when checking the identity of their clients to electronic data specialists.

Money laundering schemes are continually adapting with more sophisticated means to scam the profession. This latest case reported in the national press involved a fraudster taking out a rental agreement on the property before the property was placed on the market and the other who stole the identity of the real owner.  Between them they were able to fool the letting agent, the selling agent and both the seller and buying conveyancers.

With more and more of these shocking cases of fraud hitting the national press, conveyancers, brokers, estate agents and lenders are acutely aware of the problem. So, it is startling that many in these professions are still not carrying out electronic checks on identification. If the estate agent and conveyancer of the purported seller had issued electronic identity checks, the fraudsters’ scam could have been foiled.

The standard identity checks that have been deployed for so many years are not sufficient in these times.  Training your staff, remaining extra vigilant, scrutinising the documents carefully, seeking additional references, reacting to high alert factors and double-checking with senior colleagues will not keep you and your clients safe anymore.

The detection of fraud can’t be based on instinct or left to luck. Conveyancers are leaving themselves open to criminal activity, which can seriously impact their careers and reputations.

There have been numerous initiatives to combat the growing problem, such as Land Registry’s Property Alert, the free service which gives an early warning of suspicious activity on a property.  However, this is a big international problem and the technological advancement and sophisticated means of fraud requires global leaders in identity data to step in and provide the conveyancing industry with the much needed additional protection.

Partnering with GB Group, the global leaders in identity data, our fully integrated and detailed AML report gives extensive and instant results.  It will save you time checking and double checking documents, allowing you to proceed with your job knowing that this very concerning area of risk has been dealt with.

Identity data specialists utilise the most comprehensive suite of data sets, which are updated daily and sourced from over 240 countries. It is then analysed and presented using a risk-based approach, flagging data mismatches and offers a full five year electronic audit trail. The AML report is a low cost report which offers vital protection, reassurance and time saving.

The old method of identity checks; scanning a passport, birth certificate or utility bill, however carefully, does not suffice anymore.  All professions within the housing market need to now accept the requirement for the experts of identity data intelligence to protect them and their clients from the risks of identity theft.

A South Wales law firm has secured a major contract from a multinational software company, to support its strategy on protecting its Intellectual Property and lead its fight against international piracy of its products.

Cardiff-based CJCH Solicitors has a contract with Dassault Systèmes to combat the unlawful use of its design software across countries in Europe and the Middle East.

The CJCH team, led by senior partner Stephen Clarke (pictured), investigates the use of pirated software  in these countries and takes the appropriate  action against the infringers  with the aim of either regularising the situation or stopping the misuse through the legal process.

“We first worked with Dassault Systèmes six years ago,” explained Mr Clarke. “Initially, it was just in the UK and in compliance related issues.  However the success we achieved led to our firm being invited to run pilot projects with the focus being the commercial use of pirated software  We started the pilot last summer in six European countries and from the results achieved we won the full-time contract that has now been   widened further.

“The latest contract adds 10 further countries in Europe to our portfolio, as well as the Middle East. “

Andrew Clarkson the Global head of Anti-Piracy and Compliance for Dassault Systèmes says of the partnership with CJCH “It has been a great success for Dassault Systemes and the way that CJCH has managed the project is completely in line with our strategy of encouraging the use of legally bought software and educating business around the risks of using ‘cracked’ software.”

Dassault Systèmes is a major provider of 3D design software (www.3ds.com) serving 12 industries (automotive, aerospace, consumer goods, energy, life sciences, natural resources, etc) around the world.

Copying of the software and using it without a licence are criminal and/or civil offences in all countries, and CJCH’s expertise includes deciding how best to deal with each case it identifies.

The team has expanded from six to 15 with many being  law graduates with language skills, and some coming from overseas to study a Masters in Law at Cardiff University, staying on to work with CJCH.

“It’s a very talented team, and we have a huge range of languages covered – French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Turkish, and several Asian languages,” said Mr Clarke.

“We’re now looking to add someone with Scandinavian languages to our team, as our work expands into those countries.”

Mr Clarke has also been chosen by Dassault Systèmes to help their lawyers covering, North and South America and Asia by offering them his expert advice and guidance.

The CJCH anti-piracy team is based in Cardiff, but the firm also has offices in Bridgend and Barry. Further information is available at www.cjch.co.uk.

Earlier this year, CJCH’s anti-piracy work earned it a place as a finalist in the international business category at the inaugural Cardiff Business Awards.

International law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) has announced its intention to open its first office in Myanmar and the appointment of Partner Chris Hughes, former Managing Partner in Baker & McKenzie’s Yangon office, to lead this expansion. Once established, this will be the Firm’s 14^th office in its 12^th country and further strengthens and extends its presence in Asia where it currently has offices in China, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Over the last few years, the Firm has made strong inroads into Myanmar and in 2013 advised Fosroc on what was seen as the first UK investment into the country since the enactment of the new Foreign Investment Law. The opening of an office in Myanmar, the largest country in mainland South East Asia and one of the fastest growing markets, means BLP will capitalise on the improving investment climate in the region, as evidenced by the country’s first democratic elections in 25 years having just taken place. It also reflects the Firm’s constant commitment to its clients’ needs, ensuring that it has a physical presence in such a rapidly developing economy. According to the Asian Development Bank, Myanmar is targeting a 2016 GDP growth of 8.2 per cent, driven by foreign investment and rapid expansion in its telecoms sector^[1]. With its wealth of natural resources and strategic location between India and China, foreign investment is increasingly focused on the country’s energy, transportation, tourism and telecommunications industries^[2] presenting BLP with the opportunity to advise investors from abroad.

Chris Hughes is a highly respected Australian and UK qualified emerging markets transactional lawyer. He has a broad corporate background with vast experience in M&A activity, finance deals and projects work. His work has spanned sectors including energy and infrastructure, power, telecommunications, consumer goods and government. Chris is also the lead draftsman on the Asian Development Bank sponsored Myanmar Company Law reform process, which will be shortly submitted to Parliament, giving BLP a leading edge in corporate advice to local and international businesses. Chris will be focused on developing a talented team of both Myanmar and international legal staff to help clients succeed in the country.

Bob Charlton, Head of Asia, BLP, said: “With further political stability and clients demanding more insightful expertise across South East Asia, this is the perfect time for BLP to expand its presence in the region. Myanmar is one of the most emerging of the South East Asian economies and Chris’ appointment provides real local knowledge which will be of huge benefit to our clients.

“The legal market is in growth mode in Myanmar and this provides great opportunities for BLP in a country which is now opening up to increased international investment into infrastructure, real estate, telecommunications and transport to name a few. By opening here, we will be able to provide world class legal services, helping the development and transition of Myanmar. Feedback from our existing clients in Myanmar, as well as prospective clients across the wider region, shows it is the right time to have a physical presence in the country and highlights how we as a Firm are flexible and nimble enough to respond to our clients’ needs.”

Commenting on his appointment, Chris added: ”Having worked in Myanmar for a couple of years now, I understand the challenges and opportunities associated with businesses entering into frontier markets. Many companies from Europe and North America are now ensuring that investment into South East Asia, and particularly Myanmar, is a big part of any growth strategy and we will be perfectly positioned to advise them with our local knowledge alongside our already strong Asian footprint. As one of the first international law firms to operate in Myanmar, BLP has a rich history of working in the South East Asia region and the opportunity to build a local presence to serve a truly international client base really attracted me to the Firm.”

In March 2014, BLP was one of the first firms to make an entry into Myanmar with the announcement that a local law firm, Legal Network Consultants (LNC) had become the Myanmar member of its Asia Network. This helped the firm to truly understand the market in Myanmar before the right opportunity came about to open its own office. These latest developments will have no effect on the Firm’s relationship with LNC, which will remain a member of BLP’s Asia Network. The existing relationship will continue to prosper and grow, sharing work whenever necessary.

[1]         http://www.adb.org/countries/myanmar/economy

[2]         http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinternational/2015/01/09/the-rebirth-of-burma/