Tag Archives: Stéphane Bonifassi

Balancing Victim Compensation and Efficiency in Non-Trial Resolutions: A Comparative Perspective from the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators

by Stéphane Bonifassi, Lincoln Caylor, Grégoire Mangeat, Léon Moubayed, Jonathan Sack, Andrew Stafford K.C., Wolfgang Spoerr, and Thomas Weibel

Photos of authors.

Top left to right: Stéphane Bonifassi, Lincoln Caylor, Grégoire Mangeat, Léon Moubayed. Bottom left to right: Jonathan Sack, Andrew Stafford K.C., Wolfgang Spoerr, and Thomas Weibel. (Photos courtesy of authors)

Introduction

Negotiated settlements for financial crimes offer a practical approach to resolving cases without lengthy trials. However, they pose a complex dilemma: how to balance efficiency with the need for victims to have a meaningful role in the proceeding and achieve adequate victim compensation. Across various jurisdictions, the approaches to non-trial resolutions reflect differing priorities, with some countries leaning towards expediency and others emphasizing victim rights. This is why the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators published a working paper on the topic. This piece explores the current state of how victims of financial crime are being compensated in non-trial resolutions across different legal jurisdictions. Furthermore, it identifies some of the challenges and trade-offs lawmakers face when trying to infuse an optimal amount of victim involvement into the settlement process, providing suggestions on how victims of financial crime can be better heard and compensated in settlement procedures.

Continue reading →

Arbitration Now Requires Knowledge of Criminal Law Principles

by Stéphane Bonifassi

Bring arbitrators and criminal-law experts in a room together these days and watch a debate about applicable laws unfold.

Arbitrators naturally tend to focus on the contract, the dispute at hand and the laws governing both.  Criminal lawyers, like me, think it’s important for arbitrators to consider other laws, especially criminal laws, to ensure the enforceability of arbitral awards and to ensure that no one is held criminally liable for one reason or the other, including the arbitrators themselves. I experienced this paradigm-shifting debate firsthand working on a project initiated by Professor Mark Pieth of the Basel Institute on Governance.

Pieth, who rightly recognized the differing position between arbitrators and financial crime litigators two years ago, invited representatives from academia, arbitration, and financial crime litigation to help him put together a toolkit for arbitrators that will guide them through the increased scrutiny that surrounds companies entering into contracts with arbitration clauses. His academic assistant and author of “Proving Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering in International Arbitration” Kathrin Betz helped Pieth synthesize our discussions and viewpoints to develop “Corruption and Money Laundering in International Arbitration – A Toolkit for Arbitrators,” published May 30. Continue reading →