Systemic Forum Selection Ambiguity in Financial Regulation Enforcementעמימות סיסטמית בבחירת פורום אכיפה ברגולציה כלכלית

Eithan Y. Kidron
{"title":"Systemic Forum Selection Ambiguity in Financial Regulation Enforcementעמימות סיסטמית בבחירת פורום אכיפה ברגולציה כלכלית","authors":"Eithan Y. Kidron","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2795908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The growing use of administrative proceedings in financial regulation, as an alternative to criminal enforcement, has raised concerns about forum selection ambiguity. These concerns led to challenges of forum selection ambiguity for under-criminalization, expropriation of defendants’ rights, and harm to the principle of legality. Contemporary literature identifies ambiguity in forum selection and describes it as a discretionary problem. Much of today’s literature therefore calls for clear forum selection guidelines. As a step towards addressing the ambiguity problem, the SEC recently issued guidance on its approach to forum selection in contested actions.This Article suggests that the SEC has taken a step in the wrong direction. Contrary to the current literature, I argue that forum selection ambiguity does not stem from the lack of clear policy guidelines, but rather from the legal theory behind them, which has created systemic ambiguity in punitive forum selection. Due to this ambiguity, not only can the regulated entity, on its part, not know in advance whether its conduct will be deemed criminal or administrative, but the regulator herself cannot justify her forum selection decision coherently.","PeriodicalId":422856,"journal":{"name":"HRN PRG - English Papers (Topic)","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HRN PRG - English Papers (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795908","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The growing use of administrative proceedings in financial regulation, as an alternative to criminal enforcement, has raised concerns about forum selection ambiguity. These concerns led to challenges of forum selection ambiguity for under-criminalization, expropriation of defendants’ rights, and harm to the principle of legality. Contemporary literature identifies ambiguity in forum selection and describes it as a discretionary problem. Much of today’s literature therefore calls for clear forum selection guidelines. As a step towards addressing the ambiguity problem, the SEC recently issued guidance on its approach to forum selection in contested actions.This Article suggests that the SEC has taken a step in the wrong direction. Contrary to the current literature, I argue that forum selection ambiguity does not stem from the lack of clear policy guidelines, but rather from the legal theory behind them, which has created systemic ambiguity in punitive forum selection. Due to this ambiguity, not only can the regulated entity, on its part, not know in advance whether its conduct will be deemed criminal or administrative, but the regulator herself cannot justify her forum selection decision coherently.
在金融监管中,越来越多地使用行政诉讼来替代刑事执法,这引起了人们对论坛选择模糊的担忧。这些问题导致了法庭选择的模糊性对刑事定罪不足的挑战,剥夺了被告的权利,损害了合法性原则。当代文学将论坛选择的模糊性描述为一个自由裁量的问题。因此,今天的许多文献都呼吁制定明确的论坛选择指南。作为解决歧义问题的一步,美国证券交易委员会最近发布了关于争议诉讼中论坛选择方法的指导意见。这篇文章表明,美国证券交易委员会已经朝着错误的方向迈出了一步。与目前的文献相反,我认为论坛选择的模糊性不是源于缺乏明确的政策指导,而是源于其背后的法律理论,这在惩罚性论坛选择中造成了系统性的模糊性。由于这种模糊性,不仅被监管实体无法事先知道其行为将被视为刑事行为还是行政行为,而且监管机构本身也无法连贯地证明其论坛选择决策的合理性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信