Leonardo S Borlini
Associate Professor of International Law (University Bocconi)
BA and M.Sc in Law and Business Administration from Bocconi University (magna cum laude) and in Degree in Law (JD equivalent) from University of Pavia (magna cum laude). LL.M from the University of Cambridge. Ph.D in International Law and Economics from Bocconi University.
Visiting Professor at the School of Transnational Law at the Peking University He was 2019 Fulbright Research Scholar at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts University, MA, USA).
Since 2012 a member of the Department of Legal Studies of Bocconi University and Faculty Member of the PhD in Legal Studies. He is Resident fellow at the BAFFI CAREFIN (Centre for Applied Research on International Markets, Banking, Finance and Regulation). Leonardo Borlini held prior academic appointments at the Department of Legal Studies of Bocconi University and the Faculty of Political Sciences of LUISS – Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli, or the Guido Carli Free International University for Social Studies.
He is part of the United Nations Expert Group working on Anti-Corruption Academic materials (Academic Initiative Against Corruption-UNODC); Research Fellow for the Research Centre on International Cooperation Regarding Persons Sought for Corruption and Asset Recovery established by the G20 at the Beijing Normal University and member of the Wolfson College (University of Cambridge, UK). He has held visiting research scholarships and position at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts University); Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva; Normal Beijing University; Legal Department of the International Monetary Fund (IMF); and the World Bank Group. He is Visiting Professor at the School of Transnational Law of the Peking University and the Normal Beijing University. He is also Attorney-at-Law at the Milan Bar.
Phone: +39 (0)2 58365207
Address: Department of Legal Studies, Universiy Bocconi, Via Roentgen 1, 20136, Milan (IT)
BA and M.Sc in Law and Business Administration from Bocconi University (magna cum laude) and in Degree in Law (JD equivalent) from University of Pavia (magna cum laude). LL.M from the University of Cambridge. Ph.D in International Law and Economics from Bocconi University.
Visiting Professor at the School of Transnational Law at the Peking University He was 2019 Fulbright Research Scholar at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts University, MA, USA).
Since 2012 a member of the Department of Legal Studies of Bocconi University and Faculty Member of the PhD in Legal Studies. He is Resident fellow at the BAFFI CAREFIN (Centre for Applied Research on International Markets, Banking, Finance and Regulation). Leonardo Borlini held prior academic appointments at the Department of Legal Studies of Bocconi University and the Faculty of Political Sciences of LUISS – Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli, or the Guido Carli Free International University for Social Studies.
He is part of the United Nations Expert Group working on Anti-Corruption Academic materials (Academic Initiative Against Corruption-UNODC); Research Fellow for the Research Centre on International Cooperation Regarding Persons Sought for Corruption and Asset Recovery established by the G20 at the Beijing Normal University and member of the Wolfson College (University of Cambridge, UK). He has held visiting research scholarships and position at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts University); Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva; Normal Beijing University; Legal Department of the International Monetary Fund (IMF); and the World Bank Group. He is Visiting Professor at the School of Transnational Law of the Peking University and the Normal Beijing University. He is also Attorney-at-Law at the Milan Bar.
Phone: +39 (0)2 58365207
Address: Department of Legal Studies, Universiy Bocconi, Via Roentgen 1, 20136, Milan (IT)
less
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Leonardo S Borlini
of the EU anti-money-laundering legal framework, by first illustrating the economic
menaces posed by money laundering and, second, by accounting for the rise of
new international standards and assessing the performance of a sample of domestic
anti-money-laundering pieces of legislation. The chapter outlines the serious threats
posed by transnational money-laundering operations in the context of economic
globalization, and calls for highly coordinated international responses to such a crime.
The focus is on the phenomenological aspect of money laundering as a transnational
crime and as the necessary means through which criminal activity can live on and
proliferate. It highlights that money laundering is also (if not mainly) an economic
issue.1 Economic analysis calls for an accurate legal response, with typical tradeoffs:
It should deter criminals from money laundering by increasing the costs for such
illicit operations, calling for enhanced regulatory and enforcement activities. However,
stronger enforcement leads to increased costs and reduces privacy. At the international
and the EU level and within single domestic legal systems, anti-money laundering law is typically characterized by a multidisciplinary approach combining
the criminal legal measures with preventive mechanisms: An empirical evaluation
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-World Bank (WB) anti-money-laundering
program is presented, where these two aspects are assessed. The non-criminal
measures (i.e., the preventive measures) recently implemented under the auspices
of the main intergovernmental public organizations with competence in these fields
seem to be consistent with the insights of economic analysis. Indeed, it should deter
criminals from laundering by increasing the costs for such illicit operations. Intensifying
regulation and enhancing the enforcing activities can arguably achieve the aim. Both
at the international level and within the single domestic legal systems, anti-money laundering law is typically characterized by a holistic approach with both criminal legal
and preventive mechanisms. The non-criminal measures recently implemented at both
national and international levels seem to be consistent with the economic literature on
money laundering and its possible regulation.
of the EU anti-money-laundering legal framework, by first illustrating the economic
menaces posed by money laundering and, second, by accounting for the rise of
new international standards and assessing the performance of a sample of domestic
anti-money-laundering pieces of legislation. The chapter outlines the serious threats
posed by transnational money-laundering operations in the context of economic
globalization, and calls for highly coordinated international responses to such a crime.
The focus is on the phenomenological aspect of money laundering as a transnational
crime and as the necessary means through which criminal activity can live on and
proliferate. It highlights that money laundering is also (if not mainly) an economic
issue.1 Economic analysis calls for an accurate legal response, with typical tradeoffs:
It should deter criminals from money laundering by increasing the costs for such
illicit operations, calling for enhanced regulatory and enforcement activities. However,
stronger enforcement leads to increased costs and reduces privacy. At the international
and the EU level and within single domestic legal systems, anti-money laundering law is typically characterized by a multidisciplinary approach combining
the criminal legal measures with preventive mechanisms: An empirical evaluation
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-World Bank (WB) anti-money-laundering
program is presented, where these two aspects are assessed. The non-criminal
measures (i.e., the preventive measures) recently implemented under the auspices
of the main intergovernmental public organizations with competence in these fields
seem to be consistent with the insights of economic analysis. Indeed, it should deter
criminals from laundering by increasing the costs for such illicit operations. Intensifying
regulation and enhancing the enforcing activities can arguably achieve the aim. Both
at the international level and within the single domestic legal systems, anti-money laundering law is typically characterized by a holistic approach with both criminal legal
and preventive mechanisms. The non-criminal measures recently implemented at both
national and international levels seem to be consistent with the economic literature on
money laundering and its possible regulation.
To address these matters in a viable way, I plan to make four related points. First, laments about the scarcity of monitoring mechanisms in contemporary international criminal law does not accurately reflect the recent evolution of international supervision in the field. Second, an important issue related to the nature of the interest to be pursued by such mechanisms is the increasing complexity of international criminal law treaties and standards. Compared to past agreements, modern international conventions aimed at the suppression of crime (rectius: holding criminal activities at acceptable levels), have a more prospective nature. Far from being essentially reactive instruments, they are also geared towards mitigating an ongoing criminal problem, shared by different States, with a view towards achieving specific results over time. These results include the development of the rule of law, deterring and preventing crime, and ongoing international cooperation. Thirdly, and strictly related, much as in the case of international human rights and environmental treaties, the mechanisms at issue are designed not to allocate legal liability, but rather to encourage states, by influence and soft power, to adopt behaviors and practices that comply with international obligations and standards. Finally, the relative effectiveness of different monitoring procedures and NCMs in the area of international criminal law depends on various factors that may be identified through a comparative assessment of such instruments.
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) on 6 January and 9 September 2016 and
its ballistic missile launch of 7 February 2016 through Resolutions 2270 and 2321 have
significantly changed the picture of UN sanctions regime against North Korea and created
the most comprehensive, legally-binding, sanctions program imposed against a State since
Iraq in the 1990s. While raising questions on their international status, the DPRK’s military
provocations have repeatedly challenged the international community. At the moment of
finalising the present article, the situation seems more precarious than ever: despite the
severity and comprehensiveness of the sanctions regime, the DPKR’s launches of ballistic
missiles hit the headlines again and its military aggressiveness does not appear reversed. The
article examines this regime against the background of the Council’s past practice and the
international rules on non-proliferation, also by discussing legal issues related to the
different Pyongyang’s provocations. Ultimately, it seeks to assess the DPRK’s nuclear and
ballistic missile tests vis-à-vis relevant international law and to determine the main
limitations of the new set of binding obligations placed upon Member States to thwart the
‘North Korean threat’. For, in the final analysis, to succeed sanctions must be capable of
coercing their targets into adjusting the particular course of behaviour the Security Council
has determined poses a threat to international peace and security, it is submitted that the new
sanctions regime is still affected by weaknesses that impair its effectiveness.