23 Amendments of Gilles BOYER related to 2020/2034(INL)
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas stablecoins have the potential to become a widely used means of payment;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the People’s Bank of China is trialling a central bank digital currency (the DCEP); highlights that the potential global use of the DCEP could have implications for international trade and consumer protection;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas the Wirecard scandal reveals the shortcomings of a supervisory model primarily based on national supervisory authorities since national authorities are more likely to turn a blind eye to the failings of their own supervisees; whereas the ongoing ESMA investigation on the Wirecard scandal should identify areas where direct supervision at Union level would have prevented this failure; whereas adaptations to the Union supervisory architecture for financial reporting, financial innovation, payments, and related areas including audit and anti- money laundering/countering terrorism financing, are becoming an urgent necessity in light of the Wirecard scandal;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that FinTech will be integral to the success of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) and encourages the Commission to consider how to harness the benefits of FinTech in driving forward capital market integration in the Union, in particular, the participation of retail investors;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises the increased importance of monitoring and reviewing measures relating to the regulation of digital finance, particularly bearing in mind the increasing relevance of this sector as the world deals with the COVID- 19 pandemic;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Encourages the relevant authorities in the Union to assess the impact of the risks and benefits of the potential global use of the DCEP and its interdependency with China's national blockchain platform;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Stresses that lawmeasures taken should ensure that market players, from small to large, have the regulatory space to innovate and that regulation and supervision in the area of FinTech should be based on the following principles:
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that Union level measuresmeasures adopted at EU level should not stifle opportunities for businesses to grow and develop within the Union and beyond;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes the continually evolving methods used for money laundering and terrorist financing; emphasises, therefore, the need for the Commission’s approach to digital finance to be cognisant of this and sufficiently robust to combating ML/TF;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses the need for European and national supervisory authorities to overcome their differences; calls for changes to the ESMA Regulation ensuring that ESMA can swiftly and decisively step in when national supervisory authorities fail to act in preventing serious threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union; strongly calls on the Commission to present as an ambitious reform of the governance of ESMA, including the appointment of independent Directors in the Management Board, with enhanced powers of direct supervision and on the prevention against serious threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union; notes that the limited impact of supervisory convergence in promoting a common European model, should lead to empowering ESMA, EIOPA and EBA, with a stronger role in reducing the existing obstacles to cross-border financial operations;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that developing a pan- European taxonomy for crypto-assets is desirable as a step towards fostering a common understanding, facilitating collaboration across jurisdictions and providing greater regulatory certainty for market participants engaged in cross border activity; recommends taking into account existing national regulatory and supervisory frameworks and the importance of international cooperation and global initiatives as regards frameworks for crypto-assets, bearing in mind in particular their borderless nature; cautionproposes, however, that developing an open-ended taxonomy template may be more appropriate for this evolving market segment;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that developing a pan- European taxonomy for crypto-assets is desirable as a step towards fostering a common understanding, facilitating collaboration across jurisdictions and providing greater regulatory certainty for market participants engaged in cross border activity; recommends taking into account the importance of international cooperation and global initiatives as regards frameworks for crypto-assets, bearing in mind in particular their borderless nature; cautionproposes, however, that developing an open-ended taxonomy template may be more appropriate for this evolving market segment;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Emphasises that such an open taxonomy must be based on common understandings of the various crypto- assets involved; requests, therefore that the definitions of crypto-assets and their subclasses be harmonised across EU and member states;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Stresses that any definition of crypto-assets must take into account future evolution of the crypto-asset market;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Points out that, at this stage, the use of stablecoins is not yet prominent within the Union; highlights the need for any future stablecoin-specific framework to be born out of the coming crypto-asset framework, representing an evolution of the legislation with the aim of offering the similar level of security as existing means of payments; believes that before any framework for stablecoins is developed, the architecture of this form of crypto- asset must be examined thoroughly;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Further stresses that clear guidance on the applicable regulatory and prudential processes is needed in order to provide regulatory certainty regarding crypto- assets; notes that such guidance from the Commission and from ESMA could lead to establishing a transitional pilot regime, limited in time and in scope, with targeted regulatory exemptions for crypto-assets applying existing sectorial legislation, subject to enhanced supervision from relevant national supervisory authorities and from the joint ESAs committee;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights that a common Union framework on crypto-assets should help increaseaddress concerns related to consumer and investor protection, enhancecybersecurity, market integrity and financial stability, and should enhance Anti Money Laundering (AML), Counter Terrorist Financing (CTF) and know your customer (KYC) obligations, and oversight of the underlying technology;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to propose legislative changes in the area of ICT and cyber security requirements for the Union financial sector in order to address any inconsistencies, gaps and loopholes that are found to exist in relevant law; in this regard, calls on the Commission to consider the need to have a supervisory overview of the ICT providers, noting the concentration and contagions risks that can be posed by a heavy reliance by the financial services sector on a small number of ICT and cloud computing providers;
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to propose legislative changes in the area of ICT and cyber security requirements for the Union financial sector in order to address any inconsistencies, gaps and loopholes that are found to exist in relevant law; notes that over reliance on non-EU ICT services providers, and on ICT products and services offered by non-EU market participants, is a particular area of concern;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – point a
Paragraph 16 – point a
a. modernisation of ICT governance and risk management;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that the collection and analysis of data play a central role for FinTech, and therefore highlights the need for consistent, technology-neutral application of existing data laws; highlights that Artificial Intelligence is one of the key technologies as regards enhancing the Union's competitiveness on a global level;
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – point 2
Annex I – part B – point 2
2. To make a legislative proposal on cyber resilience, which ensures consistent standards of ICT security across the Union financial sector. Such a framework should be future-oriented and focus on modernising the current rules applicable concerning cyber resilience, while also closing any regulatory loopholes and gaps, which may put businesses, investors and consumers at risk. Such a proposal should take due account of the risk of concentration and contagion stemming from the over reliance on a small number of ICT service providers, particularly cloud computing providers;
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – point 2
Annex I – part B – point 2
2. To make a legislative proposal on cyber resilience, which ensures consistent standards of ICT security across the Union financial sector. Such a framework should be future-oriented and focus on modernising the current rules applicable concerning cyber resilience, while also closing any regulatory loopholes and gaps, which may put businesses, investors and consumers at risk. Such a framework should aim to limit over reliance on non- EU ICT services providers, and on ICT products and services offered by non-EU market participants;