Supervisory Inaction (Work in Progress)
Presented at: Public Choice Society 2025.
Bank Supervision as Moral Hazard (Work in Progress)
Presented at: Public Choice Society 2025.
The Development of Transparency in Stablecoins (Work in Progress)
Presented at: Association of Private Enterprise Education 2025; Markets and Society Conference, Mercatus Center, 22 October, 2022; ‘FinReg Annual Conference: Cryptocurrencies, Smart Contracts, and Alternative Payments: Regulating the “Wild West”’, Institute for Advanced Legal Studies and Queen Mary University of London, 14 October, 2022; Study Center Gerzensee, Foundation of the Swiss National Bank, May 19, 2022.
Good Administration in AI-Enhanced Banking Supervision: A Risk-Based Approach (with Alessio Azzutti and Wolf-Georg Ringe), 2024
Banking supervisors worldwide recognize the pressing need to harness frontier supervisory technology (SupTech) such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve operational efficiency, enhance analytical capabilities, and augment decision-making. The European Central Bank (ECB) is no exception and has established a dedicated SupTech Hub to explore these opportunities. While existing literature primarily focuses on the techno-economic aspects of AI adoption by financial supervisors, this Article examines its techno-legal boundaries. The integration of AI-related technologies into banking supervision raises complex questions of fairness, transparency, and accountability, which, if not adequately addressed, can jeopardize the legality of institutional activities. This is especially critical for the ECB, an EU public institution that must adhere to democratic values, the rule of law, and fundamental rights. With this in mind, this Article investigates the impact of AI adoption on the legality of supervisory activities, proposing a specific focus on the right to good administration as analytical framework. We first define the notion of good administration in EU banking supervision, clarifying its legal and ethical relevance for the ECB. We then analyze the potential implications of AI-enhanced banking supervision for good administration, examining how this legal concept can guide the trustworthy integration of AI into supervisory processes and procedures. Through a repurposing of the risk-based regulatory approach of the EU AI Act, we develop a normative framework for regulating AI systems based on the specific risks to good administration associated with different applications. Our proposal prioritizes transparency, accountability, and auditability requirements to ensure that future AI-enhanced banking supervision aligns with EU fundamental rights, particularly good administration. Overall, this Article contributes to the emerging literature on the legal implications of AI adoption by financial supervisors. By offering fresh insights into the interplay between AI regulation and banking supervision, it underscores the importance of a balanced approach that protects fundamental rights while harnessing the benefits of technological progress.
COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN LAW (2024)
EUROPEAN BANKING INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER (2023)
PRESS: OBLB (2023)
Presented at: ACLE-YSI Law & Finance Conference, October 27, 2022; University of Leeds School of Law, Centre for Business Law and Practice, December 7, 2022.
Dynamism in Financial Market Regulation: Harnessing Regulatory and Supervisory Technologies (with Wolf-Georg Ringe), 2021
The dynamic development of market practices and services frequently limits regulatory effectiveness. New technologies, however, might assist regulators in better tracking market changes. While Regulatory Technology ("RegTech") has been vastly reducing compliance costs, Supervisory Technology ("SupTech") has the potential to enhance data accuracy even further. Proper integration between these two will assist regulators in obtaining a continuously updated picture of their regulatees and allow higher regulatory adaptability, without incurring extensive additional costs. Still, harnessing technology for regulatory purposes might lead to an increased dependence on technology providers which risks regulatory capture. We argue in this essay that additional requirements, such as technological neutrality and interoperability, are needed to mitigate such risks. We illustrate our case through blockchain proposals for RegTech and SupTech and their interoperability challenge.
STANFORD JOURNAL OF BLOCKCHAIN LAW & POLICY (2021)
INSTITUTE OF LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER (2020)
Presented at: Conference “Intersections ofFinance and Society”, City, University of London December 2019; Blockchain and Procedural Law: Law and Justice in the Age of Disintermediation Automating Legal Instruments, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European, and Regulatory Procedural Law, 6 December, 2019.