Comprendre l'opposition parlementaire: le Parlement de Paris face aux réformes de Silhouette (1759)

The aim of this article is to reconsider the fiscal interpretation of opposition parlementaire to government policy. First, it suggests that the meaning of the remonstrances is blurred by specific constraints which make it very difficult to interpret these texts. Second, it analyses a variety of documents relating to Silhouette’s fiscal projects (1759) and shows that the real objective of the Parlement of Paris, which was never mentioned in its remonstrances, was to finance the Seven Years’ War by issuing paper-money. This reading reveals the influence of the British model of State finance, especially on the critical issue of credit, on both ministers and magistrates. In spite of this common reference, the government and the Parlement of Paris diverged in their reading of the fiscal crisis, and the political culture of the monarchy prevented the formation of a workable consensus.

Money laundering and the shadow economy in Kazakhstan

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess and highlight the approach taken towards the legal control of illicit money laundering taken in the Republic of Kazakhstan, in particular, the role played by an amnesty on the legalisation of illicit funds. This is particularly important as a basis for a wider discussion about the proper limits of the “criminalising” approaches commonly taken in anti-money laundering regulations. Design/methodology/approach The discussion and evaluation in the paper is based upon a conceptual analysis of the money laundering regime in Kazakhstan, in particular, the legal framework and policies of implementation adopted. Findings The paper demonstrates that the problems that are posed by the shadow economy in post-Soviet transition societies can make the blanket criminalisation of money laundering a self-defeating approach, unless accompanied by measures which allow for the achievement of “market-constituting” effects. Research limitations/implications The paper draws on experience and practice in one jurisdiction only (Kazakhstan); it also limits its focus to one particular example of a money laundering amnesty policy. Both of these limitations, therefore, suggest avenues for further comparative research. Originality/value The paper’s conclusions about the interactions between the shadow economies of transitional societies and the global anti-money laundering agenda have wider application in assessments of international law in this area.