¹ For early work on the notion of “regulatory,” see Giandomenico Majone, The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe, 17 W. Eur. Pol. 77 (1994). See also Levi-Faur, David, Regulatory Networks and Regulatory Agencification: Towards a Single European Regulated Space, 18 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 810 (2011).Google Scholar

² See, e.g., Egan, Michelle, Constructing a European Market: Standards Regulation, and Governance (2001).Google Scholar

³ For a discussion of the court's extensive case law on Article 114 TFEU, see Stephen Weatherill, The Limits of Legislative Harmonization Ten Years after Tobacco Advertising: How the Court's Case Law Has Become a “Drafting Guide,” 12 German L.J. 827 (2011). See also Alexander Somek, Individualism (2008).Google Scholar

⁴ Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, COM (2013) 45/3 final (May 2, 2013), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52013PC0045 (explaining the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing),.Google Scholar

⁵ E.g., Neyer, Jurgen, The Justification of Europe: a political theory of supranational integration (2012).Google Scholar

⁶ See Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, COM (2013) 0534 final (July 7, 2013).Google Scholar

⁷ Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, supra note 4.Google Scholar

⁸ Directive 2005/60, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, 2005 O.J. (L 309) 15, 15–36 [hereinafter Directive 2005/60].Google Scholar

⁹ See Bickerton, Christopher, European Integration: From Nation States to Member States (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Directive 2005/60, supra note 8.Google Scholar

¹¹ See, e.g., Peers, Steve, EU Justice and Home Affairs Law 1 (2011).Google Scholar

¹² E.g., Majone, Glandomenco, Dilemmas of European Integration: The Ambiguities and Pitfalls of Integration by Stealth (2009).Google Scholar

¹³ On regulatory regimes, see Mendes, Joana, EU Law, and Global Regulatory Regimes: Hollowing Out Procedural Standards?, 10 Int'l. J. Const. L. 988. See also Joana Mendes, Professor, University of Amsterdam, Procedural Legitimacy Between Legal Geographies and Transnational Spaces: An Empirical Account and Theoretical Perspectives, Presentation at the VU Centre for European Legal Studies (Mar. 7, 2013).Google Scholar

¹⁴ For on an overview what it means in the EU context, see Moloney, Niamh, The Legacy Effects of the Financial Crises on Regulatory Design in the EU, in The Regulatory Aftermath or the Global Financial Crises 111, 111 (Elis Ferran et al. eds., 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Moloney, Niamh, Confidence and Competence: The Conundrum of EC Capital Market Law, 4 J. Corp. L. Stud. 44 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁷ Wilhelmsson, Thomas, The Abuse of the Confident Consumer, 27 J. Consumer Pol'y 317 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁸ For a case study on EU financial crimes and the confidence ratio, see Herlin-Karnell, Ester, The Constitutional Dimension of European Criminal Law 131-137 (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Communication for the Spring European Council, Driving European Recovery, COM (2009) 0114 final (Apr. 3, 2009).Google Scholar

²⁰ The High Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU Report (Feb. 25, 2009), http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/docs/de_larosiere_report_en.pdf.Google Scholar

²¹ Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on Criminal Sanctions for insider Dealing and Market Manipulation, (Directive 2014/57/EU, L173/179)Google Scholar

²² Grossman, Emiliano & Leblond, Patrick, European integration: Finally the Great Leap Forward, 49 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 413 (2011).Google Scholar

²³ Ferrarini, Guido & Moloney, Niamh, Reshaping Order Execution in the EU and the Rule of Interest Groups: From MIFID I to MIFID II, 13 Eur. Bus. Org. L. Rev. 557 (2012). See also Elliot Posner, The Lamfalussy Process: Polyarchic Origins of Networked Financial Rule-Making in the EU, in EU Governance: Towards a new Architecture? 108 (Charles Sabel & Jonathan Zeitlin eds., 2010).Google Scholar

²⁴ Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) (citing Protocol 21 attached to the Lisbon Treaty). According to Articles 1 and 3 of Protocol 21 attached to the Lisbon Treaty, the UK and Ireland do not take part in legislation adopted within the AFSJ unless they opt to participate in such legislation by notifying the President of the Council in writing within three months after a proposal or initiative has been presented to the Council. Id. Protocol 22 grants Denmark a complete opt out from the AFSJ.Google Scholar

²⁵ Europol, , EU Serious and Organized Crime Threat Assessment (Mar. 19, 2013), available at https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/eu-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-assessment-socta.Google Scholar

²⁶ Id. Google Scholar

²⁷ Monar, Jurg, The EU's Growing Role in the External AFSJ Domain: Factors, Framework and Forms of Action, 27 Cambridge Rev. Int'l Aff. 147 (2014).Google Scholar

²⁸ E.g., Weiler, Joseph, Deciphering the Political and Legal DNA of European Integration, in The Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law 137 (J. Dickson & Pavlos Elefheriadis eds., 2012); Manners, Ian, Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? 40 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 235 (2002); Forsberg, Thomas, Normative Power Europe, Once Again: A Conceptual Analysis of an Ideal Type, 49 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 1183 (2011).Google Scholar

²⁹ Scott, Joanne, The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change, in The Evolution of ED Law 805 (Paul Craig & Grainne de Búrca eds., 2011).Google Scholar

³⁰ On coherence, see, for example, Hillion, Christoph, Mixity and Coherence in EU External Relations: The Significance of the Duty of Cooperation (CLEER, Working Paper 2009/2).Google Scholar

³¹ Manners, Ian, Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?, 40 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 235 (2002).Google Scholar

³² See Herlin-Karnell, Ester, The EU as a Promoter of Values and the European Global Project, 13 German L.J. 1225 (2012).Google Scholar

³³ On the history of the JHA see, for example, Peers, Steve, ED Justice and Home Affairs (2011).Google Scholar

³⁴ Mitsilegas, Valsamis, The European Union and the Rest of the World: Criminal Law and Policy Interconnections, in Beyond the Established Legal Orders 149 (Panos Koutrakos & Malcom Evans eds., 2011)Google Scholar

³⁵ Financial Action Task Force, FATF IX Special Recommendations (2001), http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/FATF%20Standards%20-%20IX%20Spedal%20Recommendations%20and%20IN.%20rc.pdf.Google Scholar

³⁶ See, e.g., Gilmore, Bill, Money Laundering: The Evolution of International Measures to Counter Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism (3d ed. 2004).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Moloney, , supra note 14, at 111 (evaluating the impact of the financial crisis on market regulation).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Kelemen, R. Daniel & Teo, Terence K., Law and the Eurozone Crisis: Law, Focal Points and Fiscal Discipline 2 (2013), http://euce.org/eusa/2013/papers/5g_kelemen.pdf (“[I]f balanced budget rules work by coordinating decentralized punishment by bond investors rather than by posing a credible threat of judicial enforcement, then the clarity of the focal point provided by the rule, rather than the strength of its judicial enforcement mechanisms, should be the key to its effectiveness.”).Google Scholar

³⁹ Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union arts. 29-31, Oct. 11, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See generally Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, supra note 4; Ryder, Nic, Money Laundering — an Endless Cycle? A Comparative Analysis of the Anti-Money Laundering Policies in the United States of Am erica, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada (2012).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Reinforcing Sanctioning Regimes in the Financial Services Sector, COM (2010) 716 final (Aug. 12, 2010).Google Scholar

⁴² Id. at 2.Google Scholar

⁴³ See id. at 11 (“The Cammission holds the view that a legislative initiative is warranted to set some minimum common standards that Member States should respect in designing administrative sanctions for violations of financial services rules and when applying sanctions in this field.”).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See, e.g., Germany v. Parliament and Council, CJEU Case C-376/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-8419, I-8425 (“The Community's Internal-market competence is not limited, a priori, by any reserved domain of Member State power. It is a horizontal competence, whose exercise displaces national regulatory competence in the field addressed. Judicial review of the exercise of such a competence is a delicate and complex matter.”).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, e.g., Weiler, Joseph, The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L.J. 2403, 2459 (1991) (discussing the effect of the Community's preemption measures and default rules on internal markets).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See, e.g., Weatherill, Steve, The Challenge of Better Regulation, in Better Regulation 1, 3 (Stephen Weatherill ed., 2007) (“The EU itself is a creature with a relatively small budget but a very broad rule-making power—it too is predominately regulatory in nature.”). See generally Sanja Bogojevic, Emissions Trading Schemes: Markets, States and Law 56 (2013); Posner, Elliot & Veron, Nicholas, The EU and Financial Regulation: Power Without Purpose?, 17 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 400 (2010).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Eberlein, Burkard & Grande, Edgar, Beyond Delegation: Transnational Regulatory Regimes and the EU Regulatory State, 12 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 89 (2005).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Young, Alasdair, Regulators Beyond Borders: The External Impact of EU's Rules, Paper to the Thirteenth Biennial EUSA Conference Baltimore, at 3 (May 9-11, 2013), http://euce.org/eusa/2013/papers/3b_young.pdf (quoting Walter Mattli & Ngaire Woods, In Whose Benefit? Explaining Regulatory Change in Global Politics, in The Politics of Global Regulation 1 (Walter Mattli & Ngaire Woods eds., 2009)).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Majone, Giandomenico, Regulating Europe 162 (1996) (describing the function of independent intermediary institutions, such as the EU, which regulate and set rules).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See id. (noting issues with technocracy, such as its hindrance of states’ ability to formulate their general interests); Handbook On The Politics Of Regulation 192 (David Levi-Faur ed., 2011) (surveying the different ways which regulators may legally operate).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See e.g., Menon, Anand & Weatherill, Steve, Democratic Politics in a Globalising World: Supranationalism and Legitimacy in the European Union (Working Paper No. 13/07), http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/WPS13-2007MenonandWeatherill.pdf (“The EC, and even more prominently the wider EU, has become far more than a regulatory state fixed on contained market-making objectives….”).Google Scholar

⁵² See Ferran, Eilis, Crisis-Driven EU Financial Regulatory Reform 6 (2012), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2028003 (“[T]he theory postulates that the stance that countries adopt with respect to new regulatory initiatives will be influenced by their determination of whether those initiatives are likely to sustain or undermine the comparative institutional advantages of their nation's economy.”).Google Scholar

⁵³ See id. (“With reference specifically to the EU, it suggests that when Member States fail to agree on detailed harmonization this may be attributable to crucial differences in their political economies.”).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Damro, Chad, Market Power Europe, 19 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 682, 682 (2012) (“This article asserts that the EU need not necessarily be preconceived … as a particular or different normative identity in order to understand it as a power. Rather, because the EU is, at its core, a market, it may be best to conceive of the EU as a market power Europe.”); Micklitz, Hans & Patterson, Dennis, From the Nation State to the Market; The Evolution of EU Private Law as Regulation of the Economy Beyond the Boundaries of the Union?, in Bart Van Vooren, Steven Blockmans & Jan Wolters, The EU's Role in Global Governance: The Legal Dimension 59, 66 (2013) (describing the “accession to the age of the market state”).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Menendez, Agustin Jose, The Existential Crisis of the European Union, 14 German L.J. 453, 508 (2013) (explaining how the EU simultaneously fosters a single market and works against it).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Smart Regulation in the European Union, at 7, COM (2010) 543 final (Aug. 10, 2010) (asserting that it is now time to step up a gear). Id. at 2 (“Better regulation must become smart regulation and be further embedded in the Commission's working culture.”).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Damro, , supra note 54, at 694.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, supra note 4 (relaying general information on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Council Directive 91/308, 1991 O.J. (L 166) 77 (covering the issue of prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Council Directive 2001/97, 2001 O.J. (L 344) 76 (amending Council Directive 91/308 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Directive 2005/60, supra note 8.Google Scholar

⁶² See, e.g., Herlin-Karnell, Ester, The Constitutional Dimension or European Criminal Law 146 (2012) (laying out additional references).Google Scholar

⁶³ On the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, supra note 4.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Insider Dealing and Market Manipulation, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (OJ L 173, market abuse regulation); Directive on Criminal Sanctions for Insider Dealing and Market Manipulation, supra note 21.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five Steps Towards a More Secure Europe, at 2, COM (2010) 673 final (Nov. 22, 2010) (noting that the communication “builds on what Member States and EU institutions have already agreed, and proposes how we over the next four years can work together to be more effective in fighting and preventing serious and organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, in strengthening the management of our external borders….”).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Freezing and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime in the European Union, COM (2012) 36 final (May 20, 2013).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Reinforcing Sanctioning Regimes in the Financial Sector, supra note 41.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ E.g., Kersten, Armand, Financing of Terrorism – A Predicate Offence to Money Laundering?, in Financing Terrorism 49, 56 (Mark Pieth ed., 2002).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ This is the so-called customer due diligence requirement (know-your-customer) and forms part of the risk-based confidence and transparency policy. In short, customer due diligence is to be applied in four cases. First, when establishing a “business relationship”; second, when carrying out larger transactions; third, regardless of any derogation, exemption, or threshold, where there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist-financing; and fourth, where there are doubts about the veracity or adequacy of previously obtained customer identification data.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ For an interesting discussion on how these private actors can be held accountable, see Maria Bergstrom et al., A New Role for For-Profit Actors? The Case of Anti-Money Laundering and Risk Management, 49 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 1043 (2011).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Herlin-Karnell, Ester, The Constitutional Dimension of European Criminal Law 164 (2012).Google Scholar

⁷² Proposal for a Directive on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, supra note 4.Google Scholar

⁷³ Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Information Accompanying Transfers of Funds, supra note 64, at 3.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council an Information Accompanying Transfers of Funds, supra note 64, at paras. 14-19.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Directive on Attacks Against Information Systems and Repealing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA, 2013 O.J. (L 218) 8, See also Proposal for a Directive on Attacks Against information Systems and Repealing Council Framework Decision 205/222/JHA, COM (2010) 517 final (Sept. 30, 2010).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five Steps Towards a More Secure Europe, COM (2010) 673 final (Nov. 22, 2010).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Directive on Attacks Against Information Systems and Repealing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA, supra note 75.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Buono, Laviero, Gearing Up the Fight Against Cyber Crime in the EU: A New Set of Rules and the Establishment of the European Cyber Crime Centre, 3 New J. Eur. Crim. L. 332 (2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Tackling Crime in Our Digital Age: Establishing a European Cybercrime Centre, COM (2012) 140 final (Mar. 28, 2013).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ On the transatlantic dimension, see Patrick Pawlak, The Unintentional Development of the FU's Security Governance Beyond Borders, 17 Eur. Foreign Aff. L. Rev. 87 (2012).Google Scholar

⁸¹ See, A Digital Agenda for Europe, European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/ (last visited Feb. 10, 2015).Google Scholar

⁸² Id. Google Scholar

⁸³ See Vibert, Frank, Better Regulation and the Role of Agencies, in Better Regulation 387 (Stephen Weatherill ed., 2007).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See, e.g., Carrapico, Helena & Trauner, Florian, Europal and the EU's Fight Against Organized Crime: Exploring the Potential of Experimentalist Governance, 16 Persp. in Eur. Pol. & Soc. 357 (2013).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Kjaer, Poul, Between Governing and Governance 161 (2010); Sabel, Charles & Zeitlin, Jonathan, Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the European Union, 14 Eur. L. J. 271 (2008).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Neyer, Jürgen, The Justification of Europe: A Political Theory of Supranational Integration 25 et seq. (2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See generally, Monar, Jurg, Experimentalist Governance in Justice and Home Affairs, in Experimentalist Governance in the European Union 237 et seq. (Jonathan Zeitlin & Charles Sablel eds., 2010).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ On Agencies, see Busuioc, Madalina, European Agencies: Law and Practice of Accountability (2013); Busuioc, Madalina, Curtin, Deidre & Groenleer, Martijn, Agency Growth Between Autonomy and Accountability: The European Police Office as a “Living Institution,” 18 J. Eur. Pub. Pol. 848-67 (2011). See also Pierre Schammo, The European Securities and Market Authority: Lifting the Veil on the Allocation of Powers, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1887 (2011).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Conway, Gerard, Holding to Account A Possible European Public Prosecutor: Supranational Governance and Accountability Across Diverse Legal Traditions, 24 Crim. L. F. 371 et seq. (2013).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Matera, Claudia, The Influence of International Organisations on the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A First Inquiry, in Between Autonomy and Dependence: The EU Legal Order Under the Influence of International Organisations 269 et seq. (Stephen Blackmans & Ramses Wessel eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ferran, Ellis, Where in the World is the EU Going?, in The Regulatory Aftermath of the Global Financial Crises 99 (Ellis Ferran et al. eds., 2012).Google Scholar

⁹² Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA, 2002 O.J. (L 164); Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA, 2008 O.J. (L 330).Google Scholar

⁹³ Cremona, Marise, Expanding the Internal Market: An External Regulatory Policy for the EU?, In The EU's Role in Global Governance 162 et seq. (Bart van Vooren, Steven Blockmans & Jan Wouters eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ On ACTA, see Farrand, Ben, & Carrapico, Helena, Copyright Law as a Matter of (Inter)national Security?: The Attempt to Securitise Commercial Infringement and its Spillover onto Individual Liability, 57 Crim., L. & Soc. Change 373 et seq. (2011).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Weatherill, Steve, The Limits of Legislative Harmonisation Ten Years After Tobacco Advertising: How the Court's Case Law has Become a “Drafting Guide,” 12 German L.J. 827 (2011).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Bogojevic, Sanja, EU Emission Trading: Markets, States and Law 56-82 (2013).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Directive 2004/48/EC, 2004 O.J. (L 157).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Revised Proposal for a Directive on Measures and Procedures to Ensure the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, COD (2003) 24 final (Feb. 16, 2004).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on Criminal Measures Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, COM (2006) 168 final (Apr. 26, 2006).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ During the legislative process of this instrument, Members of the Legal Affairs Committee backed the overall aim of the Directive and amended some of its provisions. They excluded patent rights from its scope and decided that criminal sanctions should only apply to those infringements deliberately carried out to obtain commercial advantage. Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, European Commission (Oct. 3, 2014), ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/index_en.htm (last visited Feb. 10, 2015).Google Scholar

¹⁰² See, e.g., Witte, Bruno De, Non-market Values in Internal Market Legislation, in Regulating the Internal Market 61 et seq. (Niamh NicShuibhne ed., 2006).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Case T-526/10, Inuit Tapirijt Kanatamj and Others v. Commission (2013) (unpublished), available at http://eur-lex.eurapa.eu/legal-content/EN/NOT/?uri=CELEX:62010TJ0526.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Herlin-Karnell, Ester, The Development of EU Precautionary Criminalization, 1 Eur. Crim. L. Rev. 149 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Weatherill, , supra note 96, at 827.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Weatherill, Steve & Menan, Anand, Legitimacy, Accountability and Delegation in the European Union, in Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union (Anthony Arnull & David Wincott eds., 2002).Google Scholar