Providing information on the identity of a company’s ultimate beneficial owner (“UBO”) is still a hot topic even though plenty of rules, recommendations and guidelines have been issued.

By passing a landmark ruling (C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems of 16 July 2020) which emphasises the basic right to privacy when personal data is transferred to third countries, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has again confirmed how important it is to maintain a high level of protection of personal data being transferred from the EEA to third countries. The ruling has raised a number of questions about the legal basis for personal data transfers to third countries. As the ruling focuses on transfers to the US, this article explores some of the steps companies should take with the ruling in force.

This explores conditions under which a company’s transactions with related parties require shareholder consent under the Commerce Act (“CA”).

Having governed matters of administrative liability, including tax-related, for almost 35 years, the Latvian Code of Administrative Offences ceased to apply on 1 July 2020 and was replaced by the Administrative Liability Act (“ALA”) as part of Latvia’s sweeping administrative liability reform. ALA is not merely an improved version of the old Code – the structure and rules of the new Act are substantially different, so the first glance might cause some confusion. This article explains where to look for descriptions of various offences and what administrative liability is prescribed for tax violations, as well as giving an overview of other related matters.

This article completes what we wrote last week.

Announced at the meeting of state secretaries on 2 July 2020, the proposed recast Immigration Act brings many important changes, in particular to procedures for taking out visas and temporary residence permits. Although the Cabinet of Ministers has yet to debate all the proposals, it is advisable to be aware of the amendments and their implications. This article explores five key changes applicable after 3 May 2021, when the recast Immigration Act is to come into force.

Each company’s day-to-day work involves communicating with suppliers, distributors and customers. We often see that company employees are not aware that the way they carry out their daily responsibilities can be treated as part of a breach of competition law, which can result in their company facing fines and reputation damage. Even a single email your employee sends in the course of business might contribute to a breach of competition law and make the regulator suspicious. To avoid this, employees as well as management should be aware of risks associated with their day-to-day work and potential breaches of competition law.

Under the Taxes and Duties Act and the State Revenue Service (“SRS”) Act, the tax authority has a wide range of tasks and responsibilities in tax administration. The SRS monitors the economic and financial activities conducted by all entities and individuals and enforces compliance with the tax laws. To fulfil its statutory responsibilities, the SRS carries out various control measures, from ones that can go unnoticed by the taxpayer until a certain moment to serious inspections requiring the taxpayer’s presence. This article explores thematic reviews as well as their substance, key aspects, and expected outcomes.

This article completes what we wrote last week about the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The mass media have recently reported news of the largest fine in Latvia to date (EUR 150,000) being levied on an e-commerce company for breaches involving failure to comply with requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). Considering the company’s circumstances, as cited by the National Data Office in its decision, this article explores requirements that must be met by any company processing personal data on its website to steer clear of the fine prescribed by the GDPR.

The topic continued from MindLink.lv news 24.07.2020. Based on EU and Latvian legislation, in 2019 the Financial Intelligence Unit drew up guidelines, describing methods for identifying politically exposed persons (“PEPs”).

On 2 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled on case C-835/18 (SC Terracult SRL). The dispute was over the tax authority’s refusal to allow a taxable person to adjust invoices after the tax authority had completed a tax audit and assessed an additional tax liability, thus denying the taxable person’s right to a tax refund. The tax authority’s decision was final because the taxable person had accepted it. The taxable person sought to adjust invoices on the basis of new facts which were not known when the tax authority made the decision and which resulted in reverse-charge VAT being applied to the underlying transactions.

Although the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing (“AML/CTPF”) Act has been in force for more than ten years, some of the entities governed by the Act still find it difficult to identify the status of a “politically exposed person.”

This article completes what we wrote last week.

This article picks up where we left off last week.