REITs face persistent tax challenges when investing cross-border within the EU, as fragmented national regimes often undermine the intended single level of taxation. Drawing on recent ECJ case law and the EU Pillar Two Directive, this article, published in Finance and Capital Markets (IBFD), outlines key gaps in the current framework and their practical impact.
The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has come one step closer to being granted the call-in powers for mergers and acquisitions below the Dutch turnover thresholds, its chairman Martijn Snoep has been pleading for over the last few years. Snoep expressed concern that the turnover thresholds could prevent the ACM from acting effectively against potentially harmful ‘roll-up strategies’ and ‘killer acquisitions’.
AI regulation has emerged as one of the defining governance challenges of the 2020s, with the United States and European Union charting fundamentally different paths. Whilst the EU has enacted comprehensive product safety and fundamental rights-based legislation through the AI Act, the United States has pursued a fragmented, more innovation-permissive approach characterised by multiple state laws and limited federal guidance rather than binding federal law.
Resilience, supervision, and international coordination are essential to safeguarding global financial markets as new AI tools enable attackers.
Artificial intelligence is transforming how the financial system copes with vulnerabilities and reacts to incidents. Yet it is also amplifying cyber threats that can undermine financial stability when the offensive capabilities of intruders outpace defenses.
IMF analysis suggests that extreme cyber‑incident losses could trigger funding strains, raise solvency concerns, and disrupt broader markets.
The financial system relies on shared digital infrastructure that’s highly interconnected, including software, cloud services, and networks for payments and other data. Advanced AI models can dramatically reduce the time and cost needed to identify and exploit vulnerabilities, raising the likelihood of simultaneously discovering and targeting weaknesses in widely used systems. As a result, cyber risk is increasingly about correlated failures that could disrupt financial intermediation, payments, and confidence at the systemic level.
Anthropic’s recent controlled release of its Claude Mythos Preview, an advanced AI model with exceptional cyber capabilities, underscored how quickly risks are increasing. Mythos could find and exploit vulnerabilities in every major operating system and web browser—even when used by non-experts. This foreshadows how fast‑moving, AI‑driven cyber risks could destabilize the financial system if not managed carefully, and why authorities must focus on building resilience through supervision and coordination—rather than treating these developments as purely technical or operational issues.
On the other hand, OpenAI’s specialized, restricted cyber version of GPT‑5.5 assumes vulnerabilities and attacks will grow, and emphasizes equipping defenders more quickly and at scale, under appropriate governance and trusted access models.
Advances change risk equation
Models such as Mythos illustrate the nature of the challenge because they amplify existing cyberattack techniques by operating at machine speed. Attackers have the advantage over defenders because discovering and exploiting vulnerabilities can occur faster than patching and remediation. In a financial system built on common software and shared service providers, this can create simultaneous vulnerabilities across many institutions.
For now, some mitigating factors remain. Advanced AI cyber capabilities are not yet widely available, and closed, industry‑specific financial software is harder to target than open‑source infrastructure. But these buffers are likely to erode quickly as model training expands, capabilities diffuse, and leaks occur. Temporary containment is unlikely to substitute for durable defenses.
Financial stability implications
The new AI‑enabled cyber tools focus the discussion on financial stability:
Risks are systemic. Attacks become more dangerous when discovery and exploitation scale rapidly, with implications for financial stability.
Risks cut across sectors. The financial sector shares digital foundations with energy, telecommunications, and public services. That means AI‑assisted attacks can propagate across sectors that rely on the same infrastructure.
AI may further concentrate risk and failures with one vulnerability rippling across many institutions. Reliance on a small number of software platforms, cloud providers, or AI models increases the impact of any single exploited weakness.
These features elevate cyber risk to a potential macro‑financial shock. Confidence effects, payment disruptions, liquidity strains, and fire‑sale dynamics could follow if multiple institutions are affected simultaneously. For financial authorities, the question is whether the system is prepared to absorb cyber incidents without destabilizing core financial functions.
AI in cyber defense
AI is also a critical part of the solution. When attackers operate at machine speed, defenders must do the same. Financial institutions increasingly use AI‑supported tools to detect threats, prevent fraud, identify vulnerabilities, and respond to incidents.
AI also can help reduce vulnerabilities at the development stage rather than patching them after release. For widely used financial infrastructure, these gains can meaningfully reduce systemic exposure. But these benefits will materialize only if institutions invest in integration, governance, and human oversight—areas that supervisors increasingly need to assess. This also includes business continuity and disaster recovery, cyber and quality assurance programs, and good cyber hygiene practices.
Resilience-first policy framework
AI-driven cyber risk demands a policy response that treats cybersecurity as a core financial stability issue. Existing measures remain relevant, but they must be expanded and sharpened for a world of faster, automated, and increasingly sophisticated attacks. Policymakers should prioritize robust resilience standards, supervision focused on systemic transmission channels, and close public-private collaboration on threat intelligence and incident response.
Defenses will inevitably be breached, so resilience must also be a priority, specifically to limit how far incidents spread and ensure rapid recovery. Controls to stop the spread of attacks can prevent local breaches from escalating into system‑wide disruptions. These measures are often costly and complex, but they are among the most effective tools for containing AI‑enabled attacks.
From a supervisory perspective, this underscores the need to focus not only on prevention, but on response, recovery, and continuity of critical functions. Cyber stress testing, scenario analysis, and board‑level oversight of cyber risk are becoming indispensable components of financial stability frameworks.
International cooperation is vital
The Mythos episode also highlights governance challenges. Cyber risk does not respect borders. As AI capabilities spread across countries, inconsistent oversight could weaken a globally interconnected system.
Emerging and developing economies, which often have more severe resource constraints, may be disproportionately exposed to attackers targeting regions with weaker defenses. That’s why stronger international coordination, more information sharing, and expanded capacity development are critical to preserving global financial stability.
As AI reshapes the cyber landscape, the central question for authorities is whether the financial system can continue to function under severe stress. Answering that question requires putting systemic risk—and the tools to manage it—at the center of the AI‑cyber conversation.
Compliments of the International Monetary FundThe post IMF | Financial Stability Risks Mount as Artificial Intelligence Fuels Cyberattacks first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.
On January 27th, the European Union and India reached a milestone by concluding negotiations for the most ambitious Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in their history. This treaty not only creates a free trade zone for 2 billion people but also removes the barriers that have historically hindered investment in the world’s fourth-largest economy.
The draft regulations for the proposed Capital Requirements Implementation Act 2026 (Implementatiewet kapitaalvereisten 2026, the Implementation Act) were published on 14 October 2025. This Act transposes the sixth revision of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD VI), as set out in Directive (EU) 2024/1619, into Dutch law, and will amend Dutch legislation including the Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht, Wft). The legislative proposal was submitted to the Dutch House of Representatives on 19 January 2026 and thus has not yet entered into force.
On 4 March 2026, the European Commission presented the proposal for a Regulation known as the “Industrial Accelerator Act” (COM(2026) 100 final — “IAA” or “Proposal”), aimed at accelerating industrial capacity and decarbonisation in strategic sectors.
The Council today provisionally agreed new rules to strengthen the fight against value added tax (VAT) fraud in the EU by ramping up cooperation between member states, the European public prosecutor’s office (EPPO) and the European anti-fraud office (OLAF).
The new framework will give EPPO and OLAF more direct access to key VAT data on cross-border business transactions in the EU, including information held by Eurofisc – the EU’s anti-VAT fraud network.
” We have taken massive strides in tackling VAT fraud over recent years. But our budgets still lose out to the tune of billions of euros every year and authorities need the right tools to tackle these criminal activities more quickly. Today’s agreement will give EU investigative bodies the targeted information they need to pursue criminals swiftly and to protect national and EU revenues that benefit us all.”- Makis Keravnos, Minister of Finance of the Republic of Cyprus
Cross-border VAT fraud, in particular missing trader intra-community fraud (commonly known as carousel fraud), is a serious problem in the EU. According to the European Commission, this criminal activity costs member state treasuries and the EU budget between €12.5 billion and €32.8 billion annually and is carried out mostly by organised crime groups.
In practice, the new framework means that EPPO and OLAF will have the first-hand information they need to launch and support investigations under their competences into suspected cross-border VAT fraud. This will improve coordination between the various actors, speed up investigations, and strengthen the EU’s overall capacity to detect and combat VAT fraud affecting the Union’s financial interests. At the same time, it will help put the EU’s legitimate businesses on a more level playing-field.
Background
The new rules take the form of a regulation amending Council regulation 904/2010 on administrative cooperation and combating VAT fraud. The measure follows the agreement in March last year to make VAT reporting obligations for companies who sell goods and services to businesses in another EU member state fully digital by 2030 which should further support the fight against VAT fraud.
Next steps
Once the European Parliament has adopted its opinion on the file – currently expected in July 2026 – the Council will proceed to formally adopt the new rules. The regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the official journal of the EU.
Compliments of the European Council The post European Council | VAT fraud: Council agrees to strengthen cooperation with EU investigative bodies first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.
The energy price index rose 12.1% in April, driven largely by crude oil (+8.7%). The non-energy price index increased 3.2%.
Agricultural prices gained 1.5% in April, led by food prices (+1.5%); raw materials rose 2.5%, while beverage prices edged up 0.4%. Fertilizer prices surged 14%
Metals edged up 1.4% in April, led by aluminum (+6.7%), zinc (+5.7%), and nickel (+5.2%). Precious metals fell 2.7%, weighed down by a decline in gold (-2.8%).
The Pink Sheet is the World Bank’s monthly report on commodity price movements.
The energy price index rose 12.1% in April, driven largely by crude oil (+8.7%). The non-energy price index increased 3.2%.
Agricultural prices gained 1.5% in April, led by food prices (+1.5%); raw materials rose 2.5%, while beverage prices edged up 0.4%. Fertilizer prices surged 14%
Metals edged up 1.4% in April, led by aluminum (+6.7%), zinc (+5.7%), and nickel (+5.2%). Precious metals fell 2.7%, weighed down by a decline in gold (-2.8%).
The Pink Sheet is the World Bank’s monthly report on commodity price movements.
Compliments of the World Bank
The post World Bank | Commodity Prices Rose in April—Pink Sheet first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a key instrument to improve market openness and fairness, competition, and user choice in the EU
New challenges posed by generative AI and cloud services need to be addressed
External pressure must not compromise the EU’s sovereignty and autonomy to define its rules
Effective and proportionate fines essential to ensure deterrence and safeguarding DMA’s effectiveness
MEPs are pushing for the Commission’s timely and effective enforcement of the EU’s Digital Markets Act and closer scrutiny of AI-driven search tools and cloud services.
In a resolution adopted on Thursday by show of hands, Parliament urges the Commission to quickly and consistently enforce the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and to make full use of its enforcement powers. MEPs point to the growing strategic importance of cloud computing services and the increasing uptake of AI-driven search tools (such as Google’s AI overview), stressing the need for closer scrutiny under the DMA framework.
EU’s sovereignty must not be compromised
MEPs warn against political pressure from third countries seeking to weaken the DMA and underline that such interference should not compromise the EU’s sovereignty and autonomy to enforce its own rules. The Commission should make full use of the DMA’s enforcement instruments (including regulatory dialogue, investigations, non-compliance proceedings, and fines) to prevent gatekeepers, regardless of their place of establishment, from bypassing the law.
Ongoing non-compliance proceedings should be concluded without undue delay, MEPs say. They also regret the modest fines imposed on Meta and Apple and stress that effective and proportionate fines are essential to ensure deterrence.
Gatekeeper action
With gatekeepers having to comply with the DMA since 2024, smaller players continue to face discriminatory practices and gatekeeper-imposed restrictions, slowing innovation and reducing consumer choice. Concerns remain around Google’s persistent self-preferencing practices, TikTok’s consent screens using behavioural techniques to obtain consent, the change of default settings and easily accessing competing services by Microsoft , and the continued use of prohibited parity clauses by Booking.com. MEPs are also worried about restricted access to audiovisual media services on connected TVs and call on the Commission to monitor this segment of the market, to avoid replicating unfair practices such as those by Android on smartphones.
Real-world results
Parliament urges the Commission to prioritise the enforcement of interoperability, data access, anti-steering and anti-self-preferencing obligations, while taking into account relevant market developments. The text says compliance with the DMA should be assessed in relation to practical, real-world outcomes on market openness, competition and user choice, while its effectiveness depends on empowered end-users.
Background
In November 2025, the Commission launched investigations into Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure to determine if they should be designated as gatekeepers for their cloud computing services. In April 2025, it issued its first non-compliance decisions and fines against Meta regarding its “pay or consent” advertising model and Apple for breaching its anti-steering obligations. On 28 April 2026, the Commission published the first review of the DMA, assessing the DMA’s impact and identifying areas of future focus, such as cloud services and AI.
Compliments of the European Parliament The post European Parliament | Digital Markets Act: MEPs Want Stronger Enforcement Amid External Pushback first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.
