How does regulatory mechanisms in Saudi Arabia compare to the EU?
- Background of the study
- The world is witnessing an increase in economic crimes ranging, including fraud and money laundering
- Increased adoption of technology in banking and financing sectors expose parties to new challenges such as fraud in e-payments
- Saudi Arabia is experiencing a rise in white-collar and internet-based crimes, including fraud in e-payment
- Across Europe, the EU reported that fighting money laundering and related crimes, such as fraud, is insufficient due to gaps in regulatory measures
- The need to combat fraud in electronic payment through appropriate regulations has the potential of protecting parties from financial loss associated with the crime
- Definition of fraud in electronic payments – stealing another person’s payment details and using it to settle unauthorised purchases and transactions
- context of the study – the proposed study is founded on Saud Arabian and EU’s regulatory approaches to combating e-payment fraud
- Problem statement
- Inadequate protection against fraud in e-payments is a construct of inefficient regulatory approaches in Saudi Arabia and the EU region due to diversity in e-payment platforms
- Failure to combat fraud in e-payment expose individuals, organizations, and governments to increased risks of money laundering and terrorism.
- It is also critical to protect the operational, legal, and regulatory environment against a variety of threats to secure financial institutions from fraud.
- Appropriate regulatory measures provide the legal framework for combating fraud in e-payments
- Research objectives
- To identify regulatory approaches to combating fraud in e-payment
- To establish the effectiveness or available regulatory measures to combating fraud in e-payment
- To compare fraud regulatory measures in Saudi Arabia and the EU
- Research questions
- effective regulation of fraud in e-payments?
- How does regulatory mechanisms in Saudi Arabia compare to the EU?
Saudi Arabia, so you just make that clear, in your research questions to say, compare contrasting Saudi Arabia to the approach of the EU through the example of Sweden, how can Saudi Arabia improve its approach to fraud through E payments that isn’t to say that everything you’re gonna you’re gonna research will be that Sweden is better than Saudi Arabia. That’s not the aim of this comparison. There’ll be points where you’re gonna find that actually, Saudi Arabia is doing things better than Sweden, there may be something pre existing that means that the approach of Saudi Arabia already works or is better fitting than taking something from Sweden so you don’t want to have it? It doesn’t need to be that you already had this predisposed view that one jurisdiction is better than the other. It’s more a case about where in Sweden X is being done. This is effective can it be done in Saudi Arabia? Or you might find that there are things about finance in Saudi Arabia that means things don’t work that are being used in Sweden. That’s all that’s absolutely fine to to identify and you want to analyze that in your project.
What is the aim of the comparison? Are you expecting to find one better than the other?
So you’re an ASIC. You’re, you know, you’re comparing it because you want to look at the appropriateness and the effectiveness of the law. But you need to tell the reader that’s why you’re comparing some of this will feel a bit like stating the obvious, but you need to make it clear what direction you’re going in. And so the thing is, like, Are you looking to which jurisdiction or you’re going to make recommendations for Saudi Arabia
As above, think about the aims of your comparison
