Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    LLAW6282 - Examiner's Report

    Uploaded by

    ho576464
    i u我金額佛

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LLAW6282 - Examiner's Report

    Uploaded by

    ho576464
    4 views2 pages
    i u我金額佛

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    i u我金額佛

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views2 pages

    LLAW6282 - Examiner's Report

    Uploaded by

    ho576464
    i u我金額佛

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

    FACULTY OF LAW

    LLAW6282
    Financial Crime: Governance, Risk and Compliance

    EXAMINER’S REPORT

    This report sets out some high-level comments on the students’ performance on the
    respective questions and this assessment overall.

    QUESTIONS

    Question 1 – 36.5% of the submissions attempted this question.

    This question gives students an opportunity to evaluate the given statement. The statement
    itself consists of several keywords and elements. One of the possible starting points could be
    to define them for the purpose of setting the scope of the answer within suitable parameters.
    One of the more critical elements in this statement is the reference to ‘adequacy’, a term that
    should be carefully examined in order to provide a point of reference for evaluating this
    statement. Among the students who attempted this question, many explained the ‘emerging
    forms of financial crime’ and/or ‘current legal tools’ by reference to different examples, some
    of which were quite perceptive. However, the weaker answers tended to focus on these two
    aspects separately, whereas the stronger answers were able to demonstrate the evaluative
    aspects that this question calls for, in particular critically commenting on the areas where and
    how the two parts interact and the themes that emerge from an adequacy perspective. It was
    also good to see that some students were able to provide some recommendations to address
    the shortcomings on the adequacy issues that had been identified as part of their answers.

    Question 2 – 38.5% of the submissions attempted this question.

    This question gives students an opportunity to evaluate how financial institutions should
    innovate while balancing the need to maintain the need for financial crime compliance. A
    number of answers focused on examining ways how financial institutions innovate, such as
    their product and service offerings. While that makes the answers an interesting read, the crux
    of this question is on how financial institutions should strike the balance between innovation
    and financial crime compliance. This therefore requires students to consider the potential
    challenges that may arise from finding that ‘balance’ and possible ways to overcome them.
    Some of the answers demonstrated originality in thinking and perceptive viewpoints, whereas
    the weaker answers tended to be more descriptive (or in some cases failed to address the
    ‘balance’ adequately).

    Question 3 – 25.0% of the submissions attempted this question.

    This question invites students to explore the extent to which regulators can or should regulate
    a financial institution’s financial crime compliance governance framework. Many answers
    were able to explain the concept of the financial crime compliance governance framework
    and its main components. The crux of this question is on ‘should’ and ‘can’. This requires
    students to reflect on the significance of their meaning in the context of this question and

    1
    elaborate accordingly. Only a few answers were able to address all aspects of this question
    fully, though in those cases, the examiners were pleased that the quality of the students’
    analysis and discussion were robust and insightful. On the other hand, some of the weaker
    answers seemed to suggest the relevant students did not fully appreciate the question being
    asked altogether.

    GENERAL COMMENTS

    Overall, most of the submissions were completed to a satisfactory standard, nearly all were in
    the range of 6,000-7,000 words. 79% of the students opted to complete this assessment in
    pairs, with the rest individually. The average performance of those who completed this
    assessment in pairs was better than those who completed individually.

    This assessment was essay-based, thus there were no right or wrong answers. Marks were
    awarded based on, among other things, the quality of responses, originality in viewpoints,
    evidence of relevant research and examples, coherent development in ideas/arguments, and
    overall organisation/presentation. However, the quality was noticeably varied. In some cases,
    the weaker answers were the ones where the students failed to fully address the questions
    being asked. To this end, the examiners would like to remind students to read each question
    carefully before planning and drafting their answers.

    In addition, the examiners noticed several instances where students attempted to rephrase the
    question being asked. While students can scope their answers in response to the question,
    they need to be careful in not scoping (or even rewording the question) in a way that differs
    or deviates from what is being set in the take-home examination. Doing so creates the risk of
    offering answers (or parts thereof) that are irrelevant, thus limiting the number of marks that
    can be attained.

    While there is no prescribed format or style to which the answers need to be presented, those
    papers that adopted a more methodical and structured approach tended to stand out more
    favourably for their clarity and comprehensibility. Most of the answers made use of
    headings/sub-headings and introductory/concluding paragraphs to set out the response
    approach and key arguments, though some did so more successfully than others. In addition,
    some of the weaker answers lacked an overarching theme, thus there was limited (or no)
    coherent flow that connects the different parts of their answers together.

    Finally, the examiners were overall pleased with the students’ research efforts – and in some
    cases very extensive and thorough – which are certainly commendable. While some answers
    referred to many research sources, students are reminded to consider the cogency and
    relevance of the materials/sources cited; quality is sometimes more important than quantity.
    On the other hand, the examiners were surprised the lack of substantial research in some of
    the answers, especially for a course at this level. As like previous years, the examiners would
    like to remind students on the importance to proof-read before submission. Besides looking
    out for typographical and grammatical errors, students should review their answers to ensure
    they answer all aspects of the attempted questions and that they are coherent—indeed, shorter
    sentences sometimes can work better than long, convoluted ones.

    Henry Yu & John Lee


    7 January 2023

    You might also like