Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Insurance fraud is a major issue in the insurance industry. Insurance companies around the world are all facing significant losses due to the prevalence of fraudulent claims. These fraudulent claims and subsequent losses suffered by insurers inevitably lead to a dilution of the insurance pool and result in other policyholders bearing the brunt of these losses. The inevitable solution for insurers is to hike the premiums for all other policyholders in order to compensate for their losses caused by fraudulent claims. Insurance fraud is an international problem and it is common for insurers in most jurisdictions to use forfeiture clauses. These clauses aim to protect the insurer by stating that if the policyholder should submit any type pf fraudulent claim, the policyholder will forfeit the entire claim. There has been much controversy around the validity and fairness of these clauses. This thesis seeks to provide an overview of the prevalence of fraudulent insurance claims in South Africa, England, Australia and New Zealand. Moreover, it will consider the fairness of forfeiture clauses in light of the fundamental movement towards policyholder protection in recent years both in South Africa and in those jurisdictions that form part of the comparative study. The thesis concludes that forfeiture clauses form an indispensable part of short-term insurance contracts and are justifiable and therefore lawful. It is, however, submitted that insurance companies have a duty to disclose the nature and extent of forfeiture clauses at the inception of the policy and again at claim stage. By using so-called staggered disclosure, insurers provide policyholders with the opportunity to consider their claim and the means with which to prove it in order to avoid instituting a fraudulent claim. The thesis recommends that these rules pertaining to staggered disclosure should form part of the 2018 Policyholder Protection Rules, together with a statutory definition of insurance fraud.

The use of conduit company treaty shopping structures is often regarded as an impermissible erosion of a country’s tax base. For a developing country, such as South Africa, the protection of its tax base is an important policy consideration. Arguably, one way of combatting conduit company treaty shopping structures is by including in a country’s double taxation agreements the beneficial ownership requirement set out in Article 10(2) of the OECD MTC. The study examines how a South African court would interpret this requirement in provisions in South African double taxation agreements in the context of conduit company treaty shopping involving conduit companies receiving dividends. The study firstly considers whether the beneficial ownership requirement can be regarded as an anti-avoidance rule aimed at combatting conduit company treaty shopping falling outside agents and nominee scenarios. It further considers whether the term “beneficial owner” should have a legal or economic meaning. It explores the meanings given to this term by scholars and foreign courts and the OECD in its Commentaries to the OECD MTC. The study also considers the application of the rules of interpretation contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties when giving meaning to this term. Lastly, the study considers whether the term should have the meaning assigned to it under the domestic law of a treaty country, or under international tax law. As part of this enquiry, the meanings of the expression “beneficial owner” in South African case law and legislation are explored.

Abstract available in PDF.

Abstract : Please refer to full text to view abstract. <br>LL.M. (Commercial Law)