Ne bis in idem at the intersection between prudential and AML/CFT supervision.

The ne bis in idem principle, a fundamental right under Article 50 CFR, generally limits the possibility of a person being prosecuted or sanctioned twice for the same act, offense, or facts. At the same time, in EU law, it is often the case that a natural or legal person's factual conduct could potentially give rise to double response: one under criminal law and one under (punitive) administrative law. It may even be the case that a certain factual conduct can be judged and sanctioned under different regulatory regimes. The policy areas of prudential supervision and of the supervision of the anti-money laundering legal framework are a prime example of this phenomenon. When different authorities (prudential, AML/CFT supervisors and national judicial authorities), branches of law (administrative, criminal) and legal orders may be simultaneously competent to impose punitive sanctions for legal violations that stem from the same facts, how can the ne bis in idem be safeguarded? Does the current legal framework foresee rules to coordinate different sets of parallel or consecutive punitive proceedings? How can excessive sanctioning be prevented and is there a need for an integrated approach to ne bis in idem in EU law? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]