Based on the reports of the delegations, the following general observations can be made:

• Through established information sharing mechanisms, regulators are sharing information with each other relevant to tracing assets, and such information is often critical.

Regulators can more effectively enforce the securities and futures laws when they are able to thwart the dissipation or secreting of the fruits of fraud, thus facilitating-the return of illicit profits to injured investors. The reports confirm that regulators, in their enforcement capacity, utilize bilateral and multilateral information sharing mechanisms, including MOUs, to obtain key information, such as bank accounts and other relevant corporate records, useful for cases to be brought and which may help the return of illicit assets to investors.

• The responses indicate the regulators' willingness to assist and cooperate with one another whenever possible to facilitate the preservation and recovery of the proceeds of fraud.

In a few cases, securities and futures regulators may take direct action to preserve and return assets to foreign investors. However in many cases, due to the legal framework of the jurisdictions, they do not have such authority.

Nevertheless, there are various measures that can be used which will have an actual impact on the preservation of investors' interests (e.g., suspension of activity of an intermediary, revocation of license, appointment of a receiver). Moreover, regulatory authorities are willing to provide information and advice based on their own experience with the legal framework of their respective domestic jurisdictions. These forms of assistance can be very useful.

• Although the measures available and the routes to be taken vary greatly, in each jurisdiction there are some routes that can be taken to facilitate the preservation and return of assets to defrauded investors.

The ability to preserve and return assets to foreign investors in embedded in each jurisdiction's legal structure. Recognizing the differing legal and regulatory structures in IOSCO members' jurisdictions, the Working Party believes that no uniform approach is appropriate for all countries.

The reports reveal significant differences among members in their domestic powers, including, for example, whether the regulatory authority, a judicial or prosecutorial authority, or investors themselves, have the ability to take measures or initiate actions against suspected wrongdoers. There are also differences as to whether such actions can be brought civilly administratively, criminally, or some combination of all three. The reports make it apparent that there are significant differences as to the identity the parties who are entitled to initiate legal actions in a jurisdiction abroad. Foreign authorities or foreign defrauded investors usually must meet specific criteria in order to be parties to judicial proceedings.

Furthermore and generally speaking, enforcement of foreign orders most likely to occur through court actions. There are also differences a the identity of the party seeking to enforce an order. In addition, nature of the order (e.g. civil, administrative or criminal) may have significant impact on available remedies.

• Where civil routes are not available or are unlikely to be successful, alternative mechanisms identified in the reports include the use mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs)

MLATs often specifically provide for the provisional freeze of assets well as the forfeiture of assets. In some cases, an MLAT may be used recover the proceeds of securities or future fraud. In addition, criminal violations of money laundering laws may, also provide a basis for u MLATs in securities and futures cases; often the illegal proceeds securities and futures fraud are transferred out of a jurisdiction into b accounts in another country, and such transfers may constitute money laundering.

• Multilateral conventions may also assist regulators in this regard.

The responses note that other available mechanisms may include multilateral conventions on the enforcement of judgements. For example, the European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters, which provides for assistance in executing all types of judgements for both final relief and provisional relief in civil matters, may be of particular utility . It may be useful for securities and futures regulators to review such conventions in order to determine whether they can be utilised in their cases. In addition, the Hague Conference on Private International Law is currently considering the preparation between 1996 and 2000 of a general convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements, which could have wide application to IOSCO members. Individual regulatory authorities and IOSCO as a whole may wish to provide input in this process.