English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The goal of this article is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis, whether: “The tax administrators are allowed to use the instruments of evidence which are gained by applying anti-tax fraud methods along with measures of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing only according to the procedural rules of the specific procedure and to the EU data protection rules”. It will also discuss the options that the public agencies, including tax administrators and Financial Intelligence Unit, have with regard to using the instruments of evidence, information, documents and tax statements including tax return, control statements and transaction reports received from different subjects via Electronic Registry of Incomes (ERI, EET). This article involves different evidence coming from surveillance systems in Anti-Tax Fraud, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and in Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) according to Tax Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Administrative Procedure Code along with special legal acts.

Evidence Types and Surveillance Systems in Anti-Tax Fraud Measures, Anti-Money laundering and counter-terrorism financing