Briefings & Articles

DPAs are arrangements under which an entity voluntarily discloses its own criminal activity to the criminal authorities, and as recognition for this it can avoid criminal prosecution - as long as it gives full disclosure of the offending, pays any financial penalty or compensation ordered, covers all the costs associated with administering the DPA and demonstrates over time that it has remedied the failings that led to the offending conduct

The Wolf of Wall Street film or the Netflix series on Bernie Madoff provide entertaining and graphic examples of where culture and conduct spiral out of control leaving devastated employees and victims in their wake. Here we discuss how to achieve a healthy AML/CTF/CPF culture and what the expectations of the Regulator are likely to be.

Under the various Codes of Practice issued by the Jersey Financial Services Commission (the “JFSC”) the Boards of regulated businesses are required to undertake and keep an up to date Business Risk Assessment (“Risk Assessment”).

Failing to prevent money laundering – are your AML prevention procedures adequately maintained and sufficiently applied to secure a defence under the new law?

The immediate steps your organisation should consider with regard to the Russian sanctions.

Transaction Monitoring is an essential tool in your armoury to help combat money laundering and terrorist financing (“AML/CFT”).

Inflation combined with low bank interest has proved to be a powerful driver for savers seeking out higher returns through high-risk alternative investments whilst presenting a tempting target for those unscrupulous individuals intent on either mis-selling an investment to a client or worse still facilitating a fraud.

In response to the requirements of the international standard setting Financial Action Task Force Recommendation 24 (relating to the transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons), the Jersey Company Registry has undertaken a major overhaul not only of its online systems but also the legislation requiring the electronic submission of information to the new “myRegistry” platform.

On the 17 December 2020, the Jersey Financial Services Commission (“JFSC”) published a detailed feedback paper on the results of its pre-COVID-19 on-site themed examination. The examination looked at how firms undertake compliance monitoring, resulting in negative findings being identified in 10 out of the 11 Registered Persons that were examined.

In virtually every annual report issued by the Jersey Financial Services Commission (‘JFSC’) the value and importance derived from whistle-blowers during the previous year is acknowledged demonstrating just how important whistle-blowing has become.

The Jersey Financial Services Commission (“JFSC”) has since 2015 been in a position to impose civil financial penalties for significant and material breaches of the JFSC’s Codes of Practice committed by Registered Persons.

Failing to implement an effective Compliance Monitoring Plan (“CMP”) continues to be a regular finding arising from on-site examinations conducted by the Jersey Financial Services Commission (“JFSC”).

In some strictly limited circumstances, Article 16(2) of the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order provides that a Relevant Person may rely on identification measures that have already been applied by a regulated business (referred to as an obliged person) to find out the identity of a mutual customer and to obtain evidence of identity.