CIMA issues warning to ‘crafty’ offshore firm
(CNS): The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority warned the financial sector that these “are not normal times” in a statement that strongly criticised the Maples Group for issuing a press release about its judicial review application against the regulator. The increased scrutiny by CIMA comes as the jurisdiction fights to be removed from the current Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list and meet pressure to prosecute offshore firms that are not in compliance with the new rules. CIMA said this move by Maples was not only “inappropriate, professionally irresponsible and crafty, but also entirely against the spirit of existing Court Orders that currently pertain to these proceedings”.
In a short but damning statement, the regulator said it was disappointed and extremely concerned “that the Maples Group has thought it fit to issue the recent press release regarding their judicial review of the Authority’s interpretation and application of certain provisions within the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (AMLRs)”.
CIMA made it clear it would be enforcing the new rules vigorously and would not be prevented from doing its job: “The Authority wishes to make it abundantly clear that it intends to robustly defend these proceedings, and will strenuously resist any incursions into, or attempts to undermine, the strength of the jurisdiction’s AML/CFT regime. Furthermore, the Authority takes its supervisory responsibilities extremely seriously and will take all necessary actions whenever regulated entities repeatedly fail to address supervisory directions to comply with the jurisdiction’s regulatory requirements.
“As far as AML/CFT issues are concerned, these are not normal times, and persons conducting relevant financial business in or from these islands should be aware that it is not business as usual,” the regulator stated.
The unequivocal warning comes after the regulator handed Intertrust a fine of $4.2 million over their failings regarding compliance with a wide range of regulations relating to anti-money laundering.
Given the increased external scrutiny due to ongoing international obligations, “attempts to undermine the jurisdiction’s ability to implement the AMLRs will be vehemently resisted,” CIMA said. “This is not only necessary in the broader context of our role as an international financial services center, but vital to ensuring that the jurisdiction and its regulated entities take the required and necessary measures to prevent the misuse of legal persons and arrangements for money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crime.”
CIMA said this was fundamental to upholding the integrity of Cayman’s financial system.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Business, Financial Services
The CI Gov needs to understand if they let CIMA ‘go rouge like the appear to be’ then there will be a direct correlation to unemployment of Caymanians and the downwards turn of the Cayman Islands economy to appease the OECD who have nothing like these rules and fines in their own larger jurisdictions.
In the UK the fines are levied where there has been actual money laundering. Not here the CI laws here have been pushed through too fast without regard to the consequences so that if outdate passports are on file or nature of business / source of funds is not update then there is a massive fine which is just ridiculous.
I am quite surprised by the number of comments in support of Maples. It seems to me that Maples have clearly been given preferential treatment by CIMA over the years, hence the current mess we find ourselves in. So the first spanking has led to a major temper tantrum in the form of court proceedings. I find it curious that whatever transpired with Maples was much more hush hush and subject to court orders since clearly “negotiations/discussions” fell apart. However, with Intertrust there was no negotiation/discussion but they were slapped with a huge fine and a very public release. Whichever side you are on in this fiasco we can all agree that this is very dangerous and will completely undermine our reputation as a stable jurisdiction!! We are on the FATF gray list whilst NONE of our competitors are. Those in the industry should be fully abreast how easy it is for us to fall from grace and lose our standing, a simple redemption request can get the ball rolling………..instead of focusing on wording and definition of words we better keep our eyes on the bigger picture.
Can you explain why it seems to you that Maples have clearly been given preferential treatment by CIMA over the years?
The grey list is a rigged game concocted by major money centers New York and London. There is no way off it until the back of our jurisdiction is broken and there is no way for us to compete against them. We need to grow faster and align ourselves with competing jurisdictions.
Try the EU not NY and London.
Interesting reading the comments. I am not part of Maples or CIMA so it is a guessing game as to what are the underlying issues.
From a regulatory perspective, the Anti Money Laundering Regulations is the statutory obligation. But this regulation is written at a high level. The regulator (i.e. CIMA) issues guidance notes on how the regulations should be interpreted. So a simple example would be that the regulations requires person to “identify” its customers. But how identification should be performed is not detailed in the regulations regulated entities look to CIMA guidance notes on how such identification should be performed i.e. obtaining passport, utility bill etc.
If Maples position is that the guidance notes requirements are not lawful, then good luck with that.
Unlike other posters I take a different view that Maples has embarked upon a campaign to plead its case in the public domain. Mind you, this is a law firm and anyone who receives sound legal advice is told to keep their trap shut whilst the matter is ongoing. This begs the question, who is Maples getting such stellar advice, that would cause them to make such an odious public announcement.
And CIMA should not have allowed itself to baited by such a low bar set by Maples. Quite frankly, shame on both parties.
I don’t work for CIMA or Maples either but shouldn’t they be working cohesively? I think you ARE biased just like many who have commented here in favor of Maples. We should all learn from each other and strive to work together, this island has been blessed with gifted people…period. Unlike you, I don’t think Maples has pled it’s case in “public” domain to benefit their business ( who really could that benefit?) unless you think that their being right could somehow save their business sink CIMA and her save the island, this is certainly not Maples Island but CIMA does owe the people better and as for “guidance notes not being lawful” where are those guidance notes? Have you seen guidance notes from CIMA? Do share! If anyone thinks this is good for anyone living on the island you are sorely mistaken. Enough for BIG business, let’s ask SMALL business owners how much their work permit fees jumped without notification or guidance. The island is slack -we can’t afford to be slack . This island has talent, generational and deadwood can come together or fight each other to the bitter end. Our choice, Why so many comments here on this subject? Financial Services employees someone you know and could employ future generations unless we allow it to go the way of mass tourism and please look at our near miss with the cruise port. STOP. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and GIVE UP JEALOUS HATE. Work together to overcome the world that wants us closed, enough name calling. If Maples needs clarification then CIMA should give it without a need for judicial review. Work together for a professional service industry or kill it by your own hand. Do Better -you are paid to do better.
In the US, challenging the validity of a Treasury Regulation, taking a legal position contrary to an established regulation is lawful. For that reason, IRS Form 8275-R, Regulation Disclosure Statement, exists.
“There is a misconception in the public that a properly promulgated regulation is akin to federal law. As attorneys, we know nothing could be further from the truth, but we also appreciate that not everyone has a law degree, so we now publish this article to clarify how and when a Treasury regulation will be respected by the federal courts and, more importantly, when it will be invalidated by a federal court.” https://www.castroandco.com/blog/2019/october/step-by-step-guide-to-challenging-the-validity-o/
A Sea Change in Court Analysis of Treasury Regulations: How the Treasury Department Won the Battle but Lost the War https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/16feb/16feb-ac-murphy-a-sea-change-in-court-analysis-of-treasury-regulations/
Why CIMA assumes its regulations are unchallengeable is beyond me. The tone of their statement is puzzling, at least.
I completely agree. It is quite clear that M&C is facing huge reputational damage here as “regulatory compliance” is a service they sell to their clients.
Based on my understanding of the regulatory process, this issue is unlikely to have occurred a minute ago and is more likely to have been a long standing issue between M&C and the regulator. I honestly believe that M&C has been using its dominant position and the fact that they are connected to a law firm to strong arm CIMA.
Popcorn time. Whilst in the long run this public feud is bad for Cayman, I sure hope the regulator wins.
Not convinced this makes any sense. If cima’s interpretation of the law is particularly onerous, and I must presume it is then they are simply advocating for their clients who have a choice of jurisdiction. Hardly damaging. Ultimately they are paid by the hour, it doesn’t matter to them unless it damages the jurisdiction so one must assume they believe it will.
I don’t agree with your analysis. While Maples may have taken a view on the AML requirements that may have been to aggressive, or even wrong (though I doubt that), they will have taken a reasonable, considered position. Maples, like all the reputable service providers, most certainly wants to do things properly. They are a blue chip firm. Of course they don’t want to facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing. The reality is, if you’re familiar with the regulations and guidance notes, that this stuff is 99% form over substance. Once Maples took the decision that they had to go to court, they had no choice but to put out a press release to explain what it was about. Otherwise people would have been speculating that this was something far more serious than it actually is. A few people at CIMA have obviously taken this badly, hence the response. The problem is that they forgot that they are the regulator and need to behave with far more decorum.
I think the point is that CIMA is making it up as they go and its application of its own guidance is in many cases unreasonable. Expect Maples to have a truckload of examples to present.
As would many of the smaller licensees who – as a previous commentator noted – don’t have the resources to engage in a judicial review. That’s why there are so many comments on here in support of Maples. And I’ve yet to speak to a single person in our industry who isn’t behind them.
Thank you. I also find this very interesting. We are currently on the gray list because of a lack of a robust regulatory environment. So it is extremely curious that one of, if not, the largest service provider thought it would be a good idea to pick a public fight with our regulator at this time. We will ALL lose and I don’t think I should have to remind anyone in the industry that none of our competitors are currently on the gray list. We all know we have a constant target on our backs so this line of attack seems very unwise to me as the future of this industry is quite gray, if not, black.
I am not taking a position in defense of Maples or CIMA. That said, I suspect that CIMA is under significant pressure from mostly EU sponsored entities to take a stronger stance against some of the companies that the EU would like to see punished. The ultimate goal of the EU and some other entities is the complete destruction of the financial services sector in the Cayman Islands. Nothing short of complete destruction will make some people happy.
You cannot negotiate with someone who says you should not exist.
Yeah money launders and tax evaders have had that problem for years….stupid regulators!
The EU does prefer when Maples finance clients are in Luxembourg instead of Cayman. Maples probably just wants them in the most profitable location.
Would be interesting to know how Maples’ approach to AML differs in Cayman and Lux.
Isn’t it amazing how these snobs turn up their noses and look down on anything Caymanian that dares to step on their toes.All along these same blokes were singing the praises of CIMA and Cayman’s regulatory regime but now they are saying it is run by uneducated people. Shame on all of you snobs.
*1:27, not 1:24
who praised them and when?
Look at the mess that the big law firms made of CILPA and CARA.
Alden and AG rolled out the red carpet for them to attempt AML self-regulation of lawyers and law firms. Only this is, instead of getting it right, that got it dead wrong. Yes, wrong, wrong, wrong.
At first, I too thought these Caymanian attorneys were unnecessarily upset, but now that I know more, those couple of Caymanian lawyers that are standing up to CILPA/CARA were spot on, mate. They appear to be the only ones, who had AML complaints, that appear to be absolutely correct.
What is the Cayman Islands coming to? Out of all of this AML mess, I hope that those that are trying to do the right thing are rewarded.
Thank you Maples for standing up for the smaller firms that don’t have the balance sheet to take on CIMA. I 100% support them and think that CIMA are the crafty ones for conjuring up fines for having black and white copies of signatures instead of color ones knowing that the fined will just pay their tax and move on. Sock it to them!
But, is it really that hard to take legible colour copies/scans of important due diligence documentation?
‘Crafty’ Definition
‘Clever at getting what you want, either by indirect or deceitful means’
I really do not think this word is appropriate for CIMA and the notice should be withdrawn and replaced with more appropriate wording approved by both the board and the letter department. CIMA should set an example to all in the financial community by maintaining the highest professional standards.
“Unprofessional” is even clearer. Both may be libelous.
Definition of crafty by Merriam-Webster
Crafty: skillful, clever.
What is a ‘letter department’?
I think he means the Male department.
Please note the typo. Obviously I was referring to the legal department not the letter department. No doubt the CIMA legal beagles are already reviewing the CIMA letter and its possible libel or defamation ramification.
I believe CIMA should be investigated from the top down
All you dirty financial services folks sure have lots of time and energy to comment on here. Maybe if you put that much into compliance programs we wouldn’t be here. Can’t wait until the court hands you all a smack down! GO CIMA!!!
“Dirty”? Wow. Your ignorance is shining through.
Like all the recently paved roads in Cayman? Like the high standard of living here ? Guess which industry paid for that genius.
stamp duty apparently is how everything is paid for these days – start looking at the real estate sector!!
CIMA had better look at that real estate sector if they want to get a true handle on money laundering
Recycling debt. Government has been doing it since the early 2000s. The outgoing government, in 2000, was the last time any government since left government with a surplus.
Yes. Very true.
Probably works for CIMA. lmao
Wouldn’t be surprised if CIMA rearranges their on-site inspection schedule to pay Maples a visit sooner. And I say that because I don’t expect their retaliation to end with this press release. Intertrust, won’t be alone with their million dollar fine for too long.
Let the fallout continue.
Yet another reason why Maples will not have taken this decision lightly. Does the fact that it is even possible that our regulator might act vindictively horrify everyone as much as it horrifies me?
Most regulators behave vindictively, don’t they? That’s been my experience.
They do here.
All this is sure a storm in a safety deposit box. Methinks unfortunately, the Court may well side with the regulator if only because of who they are, rather than risk another storm by rightfully shooting them down.
The court is not beholden to CIMA who never goes there except to wind up some already defunct company.
I have my doubts about your pragmatism. One has to WIN in court….any court. That’s just how it works.
If anything, being a financial services regulator puts even more pressure on them, CIMA.
If CIMA has raised the standard for industry it should also seek to raise the standard for itself.
Let’s see how it plays out folks.
in maples i trust.
You are a real fool then.
My wife is pretty crafty. I don’t mind, but she forgets to turn off the glue gun sometimes, which is kind of dangerous.
So, not content with destroying our financial services industry at home, CIMA is now trying to destroy our reputation abroad.
Great job, guys.
What are your plans when the last client leaves for a more welcoming jurisdiction, and the last FS business closes it’s doors? Who’ll pay for your armies of unemployables then?
Good question. Does anyone have an answer?
The Cayman Islands Currency Board became CIMA in 1997, CIMA literally prints CI dollars so they probably think they have an unlimited supply…
Simple. We are in the Cayman Islands. Caymanians are, however, not receiving the business and employment opportunities in the Cayman Islands.
In years gone by, the Cayman Islands really needed a lot of help maturing and growing. However, instead of starting to integrate Caymanians into key positions, there are many instances where non-Caymanians are let in and Caymanians are intentionally kept out.
There are far too many people, who were a nobody where they came from, and came to the Cayman Islands and experienced success that they would never have in their own home country.
Now, it seems, everyone making the real money (not all, but many) are the non-Caymanians (or status grantees) and many brilliant and hardworking Caymanians are not getting opportunities, which appears by design.
So, if Caymanians are not getting the true benefit in Cayman, then I say let it all crumble and we do a full sweep cleaning up and chase these crazy bald heads out of town.
Hopefully it will soon be time to rebuild Cayman for the benefit of Caymanians, especially future generations of Caymanians.
XXXX
Well said! Absolutely agree with you!👏👏
I disagree with this comment. More than 33% of our top tier highest earning employees are Caymanian which is a very large number in a skilled total workforce of less than 10,000 Caymanians and in a specialized field. Some people won’t be happy until 110% of Caymanians are employed with the best jobs, which frankly, is immature thinking. Being Caymanian is not a job qualification, it is a right and a responsibility. You have a right to stay here forever and a responsibility to support your Country by getting a proper education, learning to read and write well so that you can represent your Country well in the rest of the World – which these days is just a phone call or email away. If you want the top paying jobs that the rest of the World competes for then learn to express yourself in writing so that your intelligence shines through. If you don’t want that then knock off at 5, have a beer, play some dominoes and shake your fist at the man holding you back. You get what you work for and what you deserve.
To 936.
In reading your response you make huge generalizations about caymanians regarding their education or lack their of.
Many things attribute to a child’s learning/education and development. The child’s environment has a huge influence on their emotional intelligence and development. So consider that demanding everyone educates themselves is in itself ignorant and premature, for we all require help at some point of our lives and certainly for the first 18 years we are cared for, or should be cared for. Not everyone is privileged to have wealthy parents, or sober parents, parents who are present and actively involved with their kids, parents who love their kids (and this has nothing to do with wealth), parents who provide guidance, parents who communicate with love and decency. Some kids are gravely neglected. Does that mean when they growup they don’t deserve to work to be able to survive?
You assume that people who don’t have a masters degree lack ambition and that caymanians feel entitled to a job. Well let’s be clear, caymanians are entitled to work in their own country, to be able to support themselves financially and to provide for their families and communities. We will not all be lawyers and doctors, last I checked the garbage is still being collected regularly, and it’s important it’s collected regularly….
Yes, caymanians are entitled to work first and foremost. But we are not entitled to jobs which we do not have the capacity in which to act.
As long as we continue to neglect our people with a lack of proper education, which leads to a lack of employment options, then we will always have to call on work permit holders to take up the opportunities caymanians are naturally entitled to work toward earning. If the opportunity is being redirected in every way possible to the expat community then what hope do caymanians have.
#whatsayweCayman?
This really is embarrassing by CIMA. What does “business as usual” mean? We have all been striving to implement the letter of the law since the AML/ CFT regulations came into force! CIMA can’t layer those regulations with their own interpretations and requirements and then get petulant when they are challenged. Imagine if SEC or FCA made a publication like this? They are not doing anything to help the image of this jurisdiction.
The use of the word “crafty” in this instance certainly is meant to defame and damage the reputation of the firm. I hope that Maples files an additional suit in connection to this statement by CIMA seeking damages. The quantity of which that has yet to be determined.
They must have the same PR person as the PPM.
Well if we didn’t look like we knew what we were doing before we certainly look like that now. Once again stellar work CIMA. We thank you for your exceptional service to the Cayman Islands and the business here. No wonder we are on every list, we have an authority like this representing us to the international bodies. Time for a major overhaul.
Does anyone know how the head of CIMA got there?
The clue is in your comment.
Truthfully, the Cayman Islands have become victims of our own success.
Now, as the outside world envies us, they did a good job at having us fight ourselves from internally.
It seems that everyone is now passing the hot potato.
The sensible thing to do is now, which should have been done previously, is to work together. Otherwise, the external pressure may get their desired result.
Whether we can work together for the greater good of all of us within the Cayman Islands is still to be seen.
I know some pay lip service to working together and don’t mean it, but it’s what is really needed now.
Next it will be Well my Dad is bigger than yours, followed by blowing raspberries.
I know you are, but what am I?
The managing director and board of CIMA should seriously consider how, just by the use of the word “ CRAFTY “, their image is perceived internationally.. Childish, petulant, full of self importance, and not terribly well educated – particularly in the use of English.
We need new senior management team at CIMA. Nothing to do with the board – as the board is not involved in day to day operational matters.
Totally agree. There should be term limits and Cindy should of been replaced about 15 years ago.
What ya say, English is bad? Good thing we speak Caymanian in this jurisdictions. I do say, however, that your spin on it was “CRAFTY”! Maybe linguistics can be better “crafted” (not “crafty”) as the context requires.
Whoever wrote this should resign. Regulators do not behave that way.
This reply by CIMA is the work of an immature individual within the organisation who lacks judgment and training and is acting out of misplaced zeal. CIMA’s Board should apologise and distance itself from this nonsense before that individual acts again and makes it look even more stupid.
“Crafty” is not a word used by a responsible regulator – except perhaps in the third world.
So weak dude…this is a reply to the firm who is using the regulator action to feign misunderstanding of the obvious spirit of the law…..CIMA has allowed this in the past but the international regulator is putting a stop to this obvious abuse by Cayman to the world standard.
Oh dear. CIMA replies!
” the obvious spirit of the law…” rather than the letter of the law. So you mean CIMA’s interpretation of the law. Which is a matter for a court to decide whether its reasonable or not. Or alternatively – just a thought – CIMA could get the government to pass laws that didn’t depend on people interpreting the “obvious spirit” rather than the simple written word.
Thank you CIMA bot. I get it now.
You tell’em CIMA.
CIMA is basically pointing out that the Maples’ press release was made with the intention of swaying public opinion in its favor. Anyone can see that with the exception of an angry buffoon like you. Stop trying to sound smart. If you’re a money launderer, accept the fact that the days of your scheme are numbered.
Public opinion is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the court rules that CIMA is acting lawfully or unlawfully.
Public opinion is very relevant. Do you think the judges live under a rock? Sorry to break it to you, but the system isn’t fair and the rich and powerful win way more than they lose. Maples is trying to keep it that way in painting CIMA to be in the wrong for exercising their regulatory powers.
I hope that you are not a CIMA employee, but suspect that you are since your post is riddled with egregious, defensive errors.
Basically you’re prejudicing the case by saying that if a judge finds that CIMA has acted unlawfully, he/she will do so because he/she has been influenced by public opinion and the “rich and powerful”, not by the merits of the case. That is a scandalous assertion, and if you are a CIMA employee you should be disciplined for making it.
9:43 – Okay counsel
Crafty is not a word used in press releases about legal matters in the English-speaking first world. It speaks to the low calibre of CIMA employees and the quality of its own internal checks that such a press release on such a serious matter gets put out in this tone-deaf, amateur manner. The only parts of the world I know where “crafty” could show up in a press release about legal proceedings would be the Eastern Caribbean or Africa and perhaps other places with even less of a grasp of professional English.
9.47 Just because you say its so dont make it so. You would do better to stop your snobbish attitude and stop biting the hand that feeds you.
9:47 – I wasn’t aware that Cayman was part of the first world. Especially since batterers hold speaker of parliament positions.
Convicted batterers…
Perhaps you might prefer “strategic” over “crafty”.
One word, and all the Emperor’s clothes fall off.
I am amazed at how many people comment and care about this stuff. Get a life!!
Imagine that, wait for it, 1/5 (at least) of the population in the island works in financial services.
Dun Dun Dunnnnn, it’s almost as if it’s important to a lot of people!!!
Imagine that, financial services constitutes 70% of our GDP, and as a virtual based business is the primary reason that the economy has hung together during lockdown. Unfortunately, as a virtual business, its also incredibly easy to lose it to competing jurisdictions, which is why stuff like this is pretty important to everyone on the island. In the absence of a tourism industry, where does the OP think the money comes from – our abundant natural resources and manufacturing exports? PS do you think there would be as a great a demand for real estate development if there was no financial services industry to buy up the office space, or rich buying homes if we had an infrastructure like some of our Caribbean cousins that dont have as big a FS industry to finance it?
Not sure on figures. But, assuming your figures are correct, how many of them are Caymanians that are receiving the real benefit.
If everything crumbles and falls away, it might be a blessing for Caymanians to rebuild and reap the benefit.
Also everyone seems so worried about things as if it’s the end of the world. However, anyone, who is a high performer, will be able to pivot.
Every time a problem arises, it creates opportunity. If you can solve problems, which other people (or most) can’t, you will always be okay, because you demonstrate true value.
This too shall pass.
CIMA would do well to remember certain of its statutory obligations, such as:
“In performing its regulatory functions..the Authority shall..
recognise the international character of financial services and markets and the necessity of maintaining the competitive position of the Islands, from the point of view of both consumers and suppliers of financial services, while conforming to internationally applied standards insofar as they are relevant and appropriate to the circumstances of the Islands;
recognise the principle that a burden or restriction which is imposed on a person, or on the carrying on of an activity, should be proportionate to the benefits, considered in general terms, which are expected to result from
the imposition of that burden or restriction;
recognise the need for transparency and fairness on the part of the Authority.”
Hello,
Please refer to me hereafter as the “Authority”. I will not response to any questions unless properly addressed. (ps, i never respond to emails anyways)
I find it disgracefull that anyone has the audacity to question my decision as the competent authority of the Cayman Islands. what i say is LAW, and it isnt for lawyers (especially expat ones!!!) to tell that what i said ISNT LAW. The seperate of powers doesnt exist, what a stupid idea. When we spoke to FATF they confirmed if we fine atleast 99% of the companies in Cayman they may move us off the gray list and onto the purple rainbow list, this is my aim.
Say anything mean and I’ll send Bush over to your house!!!
troll
9.58pm My, you are so sharp, do you work for CIMA?.
Did you misspell intentionally?
You’re sharp aren’t you.
4.03am My, you also are so sharp, can I guess where you work?.
Regulators do behave that way in developed nations. A crybaby like you would never survive in the US financial services industry. It’s very heavily regulated, the regulators have teeth and people actually lose their jobs when instances of material noncompliance are uncovered. I know you’ll probably respond by throwing a cheap island takedown at the US. Keep in mind that our system works well. 20+ trillion dollar GDP. What’s yours?
4:03 Wow, you are the brightest on here
‘Anyways’ is NOT a word except to Canadians…
I’m not Canadian, just bad at typing on my phone!
I cannot believe you said that, ah.
you mean eh…
You will not response ?
“ Please refer to me hereafter as the “Authority”. I will not response to any questions unless properly addressed. (ps, i never respond to emails anyways)”.
I think you should sit down now.
Or maybe this is double sarcasm, yeah must be double sarcasm… couldn’t be anything else
🤣 so sarcastically accurate!
Let’s be frank here.
No one is objecting to the sensible enforcement of international AML standards; the entire industry requires it.
However, on too many fronts now, CIMA has acted as if they are a legislative body. Rules are altered without any statutory basis and worse, without any consultation, and those in the industry are caught unawares, large and small alike.
Some comments seem to make this about Maples being a larger player in the market, but that simply isn’t relevant. the truth is, regardless of the messenger, that the regulatory process in Cayman is broken. The approach is impenetrable and arbitrary.
Well said. CIMA’s job is to sensibly enforce the law, not make up the law as they go along.
In the past the industry’s interpretation of “sensible enforcement” was no or at best convenient enforcement….this has now been recognized internationally.
Difficult because CIMA has been beyond incompetent for decades. It is tough to fix in one go.
Especially when the laws are drafted by firms like maples volunteering their services for free because the government couldn’t draft their way out of a paper bag.
Regulated entities have had their own way for far, far too long. Cayman HAS to start operating within the letter of the law not just put them in place and then ignore them. Of course CIMA are not used to being held to account and so there is now a period of, let’s say flux. But the industry here is also not used to being regulated. Properly. So this period will settle on a path that satisfies FATF and the EU but one thing is certain. CIMA has to start showing it’s teeth. That bit is just fact. Deal with it.
Legislation by regulation, SOGs etc – CIMA are past masters at it.
I am Frank. Now what?
Fighting words from CIMA, seemingly drafted with the sole intention of getting applause from “the international standard setters” and, with its somewhat hysterical and unbalanced tone, rather deaf to the importance of the country’s principal industry. However, CIMA is not above the law either and only has such regulatory powers as Cayman Islands law actually gives it. A court, not CIMA, will decide if CIMA is right or wrong. If Maples believes CIMA is wrong as a matter of law then Maples is perfectly within its rights to challenge CIMA in the courts. There is nothing irresponsible or crafty about that.
It would actually be irresponsible not to challenge if they believe CIMA is not applying the laws and regulations appropriately.
Based on my experience with CIMA I expect Maples has a point…
Ive been subjected to CIMA inspection before. I had to train their staff on what they were doing, what they were looking at, and what the laws say.
You’re lucky the inspection team listened to you. That wasn’t my experience.
Indeed, and there is the point. When the findings are not correct, you challenge them with the truth and all you get is “ the Authority is all powerful, and we are correct” even when clearly that is not the case. Law unto themselves and if you challenge it you know you are going to get extra “attention”. The response to Maples is a clear demonstration of that attitude.
6:59 You should run for office with a brain like that
You should spend more time doing the required due diligence.
On a risk based approach (as detailed in the Guidance Notes) or on a prescriptive approach (as used by CIMA during inspections) – which one is it? Keep in mind the Guidance Notes are issued by CIMA.
This comment wins the internet! Well said!
This is GOLD! RBA RBS but rookie examiners come ticking boxes and dont even know what RBA means taken straight from CIMA Guidance Notes!
They are tick boxers and prescriptive. Has been examinera imported from random regulators in the region. And the hand full of good inspectors leave after their 18 month contract bc theh realize the shit show it is.
Tone from the top. Get rid of Cindy. She is a joke. And half the heads along with her.
You are being offensive to good jokes everywhere.
Ms. Scotland has been in charge for 21 years. That is unfathomable…
It is also not as if those 2+ decades have been without controversy or problems.
Maybe they have no succession plan or anyone on the bench who is up to the task but this is a serious issue and let’s not get started on some of the family business that has gone on.
CIMA. Is it the law of the Cayman Islands that all lawyers engaged in the practice of Cayman law, anywhere in the world, be admitted and hold a current practicing certificate? If such unlawful conduct were taking place, would the proceeds of it not represent the proceeds of crime? Just askin. Enforcement of rules sure does seem a little haphazard around here.
As many commentators are noting, CIMA is a financial services regulator, not a court of law. This would be a matter for the courts.
So who should bring the matter before the courts?
You obviously don’t understand what a regulator does. It’s not to be your friend and spoon feed you.
Both CIMA and AG should take note. Isn’t there a working relationship between the Anti-Money Laundering Steering Group, which the AG chais, and CIMA exist to coordinate on AML threats? And, it heard by a court, that would be significant to take note of its impact.
No. It is not.
Yes it is, and sticking your head in the ground whilst ignoring the law is not going to help your situation. Regulators need to explain how they pick and choose what laws they enforce, and how others are so openly and routinely ignored.
Exactly. Especially where the proceeds of the unlawful conduct are the proceeds of crime. That must surely be more an issue than the fact that the copy ID document is black and white and not color.
Check the websites of many. A longstanding issue. Conducted in the open. Zero enforcement, by anyone.
Seems CIMA cannot take criticism nor does it want to work with companies on island to make sense of their rules, laws, and these self interpreted guidelines that if you don’t meet you get fined.
The rant of a system abuser. At least your not taking your impotent anger out on your wives.
Well, one port of that statement is certainly true: CIMA does not take – nor tolerate – criticism. At least it hasn’t since mid-2002.
Garbage. I can count on one hand how many fines they’ve issued. This is the point of the situation YOU and they are now in. They’re starting to actually fine and some don’t like it. The days of doing as you want are rapidly closing down. Deal with it.
There you have it. CIMA is not our partner in addressing failings but an enforcer of a cartel of multinational unelected beuercrats hell bent on closing down offshore business. They seemingly want to hurt, punish and intimidate business from staying or moving to the jurisdiction. When they fine companies it will cost jobs to be moved to other jurisdictions.
That might be Maples strategy in issuing the press release.
So you want CIMA to go in there to establish and implement your compliance policies and procedures? Maybe you all should hire real compliance experts to actually do that job. In the US, regulators perform their exams and seriously penalize institutions that fail to meet regulatory requirements. Look at the fine that was levied on HSBC for weak AML compliance. You all sound like a bunch of crybabies.
“In the US”.
“In Cayman”, Regulators (inc CIMA) abide by local Laws.
Don’t forget America doesn’t abide by these international Regulators that pressure Cayman.
The US does it’s part to keep things in the light. In fact, the US congress recently passed a ban on anonymous shell companies. So your “Delaware has more secret shell companies than Ugland House” argument is no longer valid…….
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-banks/u-s-congress-bans-anonymous-shell-companies-idUSKBN28L2NV
LOL!! They require name, address DOB and single piece of ID for the beneficial owner. That’s it. So the idea is that people are dishonest enough to set up shell companies to conceal who owns and controls the corporation, but somehow wont be able to lie about who actually benefits from the proceeds or persuade one of their minions to present themselves as the owner.
And it doesn’t include partnerships, trusts, or even pooled investment vehicles. None of which have to disclose who has the economic interest.
Let alone foundations, already the choice of more sophisticated criminals.
The US is either being remarkably amateur about this – this is stone age UBO registry – or they are paying lip service. But one thing is for sure – if you think this means dirty money is going to stop using US entities to conceal ownership you need your head examined. Its the exact opposite – gullible people like you will think that because its a US entity that there is some degree of scrutiny or supervision greater than the actuality.
You mean to another jurisdiction that doesn’t enforce good governance. Get yourself off there then. We’ll wave you off.
7:16 – Thank you for nailing the point. D-bags like you are the reason why there will come a time when Cayman gets locked out of the global financial system. Keep turning the blind eye to that dirty cash. Big momma UK doesn’t have pull anymore….HAHAHAHA
7:16 Is that the best you have…the good old “if you don’t like it you can leave”? Idiot!
Well, okay if you think what CIMA is doing relates to “Good Governance”…
You are correct. Follow the money = power/control. With the financial crisis looming and dollars leaving most jurisdictions, of course Cayman will get its share hence the sudden action.
Research who actually controls all monetary authorities & central banks and you will understand what’s happening now.
Is it the Illuminati? Or was that last week. Maybe the Masons are in control now…
Wow, just wow. I don’t think the SEC has ever called any of it’s regulated entities “crafty”. CIMA’s approach is do as I say not as I do.
4:53 – I’m sure that if you send CIMA your address.. they can send over a box of tissue.
Large law firms do not sue their own regulators unless they think they have a REALLY good case and no other alternative. CIMA should concentrate on hiring a good lawyer instead of issuing libelous press releases.
No. Caymanian attorneys bring legal action against CILPA/CARA, which is controlled by the large law firms, for acting unlawfully and ultra vires.
What a totally inappropriate response.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Someones ego was clearly hurt!!
What on earth does “As far as AML/CFT issues are concerned, these are not normal times, and persons conducting relevant financial business in or from these islands should be aware that it is not business as usual,” the regulator stated.”
I don’t think anyone is objecting to CIMA enforcing the laws, it’s just the way they seek to impose their interpretation of AMLRs. It’s very difficult to be compliant, when no one is clear how the AMLRs are being enforced.
Also, “firms that are not in compliance with the new rules”; what ‘new rules’? There aren’t any, just how CIMA likes to read the AMLRs which varies week by week, and licensee to licensee.
Suggesting a firm is being ‘crafty’ by taking CIMA to JR is also wrong. There’s a process available if a firm believes it’s not being treated correctly, and they are free to utilize it – is CIMA trying dissuade firms from doing so as they foresee a potential issue coming towards them?
Like you I wondered what “not normal times” meant. I was reminded of Dwayne Seymours “ you have to be very brave or very stupid” comment – sounded awfully like a threat. Quite extraordinary comment from a regulatory body where a cool and rationale demeanour is required.
I’d love to know who wrote and also approved that PR. Amateur hour at best. Can’t imagine any competent person taking that tact.
Other offshore jurisdictions have to be loving this and the OECD doesn’t care.
Seems like the “Team Cayman” approach is out the window.
CIMA just looks stupid in responding to the press release by Maples. Anyone can write a press release about any case as long there isn’t a publication ban. CIMA doesn’t have to win in the court of public opinion, they just have to win in court. They will likely lose though…regulatory entities in Cayman often have no clue how to interpret their own laws…OfReg is a good example!
So CIMA is above the law? No, they aren’t and publishing such a rebuke shows the mindset there now.
“Against the spirit”? So not illegal…completely within their rights under the law?Right. Got it. Sounds like CIMA is grabbing at straws.
Laws (particularly common laws) can’t and don’t strive to directly address all possible situations…instead they use the often common sense intention of the legislation. Certain companies thrive on convenient misinterpretation of the same laws to the detriment of their competitors, the industry and, in cases of international directives, their countries.
I understand CIMA issuing a statement standing by what they are doing, but to say that a court action is “crafty” and “professionally irresponsible” is outrageous. It should be obvious to anyone with any sense that this is completely inappropriate. It’s embarrassing for the jurisdiction and shows remarkably bad judgment. Even if CIMA is correct and Maples is in the wrong it’s not their place to put out a statement like this.
Crafty and irresponsible I.e. they are right but we don’t like it so we will accuse them of being malicious and not having the jurisdictions best interests at heart rather than deal with the substance of Maples complaint. Since when is exercising your legal rights crafty or irresponsible? SMH CIMA is meant to uphold the law – yet says someone asking the courts to confirm whether they, CINS, are acting legally is improper? The obvious interpretation is that CIMA is more concerned with people just blindly doing what they tell them than daring to question their actions. Can think of politicians like that, but a regulator?
Typical overblown, bullying, blustering threats from CIMA. Maples can say what they like about the case unless it’s sub justice or the court tells them not to. Whoever wrote that should be ashamed of themselves.
Does the Board of CIMA have any control over its management or whoever runs its litigation? Or is it just a supine bunch of superannuated worthies? This petulant statement makes one fear it’s the latter.
Truth is, CIMA has overreached regulatorily and generally had it its own way for far too long and is being brought to book at last. Let the courts decide!
(And what the hell does “crafty” mean in this context anyway?)
CIMA, CARA, TIA, ACC, CPA, WORC, MACI, CIAA, ROC are all are proper $hit shows drunk off of power. All are full of conflicts and moving goal posts to attack or hep those those they see fit. Cayman is a banana republic without bananas just monkeys.
Don’t leave out the DCI.
Man, who took away your bananas this afternoon?
3:45pm your are a 1-man #£&@ show!
And I know that you are male because women are never that stupid.
Ain’t that the truth!!
Well said CIMA
The tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog. Industry cannot be seen to undermine the regulators. Therefore all must comply with the laws and regulations. The big boys seem to think that rules do not apply to them because they generate so much revenue for CIG. However, how will Cayman get off these blacklists if CIMA and the ROC are not allowed to enforce the rules or levy fines for non-compliance?
And what are those rules? That’s what the judicial review is all about. CIMA is a regulator, not a court. Its interpretation and application of the rules clearly differs from industry’s and it is entirely appropriate that – before paying what is presumably a large fine determined unilaterally – Maples seeks the court’s ruling as to whether the fine is being appropriately levied. If CIMA had listened to Maples’ representations, it may not be in this mess of its own creation and wouldn’t need to engage in “shocked and appalled” outbursts like it did on Friday.
Slavery used to be legal. My point is laws, created by self interested men, don’t always create equity. Plus, we aren’t on the blacklist. We are on the grey list. I can’t readily find China or Russia. They must be compliant.
If we relying on Cicero then “cum non ex argumentum, tandem abutere petens” seems more apposite.
It does strike me that CIMA is being played by the international bodies it is trying to placate. If they continue to ladle out fines – those bodies will be saying ‘see – we knew it all along’. If they don’t – then those same bodies will be pointing at them as idle and soft. Strikes me that CIMA should be embracing the partnership that Maples is in effect offering to help them define good and sensible – and defensible – process, in accordance with international standards and law. Rather than stamping their proverbial foot in a fit of temper.
A bit of a puzzling response from CIMA. The Cayman Islands are not a dictatorship and Judicial Review is a constitutional tool which helps to keep government and its various arms in check while also clarifying how laws should be applied. If CIMA is following the laws of our land, they should not need to “vigorously defend” any action, the court will simply find that they haven’t overstepped their powers and that they have followed the law.
I wonder what the inference of “business as usual” means?
Sounds like a bit of shade being directed at the financial institutions here.
Oh dear. So CIMA thinks it inappropriate or even crafty- but are Maples right and CIMA is acting beyond its authority? CIMA seems more concerned with the publicity than the substance of the allegation. Guess we will see what the Court has to say – if CINA is vindicated then no doubt there will be serious ramifications for Maples, to say nothing of a very large costs bill. Whereas if the shoe is on the other foot we all know who ends up paying.
Unfortunately, Maples is correct, CIMA makes up rules as they go along, misinterprets the law, identifies breaches that aren’t and refuse to acknowledge when a mistake is made, and then send out unqualified accountants from the audit firms to do their work in an effort to appear effective, but all that is showing is how busy they can be. Maples is speaking for all the small service providers that do not have the resources to take on the CIMA. All they had to do was engage, listen and work with industry, not against them.
But CIMA, just to be clear, all the actual money laundering inherent in fronting is fine, right? Just trying to make sense of everything. Despite it being an offense, fronting is prevalent. The proceeds of it are the proceeds of crime. Yet no prosecutions for decades. Could someone please explain what the rules are?
You see, as long as you have on file a color copy of the voter ID of the person pretending to be the owner, then there is no issue. Tick the box and move along. Nothing to see here.
Notarised please!
And make sure you have the phone number and address of the notary…. if you don’t, your box will have a big red X. Bc that’s how we fight money laundering in Cayman using a Risk Based Approach.
Jokers.
Voter ID?