CIG makes another bid to get off FATF ‘grey list’
(CNS): A Cayman Islands Government delegation, led by Financial Services Minister André Ebanks and Attorney General Sam Bulgin, met recently in Miami with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) review group on money-laundering investigations and prosecutions here to demonstrate the jurisdiction’s renewed capability and capacity for fighting financial crimes. The meeting was part of the process to get off the list of jurisdictions monitored by the FATF, allowing Cayman officials to present the action taken to meet the outstanding requirements.
In March 2019 the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force recommended 63 actions for the Cayman Islands to address. Sixty were complete by February 2021 but the FATF placed the jurisdiction on a monitoring list with an action plan to complete the remaining three items. CIMA satisfied the outstanding action regarding effective sanctions in June 2021 and the financial services ministry dealt with the issues relating to beneficial ownership in October last year.
The findings from this latest review process of improvements that officials say have been made regarding the prosecution here of money laundering will be decided during the FATF Plenary this February, when the CIG is hoping that a public statement will be made indicating that Cayman is to be removed from the list at the next session in June.
Cayman has consistently faced concerns because of its failure to prosecute any offshore financial crimes. Most of the money laundering cases here have been related to theft and deception cases, largely carried out by individuals in offshore firms, rather than cracking any international cases. The gold smuggling trial that began in 2019 was one of the first major trials of its kind here, but it ended with most parties being acquitted.
More recently, former football executive Canover Watson was found guilty of money laundering in connection with fraud on CONCACAF. His business colleague, Bruce Blake, was acquitted of those charges but found guilty of false accounting.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Business, Financial Services
No chance!
Cayman just doesn’t get that it can’t meet the required international standards now or in the future.
The analysis by the first world of our third world remains correct.
You can wear sharp suits but the only prize you’re going to win is best dressed.
Wrong. Onshore jurisdictions keep moving the goal posts in the eternal cat and mouse game they play with offshore financial centers. The laws and regulations here far exceed those of the onshore jurisdictions yet we are the ones grey listed whilst they control and remain on the white list. Delaware is the biggest tax haven in the world. Grey list is a total joke.
And your evidence for this is???
Your expertise in financial regulation???
What rubbish.
If you think this is an objective list of actually non-compliant countries then you think that Venezuela and Russia are “compliant”.
In which case your opinion is not particularly valuable l, honest, or informed.
Botched investigations like the gold smuggling matter or the never-ending saga of Canover Watson, that’s wasted millions over several years with little positive impact for Cayman, will not get Cayman off the grey list.
What else have these departments done to justify their existence?
Some of the largest law firms should also be prosecuted for a lot of what they do!
They are being cloaked with protection.
The cayman islands will not and should be removed from the list and here is why.
1 why did the national coordinator abruptly leave.
2. The RCIPS has dramatically reduced the size of the Financial Crime Unit and have been told now recruit non qualified Financial Investigators.
3. The cayman Islands bureau of financial investigations arrived a number of years to a fanfare of employing highly qualified investigators from the UK. If you check at court records they have had no self generated prosecutions or convictions let alone arrest anyone. How many worthless millions have they cost.
The cayman islands are all smoke and mirrors and do not have the appetite to truly investigate financial wrong doing from the lowest illigal gambler to real estate agents turning a blind eye to the source of funds for property purchased.
It’s hard to prosecute people who are not physically in Cayman.
Not hard to prosecute partners in Cayman firms who attach to overseas wrongdoing: they are just right down the road.
You’re very wrong. “Attach to overseas wrongdoing”? What is that?
You scared? No reason to be if you’re not doing anything wrong.
No one is scared. Lol. This thread is a joke.
Rubbish. Civil recovery of criminally derived assets is the thing that hurts criminals most. They can be anywhere in the world and their Cayman funds can be forfeited. It just needs the knowledge of a good investigator and a willingness of the DPP to push the envelope. Sadly good people get ground down by Government ineptitude and prevarication and leave to pursue other opportunities.
Sorry, but you have to realize that very little money actually passes through Cayman banks.
“cayman funds”? You do know the money isn’t actually here right?
Trials can proceed summarily in many jurisdictions, and enforcement orders/extradition can be applied in many friendly courts to attach and execute civil cost orders, and/or physically seize and move people back to where their crimes were committed. A Justice system is what they call it. Ours is often found to be broken at AG level.
Before we hit “the lowest illegal gambler, let’s start from the top down right here in Cayman.
Best part of the group photo is that Mac’s not in it.
And when are the holier-than-thou OECD board members going after corruption in their own countries, which is where the REAL corruption is? Oh, that’s right: NEVER!
So let me see if I got this correct. One of the worlds largest “offshore financial jurisdictions” is the State of Delaware.
The current US President was a long-time representative of and still resident of …. you guessed it – the State of Delaware.
So it would seem to me that the US President would not want other jurisdictions (Cayman Islands) to skirt the rules and regulations that he is a part of checking on.
When a person of the opposite political party gets back into the White House, then you may see change. Current political party is going to protect the President and his associated interest.
FATF is the issue here – not the US. FATF is a multinational organization headquartered in France and currently headed by a Singaporean. World doesn’t begin and end with the US
On the contrary – if you doubt the influence of the US in FATF then you are living in lala land. Singapore? Really
Andre Ebanks needs to spend more time straightening out things here such as NAU. If he cant do that, then what do you expect he will do in Financial Services?
As for Sam Bulgin – during his tenure there has been very very little done over financial crimes – which is obvious to FATF and all the other alphabet organisations that check on jurisdictions like us.
This all reminds me of how excited Tara Rivers to get a photo with Senator Grassley a few short years back
Well said. AG is part of the AML problem, because he is incompetent and easily misled by those who are part of the AML problem. You just can’t make this stuff up.
It is still way too easy to launder money thru the Cayman Islands. FATF is not as stupid as our delegation – think about it.
…you really are clueless…
Corruption still runs rife. No mention of developer laundering, midnight aggregate shuffles, government and SAGC Board baksheesh, the need for hundreds of developer nominee companies. There’s not enough room in our prison for what’s still going on. It’s generally everywhere but Cayman Finance.
Government is the biggest criminals in this island.
Crypto bobo
5.42. It’s all that laundering going on around the islands. They are doing it at hotels, hospitals, restaurants,condos,private homes. Heck they even do it in the prisons.If we can’t get this under control we will never get off that list.
Ha ha ha ha, good luck with that. There are other reasons why Cayman is still on the grey list and they are not obvious to most. It’s called corruption and it’s like Mr. Legge put it, “endemic”.
Need The Firm reboot to happen soon
As far as I’m aware, there has still not been any action (whether prosecution or otherwise) taken to deal with foreign attorneys, who are not licensed to practice Cayman Islands law and do not hold a Practice Certificate, that engage in illegal practice of Cayman law from other jurisdictions.
When the proceeds of illegal-criminal practice of Cayman law are deposited into the formal monetary system (eg, a bank account), it taints the monetary system with the proceeds of crime and (depending on the specific fact-scenario) may attract a number of money laundering offences.
Certainly, where there are partners in Cayman Islands law firms, which have a multi-jurisdictional presence, that engage in such practices (or similar) mentioned above, that could potentially be open to liability (depending on the specific fact-scenario) for various money laundering offences.
Other forms unlicensed domestic business/trade activities, which are illegal criminal offences, could also give rise (depending on the specific fact-scenario) to money laundering offences, where the proceeds are deposited into a bank account and thus tainting the formal monetary system with the proceeds of crime.
Wasn’t the Premier the global managing partner of a Cayman law firm with a global footprint? Maybe he is doing all he can to protect his old colleagues or maybe he himself has or had exposure too.
Wayne should make a definitive statement to the electorate about this.
The Minister of Financial Services and commerce used to work as an associate at two of the largest global law firm that are based in the Cayman Islands. My chips are on him protecting the large law firms.
Broken record who doesn’t understand the rules on extra-territorial effect of laws (or the lack thereof) strikes again.
Your vested interests here are pretty clear!
I am not a lawyer, although I have frequently offered legal advice in CNS posts so I must remain anonymous to avoid prosecution. However, Orrie and a cadre of Cayman lawyers, IMO (and remember that I am only a cyberspace-lawyer), seem to be stretching the bounds of what it means to ‘practice’ Cayman law.
These lawyers they refer to are not appearing before Cayman courts, so the connection seems to be somewhat less tenuous. Surely I am not breaking North Carolina law if I tell you that it is illegal to sing off-key in the State of North Carolina? Similarly, if I should happen to mention that you can’t sing in a bathtub in the State of Pennsylvania.
If Orrie’s legal argument holds water so to speak, would an overseas architect looking at the Cayman Building Code and drafting up a plan for a hotel in the Cayman Islands not, by extension, also be committing some crime with regards to our Planning laws if she/he is not a registered architect in the Cayman Islands?
Should airline pilots be required to be licensed by our Civil Aviation Authority to enter our airspace? Similarly for ships captains?
I’m sure there are many other professions for which similar arguments can be made, but perhaps Orrie or any other lawyer in Cayman can reply and explain why the legal profession (without the horse dead and cow fat details of what you do) should be treated differently than any other profession with regards to Cayman’s laws?
Cayman doesn’t have enough knowledge for its own Building or Fire Codes, CPA just adopted and still uses (obsolete) IBC2009/IFC2009. Cayman is a great place to charge full price to use up old clearance-priced materials that can’t be sold in first world markets.
But would this not be fraud the minute you start charging clients in North Carolina for your “legal” advice?
If you held yourself as admitted in Cayman, sure. If not, then likely not.
Either way – that would be a matter for the courts in NC, not the ones here and certainly not a matter for an armchair pundit such as Mr. Meren who is clearly voicing an opinion based on his own business interests rather than logic.
I’m answering myself here, but it looks like I could become a google-lawyer in a few weeks. So here goes at Orrie again.
It is a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007 to carry on any reserved legal activities without a practising certificate.
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-barristers/authorisation-to-practise.html
Do we have reserved legal activities defined in Cayman Law, and is that what Orrie is accusing the overseas lawyers of violating?
Here is the definition applicable to UK law, and no I haven’t bothered to read it.
https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/enquiries/frequently-asked-questions/reserved-legal-activities
It seems to me that Orrie wants to create a niche market where anyone anywhere in the world has to pay a Caymanian lawyer for the most trivial of issues related to Cayman law.
You are looking at the wrong info:
Cayman- https://forbeshare.com/cayman-islands-the-recoverability-of-foreign-lawyers-fees-on-mondaq/
BVI – https://forbeshare.com/british-virgin-islands-the-recoverability-of-foreign-lawyers-fees-on-mondaq/
Anon at 17/01/2023 at 9:48 pm:
You have posted two articles about fee recoverability. They are irrelevant.
Anon at 17/01/2023 at 9:27 is correct: Orrie is posting legally-illiterate protectionist nonsense (I paraphrase).
It’s feature in the Caribbean that is being enforced at common law. There are some very recent cases on this concerning BVI law.
Sounds imaginary to me.
Which law are they breaking, Orrie? And on what basis do you think a Cayman law applies to people beyond our seas?
Can someone be so kind to point out the professions of the CIG delegation members please? Seems heavily represented by attorneys. I understand the need for attorneys here but surely there are other professions involved in Cayman financial services.
Dear Orrie,
Your name appears under most previous articles about the Legal Services Act. You comment a lot about people allegedly committing crimes. I have some questions:
1. What are you talking about the “illegal practice of Cayman law from other jurisdictions”? One doesn’t read about the UK government whinging about people outwith the UK practicing English law, so why are you whinging about Cayman law being practiced overseas (which is English law, with some amendments, and you even use the UK Supreme Court as your final court of appeal, so let’s not get above ourselves here).
2. On what juridical basis do you assert that the Cayman Islands legislature has extra territorial powers, i.e. to regulate what citizens and residents in, e.g. Hong Kong, can do? For extra points in your answer, please provide statutory, case law and academic references – perhaps start with Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws.
3. If you’re so jealous of, e.g. Harneys, with their large Hong Kong office, why don’t you set up an office over there yourself? You’re just as capable a lawyer as Harneys partners – aren’t you?…
4. International clients _could_ choose to instruct your law firm, couldn’t they? Why don’t they? Is this why you implicitly demand that politicians *force* businesses to give you money, rather than your competitors who – apparently – clients prefer to instruct?
5. Even if you’re not willing/able to compete in, e.g. *Hong Kong*, even if you’re not willing/able to attract *international* clients to instruct you in Cayman, surely you can persuade all large Caymanian businesses to instruct only “multigenerational” Caymanian law firms? That would be more than enough work to keep you busy, surely?
I think the direct laundering of foreign criminal and corruption proceeds are a little more problematic from the perspective of the international financial community than whether or not local law firms are breaking a regulatory requirement and potentially making illicit profits. For you whoever a local law firm not promoting g as many Caymanians as you would like is far more important than foreign organized crime and corrupt government officials laundering hundreds of millions, possibly billions through Cayman. Matthew 7:5 Orrie. Or just plain parochialism.
Yawn!