Maples wins legal battle over CIMA’s AML rules

| 19/04/2023 | 134 Comments
Ugland House, Maples headquarters in George Town, Cayman News Service
Ugland House, Maples headquarters in George Town

(CNS): In a complex legal ruling, a Grand Court judge has found largely in favour of financial services group, Maples, after it challenged the regulator, CIMA, over new rules surrounding the recording of clients’ details under regulations rolled out in 2020 as part of the enhanced local anti-money laundering regime. The ruling comes against the backdrop of Cayman’s battle to get off the FATF grey list, and government officials have said an appeal is being considered.

In 2020, following an on-site inspection at both Maples Corporate Services Ltd and MaplesFS Ltd, CIMA issued a report in which it concluded that the two entities had failed to properly meet their AML obligations in some areas.

But the Maples Group sought a judicial review of how the new rules were being interpreted, in particular clarifying the application of Regulation 12 of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (2020 Revision). Maples argued that CIMA had gone beyond the basic legislation relating to anti-money laundering and had misinterpreted the regulation, which was disproportionate and commercially onerous.

While the court stressed its understanding of the “genuine and well-founded concern” about the importance of strengthening the Cayman Islands financial system and the rigorous approach CIMA had adopted in carrying out its statutory duties, Justice Ian Kawaley, who heard the case, said the regulator should have been more flexible over disagreements that arose during the inspection process.

“In my judgment flexibility ought ideally to be the norm because the statutory framework is clearly based on the notion that FSPs will primarily regulate themselves on an individual basis and/or through the Supervisory Authorities of DNFBPs designated under Regulation 55B of the AMLRs, with enforcement action a last resort,” Justice Kawaley found. “The Guidance Notes themselves clearly suggest that FSPs are expected to exercise their own judgment in relation to both risk assessment and CDD measures deployed.”

In the more than 100-page technical ruling, the judge sided with Maples on five out of the seven issues that formed part of the judicial review, as he hinted at the overzealous approach and interpretation the regulator had taken over the amount of information it said it needed for Maples to meet its regulatory obligations in relation to all their clients.

Maples argued that the amount of information, such as independent confirmation about the business dealings of all their clients, that CIMA expected it to collect and retain went beyond the actual requirements of the regulations. The Maples Group also contended that CIMA went too far over the need for it to verify that people purporting to act on behalf of its client were properly authorised, as this was based on an erroneous construction of the rules.

CIMA’s claim that the two Maples firms had not checked all of their clients’ transactions was also overstepping the regulations, and the rules did not, as CIMA had argued, require it to establish the source of wealth of all of its clients in every case, the claim stated. Maples also submitted that the regulations do not “create a duty to scrutinize their customers’ third party transactions”, among other issues.

Maples said that as a result of the new regulations, it had made significant investments with a view to complying with the requirements, including a 50% increase in compliance staff. But despite this, CIMA ruled that the firms had still not met all of their compliance obligations.

However, the judge found that the literal meaning of “obtain information on” as written in the regulations doesn’t necessarily include an obligation to maintain a record of the information obtained or independent documentary evidence to substantiate that information in every case.

The judge indicated that CIMA had adopted a construction removed from the literal meaning of the statutory words without any compelling justification. This, the court found, risked creating uncertainty in the marketplace over how the rules were being applied, as he quashed the regulator’s findings.

He found that CIMA had also taken an “overly prescriptive and rigid construction” of provisions intended to be sufficiently malleable and adapted to the particular circumstances of the business relationships they related to.

The decision by the judge to largely quash most of the content of CIMA’s report on the Maples firms and the claimed compliance failings has caused concern for CIMA and the government. CIMA had applied to the court to keep the judgment under wraps because of the potential impact on the current efforts to remove this jurisdiction from the FATF grey list.

But as CIMA did not give a specific reason as to why publishing the judgment would cause further damage to Cayman’s delicate international regulatory position, the judge ruled in favour of open justice and allowed the publication of his decision.

In a statement following the release of the ruling, the Ministry of Financial Services and Commerce said that the judicial review challenged “the way in which decisions by public bodies have been made” but not necessarily the decisions themselves. “[T]he judicial review process demonstrates the Cayman Islands’ respect for the rule of law,” officials said. “CIMA is considering its options, including the option of appeal, in response to the ruling.”

The judgment was confined to specific AMLR provisions, the ministry said in its response, and while it was awaiting further outcomes in relation to the judicial review, it thanked the regulators and industry for supporting compliance in the jurisdiction.

A spokesperson for Maples told CNS that the case was about clarification, and they were grateful to the court for its assistance with the interpretation and application of the regulations.

“The Maples Group takes regulatory compliance matters very seriously with Group entities regulated in a number of jurisdictions,” the spokesperson said. “The Group is fully supportive of the work of the Cayman Islands Government and the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority in protecting and enhancing the integrity of the financial services industry of the Cayman Islands.”

See the ruling and the order regarding publication in the CNS Library.


Share your vote!


How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Business, Financial Services, Politics, Private Sector Oversight

Comments (134)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Dont feel too bad CIMA, you can always give out another round of QC accolades to your legal dept to make you feel better

    13
    0
  2. Anonymous says:

    The point of this whole think is CIMA is working for the FATF. Not for Cayman Businesses and not for the Cayman Islands people. FATF said it wants CIMA to fine and punish companies for deficiencies in paperwork. The criminal actions are taking place onshore and should be delt with in those jurisdictions. If you ever think the France, US, or most any other country is going to extradite a person to the Cayman Islands to face financial charges you are smoking some good stuff. The whole thing is political and many of the member of the FATF are bound to IMF, and other non voted political bodies around the world. Generally they all favour Socialist and Marxist ideologies.

    13
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      I get where you’re coming from and what you’re trying to say but you need to google what socialist and Marxist mean.

  3. Anonymous says:

    BRAVO to Maples!
    I, and my colleagues and acquaintances in one of the regulated sectors–and indeed all persons in regulated businesses with whom I have discussed the case with–are all cheering and fist pumping for Maples and the court’s decision.

    This is indicative of one of the outcomes of creating governmental fiefdoms, the power they wield eventually overcomes their ability to control it and exercise it in a fair, reasonable, and constructive manner. Their activities become increasingly more burdensome and increasingly less helpful.

    The evidence of this is clearly apparent in regard to the CIMA. Their public face is: “Don’t do this! Don’t do that! You MUST do this OR ELSE! NO questions asked!”, rather than cultivating an environment which emphasises that they and we are part of a team to combat illegal activity and that they will guide and help us in all reasonable ways to achieve their mission, help us to understand the mission, and create a relationship in which we embrace the objectives and strategies involved. Effectively lumping us in with the criminals and adversaries is extremely counter-productive. Their glaringly negative and off-putting approach is in sore need of review and revision.

    CIMA: No carrot, ALL stick. I trust that the Board will get the message and begin to correct the problems.

    22
    1
    • anon2 says:

      Glad to see the watch dog is not above the law themselves. Especially seeing that Maples are matter experts on such regulatory functions.

      10
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        Jon Jon could have done a better job than CIMA. Would say that Maples are “matter experts on such regulatory functions”.

        3
        0
    • Anonymous says:

      You mention the Board of CIMA. They are part of the problem. They are a fig leaf, composed of a few names who are or were in the financial sector but who have no power of oversight of CIMA’s executive and wouldn’t exercise it even if they did. The executive completely disregard them and resent any attempt to be reined in.

      In internal governance terms it’s anarchy over there in Cricket Square. If CIMA’s structure and modus operandi were repeated in a regulated business here, CIMA would have shut them down long ago.

      5
      1
  4. Anonymous says:

    Looks like it’s time to get Jon Jon back doing daily press briefings, as misdirection tactics to distract FATF.

    Maybe also Jon Jon could arrive at the FATF Plenary coming up in June riding in on a donkey, but his vehicular driving privileges are revoked because of the danger he poses to innocent light poles.

    14
  5. Anonymous says:

    It can’t be over-emphasized just how much financial services providers want to comply with the law. But the way the law is written provides for a risk-based approach. Instead of publicizing specific rules or having the government build specific requirements in the law, CIMA decided to make the rules in the course of conducting inspections. And their interpretations were aggressive. This isn’t the way for a regulator to conduct itself. It’s good that the court recognized this.

    This shouldn’t be a battle of CIMA vs the service providers. They need to work together for the benefit of the jurisdiction and at the same time doing what they can to appease the EU and FATF.

    This should be treated as an opportunity to reset the status quo. If the board and chief officers at CIMA can’t change their thinking it’s time for Minister Ebanks to change them. This isn’t an easy task but the fate of the economy of these Islands depends on it.

    26
    • Anonymous says:

      Well said. And both the massive failures of CARA and CILPA (post current and past boards), which have been completely disastrous, need to brought to the attention of the FATF directly and, if at all possible, brought to the attention of the CFATF, but that is a more difficult task to achieve because the AG is the chairman of the CFATF. What a mess Cayman is in.

  6. Anonymous says:

    No mention of a gov entity trying to exercise control over the judiciary and upend constitutional principles?

    Well done to the judiciary for upholding the rule of law.

    18
    1
  7. MLRO says:

    Being in compliance in this jurisdiction is like being in a snake pit and lawyers get paid every time they through one in.

    CIMA missed a chance here.

    If the general public really had any idea it may even disgust you.

    Non profit driven employees need not comment.

    5
    21
    • Anonymous says:

      Ridiculous comment. Give an example of what you’re talking about. I know you can’t because you can’t even form a sentence. “Lawyers get paid every time they through one in.” Right.

  8. Anonymous says:

    If a local entity has a relationship with a financial institution, say in the US, CIMA wants the local entity to grant CIMA the right to physically inspect the US financial institution. The arrogance and delusion is incomprehensible. I wonder how much CIMA has cost Cayman and Caymanian entities who have to recruit staff to tick unreasonable and unrealistic boxes? CIMA is likely the single greatest cause of inflation in Cayman!

    39
    9
    • Anonymous says:

      the board should resign. Minister Andre you often talk about accountability. the ball is in your court.

      30
      4
      • Anonymous says:

        This matter has nothing to do with the current board. Read the judgement and press reports.

        The CIMA Board of Directors are not responsible for day to day operations.

        Please try to understand the role of boards before commenting.

        3
        25
        • Anonymous says:

          This is nothing to do with day to day operations.

          17
          1
          • Anonymous says:

            Conducting audits and inspections which result in findings/reports are a key part of CIMA’s supervisory functions which are part of the day to day operations.

            Management and Board have separate functions and responsibilities. So many experts sharing incorrect information that do not seem to understand how the regulators operate or how the board of directors is intended to function.

            3
            5
            • Anonymous says:

              How these things are conducted is about the only responsibility the board has.

            • Anonymous says:

              Overseeing and setting policy regarding the general approach used by the CIMA as it conducts audits and inspections and produces its findings and reports are a part of the CIMA Board’s oversight functions

        • Anonymous says:

          I’d hardly call taking on the largest law firm they regulate over several matters of law “day to day operations”. The role of the board is oversight and clearly they have consistently failed. The judges comments were damning.

          24
          3
        • Anonymous says:

          Lol. Try telling CIMA that a board of directors is not responsible for day to day operations!

          23
          1
        • Anonymous says:

          Lol. You think a JR is day to day operations? Wow.

        • Anonymous says:

          @3:27:
          Your understanding seems to be limited. The Board is certainly responsible for policy and right and proper implementation of same. If the day to day activities create issues, the Board is responsible for ensuring that the issues are satisfactorily resolved.

          Gleaning from the CIMA website and the governing laws and regulations, we arrive at this general overview of the responsibilities of the CIMA Board of Directors:
          The Board of Directors plays a critical oversight role in ensuring that the CIMA achieves its objectives and operates in a manner consistent with its mandate.

          Pertaining to the issue at hand: The primary function of the Board of Directors is to provide strategic direction and oversight of the activities of CIMA. This includes setting policies, defining objectives and goals, and diligently monitoring the performance of the authority to ensure that it is operating effectively and efficiently.

          The Board of Directors has responsibility for ensuring that CIMA’s activities are consistent with the laws and regulations of the Cayman Islands, and that the authority is fulfilling its role in maintaining the stability and integrity of the financial system.

          In regard to the issue at hand: the CIMA Board of Directors is responsible for maintaining effective communication with stakeholders, including the government, global compliance bodies, the regulated entities, and the public. This helps to ensure that the activities of CIMA are transparent, accountable, and in line with the expectations of the various stakeholders.

          To sum up, the Board of Directors of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority is responsible for providing strategic direction, overseeing the activities of the CIMA, ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and maintaining effective communication and good working relationships with all stakeholders.

    • anon2 says:

      CIMA reps providing oversight and how to conduct audits beyond scope is asinine as someone that has never owned a business giving someone business advice.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Congrats to Maples – CIMA and Government need to be put in their place – they are not as high and almighty as they think.

    55
    8
  10. Anonymous says:

    I am a Caymanian who went to deposit CI $500 into the account of another Caymanian.
    The bank clerk tells me to fill out this one page form on declaration of funds.
    Huh? For the meager $500 I am depositing into another persons account I have to declare source of funds.
    This is how stupid our banking has become.

    79
    2
    • Anonymous says:

      Exactly

      48
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      You’re right but that really has nothing to do with this case.

      8
      9
      • Anonymous says:

        Did you read the article ? Compliance overreach and onerous AML/KYC/CFT requirements imposed by the regulator which leads to more red tape for businesses and ultimately the consumer ie YOU. It has everything to do with the examples given.

        18
        2
        • Anonymous says:

          I agree aml/kyc are out of control in local banking but again, that has almost nothing to do with this judicial review save for some of the acronyms being the same. Unfortunately the result of this judgement will not change the stupid hoops we have to jump through to conduct regular lawful business on island. That ship sailed years ago.

          1
          1
      • Anonymous says:

        @9:09:
        It has much to do with this case. Stupidity is evident in the financial regulatory framework and CIMA.
        Stupidity on the part of CIMA is the root cause of the case at hand.

    • Anonymous says:

      I deposited about 4k cash once. I’d sold a car. They wanted proof. Errr, will this hand written note do, that I made? Yay for absurdity.

      Know your customer? what about know your bank? the clowns that run these places are useless.

      35
      • Anonymous says:

        They have no set thresholds and just question all transaction regardless of size/amount. This speaks to the poor unqualified leadership. Couldn’t care less about learning the job, regulations and doing it right.

        16
  11. Anonymous says:

    The management at CIMA needs a serious clear out. They get nothing right from the law, through training their staff to press releases and quite obviously have zero contemporary experience. This sector is far too important to our economy and CIG’s finances to leave in the current management’s hands. Wayne and Andre MUST see the risk.

    53
    2
  12. Anonymous says:

    After the debacle of this case and the damning judgment on several points, the Head of CIMA Inspections should resign.

    55
    1
  13. Anonymous says:

    CIMA has a set of AML guidance notes, but if you determine based on your own business risk assessment that any syllable of the guidance notes is not applicable to your business CIMA will literally come back and tell you that you MUST apply the GUIDANCE….they are a bunch of whackos over there from the Board come right down

    56
    1
  14. Anonymous says:

    Reading that judgement I get the impression Maples took one for the team here on behalf of all the law firms and fund admin shops who have the misfortune to be regulated by these clowns? “CIMA had applied to the court to keep the judgment under wraps because of the potential impact on the current efforts to remove this jurisdiction from the FATF grey list.” – what drivel. If it were in any way relevant to our standing with FATF then hiding it would hardly be a sensible course of action would it? Where the hell do we find these hopeless people? They’d be out of their depth in a paddling pool.

    77
    5
    • Hubert says:

      Have no idea when we are going to get off the FATF grey list.

      We need to get off that list but we don’t seem to know how and we never undertake any prosecutions.

      20
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        We could start with the illegal beach vendors. Their monies are the proceeds of crime. Then there are the hundreds known to be involved in the numbers racket, including in the so called uniformed services. Then there are those involved in fronting, and around 100 lawyers openly practicing Cayman law without authorization. Oh, and the Cabinet status grants. That would be a good place to look.

        23
        4
        • Anonymous says:

          FATF doesn’t care about any of that.

          5
          8
          • Anonymous says:

            FATF cares about prosecuting money laundering offences relating to criminal property (proceeds of crimes).

            So, if “FATF doesn’t care about any of that”, is it a smart idea to bank illegal profits that are the proceeds from:

            * illegal beach vendors
            * numbers racketeers
            * businesses that are fronting
            * lawyers practicing Cayman law without authorization?

            13
            3
          • Anonymous says:

            So? I thought regulators were supposed to uphold and enforce the law? Without fear or favor. Consistently. Are you suggesting CIMA and RCIP are preferring one group of money launderers over others?

    • Anonymous says:

      Will heads roll at CIMA? What will be the response from the CIMA Board? Should the Board members that were serving during this debacle resign?

      What will the Minister responsible do? This is no auditor General opinion. this is a ruling of the Court.

      29
      • CSF says:

        I don’t see Andre as responsible for this. CIMA operates independently, at least on the face of it. The CIMA Managing Director, General Counsel and Head of Fiduciary (although he is surely acting on the advice and instruction of the first two), well that’s a different story.

        15
        8
    • Anonymous says:

      First up Maples would never take one for the team. This was pure selfish motivation to keep its cash machine printing and … second, they knew CIMA was wrong.
      CIMA got the law wrong on a couple of points, put forward arguments that defeated their position and it was just plain daft to give Maples (with 40k entities) 3 months to comply!!!

      40
      10
      • Anonymous says:

        but if Maples didn’t do this it would cost everyone else a fortune too no? I’m not a lawyer but I know a few at a different firm and they say it’s a great result for them and Cayman too.

        20
    • Anonymous says:

      he hinted at the overzealous approach and interpretation the regulator had taken over the amount of information it said it needed for Maples to meet its regulatory obligations in relation to all their clients.

      will CIMA be held accountable. Will the board take action. Will the Minister take action. I hope the press release isn’t the real response.

      34
    • Anonymous says:

      Maples did great and appear indeed to have taken “one for the team here on behalf of all the law firms and fund admin shops who have the misfortune to be regulated by these clowns” at CIMA.

      Now that CIMA’s failures have been addressed and brought to light, as it should have been, it is time for other lawyers to take “one for the team here on behalf of all law firms” and lawyers “who have the misfortune to be” attempted “to be regulated by these clowns” at CILPA and CARA without a proper legal basis to do so.

      And, if unsuccessfully, “CIMA had applied to the court to keep the judgment under wraps because of the potential impact on the current efforts to remove this jurisdiction from the FATF grey list”, then it is curiously wonder what CARA and CILPA will do to keep it under wraps that there is an absence of legal basis for them as an AML self-regularly Supervisory Authority?

      It seems that the CI Government has had a lot of AML secrets to hide from FATF. The AG’s “AML fatigue” has not yet been alleviated, especially as the incumbent chairman of the CFATF and with CARA’s and CILPA’s failed attempt to act as the AML Supervisory Authority for lawyers.

      20
      6
  15. Anonymous says:

    Despite their pedantic indifference, as a regulator, have CIMA ever caught anything going wrong in this jurisdiction ever? We have to wait to learn about arrests of our crooks on foreign soil. That’s why we can’t shake the OECD and FATF scrutiny. CIMA don’t know what to look for or where. Or they know exactly where to look, but won’t. It’s all window-dressing without substance.

    50
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      You have no clue what you are talking about. CIMA cannot bring criminal charges try the DPP’s office

      14
      16
    • Anonymous says:

      99.9% of money laundering occurs on foreign soil through foreign banks. Banks should be responsible for transaction monitoring not the registered office.

      47
      2
    • Johnny Canuck says:

      We really need London to help us with the prosecution of money launderers here.

      We do not have the expertise here for successful prosecutions.

      This is the only way we will ever get off the FATF grey list.

      13
      5
  16. Anonymous says:

    Hundreds of millions in drug money is laundered here annually. Have we checked the books of 200+ AML-exempt churches?

    49
    18
  17. Anonymous says:

    CIMA’s biggest problem is that it is a Cayman Islands government agency and it is run like one, i.e., the legacy staff do not properly train their subordinates. How else to explain the fact that every email to a frontline CIMA analyst receives the standard response of “we have received your email and we will respond in due course”? The frontline analyst has to go to someone higher up for answers to the simplest of questions. Service providers are often faced with clashing back and forth with CIMA over interpretations of their own regulations. And too often responses from CIMA are made in flowery language, which only causes more confusion and uncertainty. Every CIMA analyst should be an expert at explaining the practical application of CIMA’s regulations (in clear and concise language) to anyone that asks, and immediately upon receipt of the question. But alas, that is not the case, which clearly indicates that frontline staff are not being properly trained.

    75
    1
  18. Anonymous says:

    Good point. There are comments like “it’s ok for those with deep pockets”. But this ruling also benefits smaller service providers who have to deal with CIMA’s intransience and incompetence for years.

    77
    2
  19. Anonymous says:

    Some of these funds trade millions of times a day! And CIMA wants the law firms to check their trades? Seriously? Tell me you know nothing about the industry you regulate without telling me you know nothing!

    70
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      “Some of these funds trade millions of times a day! And CIMA wants to check their trades?”

      Wouldn’t that be the bifurcated CILPA-CARA AML model? Oh wait, that failed too.

      Maybe the AG, who is a silk after all, can advise as to how to save the day and avoid AML fatigue!

      12
  20. Anonymous says:

    As I understand it the point argued by Maples has absolutely nothing to do with demands by FATF etc… and as the decision indicates nothing to do with the law, as written, either but rather an insane regulatory over reach by CIMA demanding such a frankly idiotic detail of clients activities and investors that it would have all but made Cayman an impossible jurisdiction for funds to operate in. CIMA needs a MAJOR overhaul and change of management; that they would risk that industry and income for absolutely ZERO gain to Cayman is either sabotage or total incompetence.

    86
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      Service providers in Cayman are following AML rules very similar to other jurisdictions. Why do CIMA think that they can unilaterally raise the bar and put us all out of work whilst our legitimate business flows elsewhere?

      35
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Good point! In same vein, why do CARA and CILPA (with the AG’s blessing) think that they can unlawfully and unconstitutionally try to falsely prop up AML monitoring of lawyers, while parading around to FATF and CFATF as if everything is compliant with respect to the legal profession. The ice has not yet been broken, however, the AML iceberg is straight ahead and the Cayman Islands are in the FATF crosshairs!

        16
        1
  21. Anonymous says:

    We must not forget lack the CIMA press release in poor taste

    https://caymannewsservice.com/2021/05/cima-issues-warning-to-crafty-offshore-firm/

    49
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      Wow. That was an official press release? It’s not even funny. CIMA has all the professionalism of a 3rd grader. It’s no wonder we can’t get off the FATF list.

      49
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        It’s not funny. CARA and CILPA have the all the professionalism and competence of a toddler.

        21
    • CSF says:

      Thank you for the reminder about this. SMH.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yep – I remember reading that at the time and thinking “they must have gotten the intern to write the press release on a Sunday night after coming back on a booze boat from the sandbar….”

      Amateur night at the Christmas Panto.

      Embarrassing, just like it is now with the courts ruling.

      15
  22. Anonymous says:

    another bad day for cig and the civil service…
    time for class action lawsuit against the incompetence of the civil service and cig.

    38
    7
  23. Natural Justice says:

    CIMA, provide complete policies and procedures that you have put in place to address each of the adjudicated shortcomings. We require this information by close of business Thursday, 20 April 2023.

    79
    2
  24. Anonymous says:

    The Supervision Division’s leadership needs as shake up and clear out. It is toxic, not interested in any form of constructive dialogue. It is egotistical with too many personal agendas at play. CIMA lose lots of talent because of this type of management.

    68
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      This is 100% correct I resigned for my mental health because of the actions and tyrannical behavior of a DMD who is out of control protected by political affiliations and former chair

      30
      2
  25. RES IPSA LOQUITUR says:

    Cayman will remain on the grey list for a long time especially when licensees with deep pockets apply to the Grand Court for Judicial Review on every decision, inspection report findings of CIMA and all other regulatory agencies.

    Perhaps the time has come to reset the overall approach how CIG agencies engage, communicate and handle their relationships with their clients and registered licensed entities.

    It used to work well for the jurisdiction 15-20 years ago when there was a collaborative approach and open dialogue between industry and regulators.

    What happened?

    11
    46
    • Richard Wadd says:

      The problem here is that the ‘playing field’ is not level.
      The very jurisdictions that are pushing for this draconian regulatory oversight in these islands do not even hide that they see themselves as being exempt from their own regulation and places such as Delaware have relaxed regulations that are legendary.
      The solution unfortunately is far from simple.

      36
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      CIMA became staffed with people with little to no experience of how businesses actually operate, and stopped caring about whether their demands were actually workable, just so long as they looked good for the FATF.

      54
      1
  26. Anonymous says:

    Thank god common sense prevailed. Thanks Maples. Now maybe my bank, who I’ve been with for 20 years, will stop hassling me for a certified copy of my passport every year!

    75
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      Your bank shouldn’t need a certified copy of your passport every year! They should only need a certified copy of a new passport once your old one expires.

      41
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        They shouldn’t even need that. A passport expiring does not alter somebody’s identity. Interestingly this is another point that CIMA struggles to comprehend.

        65
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          you must have found the secret to eternal youth. All our clients have photo ID which changes every 10 years as they age. Not requiring an update to your records is poor work.

          8
          19
          • Anonymous says:

            @12:16 – riddle me this:

            Once you have identified your customer during the onboarding process, what risk are you addressing when you update that passport (and ensure that it is a colour photo)?

            And please show me where in CIMA’s own guidance notes they officially require an updated passport as a continuing obligation of the licensee.

            The requirement is to actually know your customer. Getting an updated passport every 10 years for someone you may never see in person doesn’t really matter.

            36
            1
            • Anonymous says:

              You forgot the required size of the updated color photo. CNB. It’s critical because bankers don’t have the eyesight of immigration officers.

              11
          • Anonymous says:

            Except your photo plays no role whatsoever in authorizing a transaction done by electronic instruction.

            12
        • Anonymous says:

          Try explaining that to the ROC re BOR reporting – that boat has sailed

          17
          1
      • Anonymous says:

        My favourite is the bank asking me to renew my specimen signature, but insisting that it has to exactly match the signature on my 6 year old passport, even though I offered to sign it in front of them.

        11
      • Anonymous says:

        you must be high risk

    • Anonymous says:

      I’ve been a customer with 2 local banks for over 30 years. I wanted to convert my accounts to senior privileges (waiver of service fees) I was treated as a NEW CUSTOMER and had to provide duplicate copies of all of the documents I had provided 30+ years ago. My CIDL clearly shows my age, so why do they need all this other redundant infomation?

  27. Anonymous says:

    Someone needs to take a look at what they put local customers through. It has become a nightmare to do any banking in Cayman but we ant afford to hire a lawyer. I have thought about just putting my money under the mattress but banks dont want to take cash anymore.

    59
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      CIMA’s publicly stated intent is to rid Cayman’s reputation as shown in the movie “The Firm”. This strategy seems to have worked well in other countries – not! The result is it’s so onerous and expensive to bank here, it’s best to send ones money onshore. Running a business here, one feels as if one’s primary job is collecting information, at a cost, to meet other banking requirements. At the same time, the banks offer NOTHING on savings.

      20
  28. Cimaite says:

    That highly paid lot of them over at CIMA think they know it all eh.. This should hold them a bit. MD and all her minion DMD’s.

    CIMA is a sinking ship at this point!

    38
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      CIMA enforce the laws as they are written and have little latitude in an environment where OECD, FACTA have given clear guidelines on how to get off their arbitrary lists.

      So what will it be?

      9
      28
      • Anonymous says:

        Except they clearly don’t. The JR has clearly highlighted they have overstepped the laws as they are written.

        37
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          And trampled basic constitutional rights and obligations in the process.

          10
          1
        • Anonymous says:

          Exactly. To the extent that their conduct appears to have been unlawful!

          Does that not mean that any fines they have unlawfully collected are the proceeds of crime, under our “all crimes” AML regime? What is good for the goose?

          13
          • Anonymous says:

            That is correct. So too, CI Government’s unlawful subsidization of CI$2.1 million to CILPA (a private sector association), which CILPA used to fund CARA (a legal fiction)?

            10
    • Corruption is endemic says:

      It is highly unusual for the head of a regulatory body anywhere in the world to remain unchanged for decades…

      30
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        1:33, Especially a regulatory body that has never initiated any prosecutions for financial crimes such as money laundering.

        10
  29. Anonymous says:

    CIMA inflexible, overly prescriptive and wrong in law? Nobody saw that coming – except anybody who’s ever had any dealings with them.

    73
    1
  30. Anonymous says:

    Thank you to Maples Group for taking on this fight with CIMA. Very few other service providers would have had the resources to do it. ALL FSP’s want to comply and be in good standing but CIMA’s interpretation of some of the regs make that very costly or impractical.

    71
    2
    • Happy Gilmore says:

      Indeed. Thank you for not settling and seeing it through. This is much needed guidance for both users and regulators.

      53
      2
    • Anonymous says:

      Good point. There are comments like “it’s ok for those with deep pockets”. But this ruling also benefits smaller service providers who have to deal with CIMA’s intransience and incompetence for years.

      35
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        You sure about that?

        Maples Group (MCSL and MFS with over 40,000 clients) is off the hook for now, albeit with systemic AML deficiencies being noted.

        How is Intertrust getting on with AML issues?

        2
        1

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.