Dear Board, don’t engage me to undertake your outsource compliance requirements until you have read this!

Compliance monkeyGuernsey has an amazing regulatory framework which has become quite a selling point with financial service businesses offering their products and services and those financial service businesses wanting to come and have operations here. Some will utilise outsource compliance professionals to assist them with the cost of set up, on-going costs,  ensuring their business can have knowledgeable and professional persons on-board while it establishes and grows its presence and offerings. Even established firms may need extra compliance support in their business to be able to ensure that they can at all times remain compliant with the Guernsey regulatory framework or ensure that remediation is appropriate and effective.

In the last year the use of outsource compliance professionals has come to the forefront of the regulatory radar, instances of their failure having been identified as contributing to businesses failing to adhere to the regulatory framework. There have been numerous communications from the Commission to the industry on the issues surrounding the requirements for utilising an outsourced compliance professional and failures where this has not been met, showing that the Commission are treating this seriously.

At the end of the day the responsibility for compliance to the regulatory framework is laid firmly at the feet of the Board and they are the first point of call when failings or regulatory deficiencies are identified by the Commission. The need to ensure a Licensee is meeting the regulatory requirements forms at the most basic level with the minimum criteria of licensing as well as being mentioned throughout the regulations, codes instructions, and guidance issued by the Commission.

So what needs to be considered by Boards? Here are some questions to be asked but at all times refer to the legislation regulations, rules,instruction and codes that pertain to your business and licence.

Prior to any engagement consider these points.

You wouldn’t employ anyone to undertake the role in a full-time capacity so why would you chose anyone to do your outsource function?

Prior to any engagement do your due diligence on the outsource company/ person, the person who will be your appointed compliance representative and the people who will be doing the work. At the very minimum the person who will be undertaking the work needs to be suitably qualified and knowledgeable of the area your business operates in and the regulatory rules that pertain to your licence.  You will need to ensure that you can evidence that they have been appropriately screened as you will be expected to have been as diligent with your provider as with your own staff!

You wouldn’t employ anyone who doesn’t have the time for your business?

Prior to any engagement you need to work out how much time will be required. This will change from the role that compliance professional will undertake, as an example an outsourced MLRO will have different time requirements to a compliance professional assisting with licensing.

When you actually look at it, if you have a compliance professional for two hours a week it would take them eighteen weeks to achieve one thirty-six hour working week in your business! Obviously cost is a major factor in this assessment and knowledge and experience never come cheap. The time any compliance professional spends on your business must be commensurate to the size, complexity and nature of your business and the role undertaken.

You need to be aware that a compliance professional will also be working for other firms, there is obviously a risk regarding resources. If their clients require more time or the outsource provider or person undertaking the role has issues with resources will you be affected? You need to ensure that there are controls in place or a plan B to mitigate these risk.

You wouldn’t have any old agreement?

You need to ensure that the outsource agreement meets the requirement of the Guernsey regulatory framework and is legally binding. The Board cannot discharge its responsibilities only delegate the work, it is often a good idea to have a Guernsey Advocate firm look over any agreement, especially if the Board are not familiar with Guernsey Law or this area.

During any engagement consider these points.

You wouldn’t want to be assessed by any old criteria, what criteria is the business or business area being assessed to?

Again this depends on the role you are utilising the outsourced compliance professional for, but you need to know how they are monitoring you and to what standard.  The Board must make sure that it can evidence and satisfy itself and the Commission that the Guernsey regulatory framework requirements have been met.

You wouldn’t want any report, do the reports provided give the full picture of the work being undertaken?

The reports that are provided to the Board must be meaningful and contain accurate management information. This allow the Board to see the whole picture of their business or the area that the outsourced provided has been contracted to service and assess the level of compliance to the regulatory framework. If areas or remediation work have been identified are the Board kept appropriately up to date?

You wouldn’t want to keep on anyone who isn’t performing, is the outsource provider performing to the required standards?

Throughout any engagement the Board must consistently monitor and evidence its monitoring of the outsource provider and/or those undertaking the work for the Licensee. Is the Board satisfied with the work undertaken, is the monitoring of the business meeting the requirements of the Guernsey regulatory framework, has the business changed in its complexity, nature or size and is the person doing the role still suitable?

The most important aspect to any outsource relationship is that you have the right person/firm, they add something to your business, provide you with the accurate management information, they get on with you and are honest to you regarding their business and yours. By hopefully considering and evidencing these requirements a Board will be able to show that they have acted to ensure that their business meets the requirements of the Guernsey regulatory framework. In the unfortunate case where things have not worked out the Board will be able to evidence that they were aware of the issues at the earliest opportunity and have acted to mitigate any non-compliance and remediate the situation.

Advertisements

The Sum of All the Parts

Compliance monkeyThe Guernsey Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Terrorist Financing (“AML/CTF”) framework has continually developed to take in to account good practice, external pressures, requests and recommendations of onshore governments, quangos and international organisations  to ensure that financial crime in all its guises is effectively tackled. The Commission have sought to and I would say that they have largely achieved a cohesive framework that effectively mitigates against the use by criminals of Guernsey as an international finance centre while not over burdening the Financial Service Business operating here.

This cohesive framework has been achieved over the course of the years by open dialogue with local industry bodies, licensees and working effectively and productively with those outside of Guernsey to achieve a proportionate approach for  the products and services that are provided to clients wishing to utilise the jurisdiction. Most notably in 2013 the AML/CTF framework in Guernsey changed extensively and this resulted in general insurance products being removed, but did it remove all the products and services that can classified as General Insurance?

With regard to the Insurance sector in Guernsey, a legal entity can be licensed for general business or for long-term business. Long term business is defined in the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 as contracts on human life, human longevity, marriage and birth, linked long-term, permanent health, capital redemption, pension fund management and credit life assurance. Due to the nature and the requirements of some clients, an insurance licensee with a general business categorisation may want to offer some of these products to their clients to supplement the range of products and services they currently or can offer their clients, but without the need to be licensed for long-term business.  Section 2(4) of the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 does allow for an Insurance licensee to elect that a contract for a term of not more than 18 months that may be regarded as a long-term business contract and can be deemed to be general business.

This would appear to allow a general insurer to fit such products into their licence requirements e.g. general insurance, without the requirements to adhere to the Guernsey AML/CTF framework as per the changes that were made to the Commission’s AML/CTF Handbook (” Commission’s Handbook”), in 2013.  It should be noted that the treatment of these products, though allowed to be done in certain circumstances by an Insurance licensee does not change the definition of those products in the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002.

In the Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 at schedule 1 it states that a Financial Services Businesses for the purposes of the Regulations are detailed in part 1 of the schedule, except where they are incidental or are other activities as listed at Part 2 of the Schedule. Part 1 of the schedule includes the carrying on of “Long Term Business as defined by the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 as being a Financial Services Business for the purposes of the Regulation and the Commission’s Handbook, it does not include any change in the treatment of an Insurance product by an Insurance Licensee. The Commission’s Handbook at section 4.8 specifically deals with the treatment of life or other investment linked insurance policies and as such these appear to directly fall in to the Guernsey AML/CTF regime. Effectively this is saying that if a product falls under the long-term definition stated in the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002 though a Licensee it may regard it as being General business they remain subject to the AML/CTF Regulations. Thus a licensee must adhere to the requirements of the Commission’s Handbook and AML/CTF framework when dealing with such products.

The sum of all these parts would indicate that an Insurance licensee effecting or carrying out life or other long-term products regardless of how a Licensee may be able to classify these products as general business under the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002, they would still fall under the AML/CTF regulations and Commission’s Handbook by way of the requirements of the Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Regulations, 2007 held at schedule 1. An Insurance Licensee regardless of how it treats such products under its licence would be required to have in place an effective AML/CTF framework.  A licensee must be able to evidence the suitability of its AML/CTF framework and compliance with the AML/CTF requirements pertaining to its business to the Commission.

An Insurance licensee must ensure that at all times they meet the requirements for the minimum criteria for licensing, schedule 4 of the Insurance Business (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002. This includes a requirement to meet and adhere to any rules, codes, guidance, principles and instructions issued from time to time under any other enactment as may be applicable to the business, and this would also be inclusive of the Guernsey AML/CTF framework.

Briefing note 002- Trust Company Business On-Site Examination Findings from Jersey

Image

The Jersey Financial Services Commission (“JFSC”) has recently published its 2013 on-site regulatory examination findings in respect of Fiduciary business conducted in Jersey. These findings are pertinent to any financial service business, Compliance Officer and Money Laundering Reporting Officer (“MLRO”) in ensuring that they are adhering to the Guernsey regulatory framework. I believe that key points from the examination findings are as follows:

Evaluation of Suspicious Activity Report’s (“SAR’s”) and reporting to the Financial Intelligence Unit (“FIU”):

  • Delays in the acknowledgement of receipt of an internal SAR to the person disclosing.
  • Lack of detailed investigation by the MLRO to support the decision made.
  • Follow-up action resulting from internal reports not being undertaken or no evidence of follow-up action were noted.
  • Lack of autonomy by an MLRO and the decision to report to the FIU being made by Board rather than the MLRO.
  • Internal reports not being recorded accurately and being overlooked by the MLRO leading to late reporting to the FIU.

Corporate Governance:

  • Board discussions not being fully documented in some instances.
  • Concerns were identified in respect of the Board interaction, reporting lines and the functions of delegated risk committees of cross-divisional functions of a business.
  • Term’s of reference for delegated functions of the Board not being in place.

Business Risk Assessment (”BRA”) and Strategy:

  • Lacking details of the consideration of the following areas;
    • Organisational factors;
    • Jurisdiction of customers;
    • Underlying activities of Customers, including Politically Exposed Person risk;
    • Products and services specific to the business (third parties);
    • Delivery of those products and services;
    • Outsourcing risk to other branches or third parties and;
    • Not separating its BRA assessment from that of the Manager.

Conflicts of Interest:

  • No documented consideration of potential Conflicts of Interest where multiple licences are held and products are provided to customers who are common to both licenses.
  • Consideration and documentation of wider Conflicts of Interests, such as the investment in to customer structures by a Director.
  • Consideration of the risk where a significant shareholder of the business introduces customers.
  • Non-Executive Directors maintaining a direct relationship with a customer.
  • Conflicting roles of Compliance Officers the anti-money laundering function where the individuals also held a primary customer facing role.
  • Consideration of the impact of close staff relationships particularly at a senior level e.g. husband and wife.
  • Policies and procedures for declaring and monitoring were identified.

Compliance Function:

  • Inconsistent attendance at Board meetings by the Compliance Officer.
  • No separate reports in respect of Compliance and the anti-money laundering and combatting terrorist financing (“AML/CTF”) function.
  • Reports not containing the following;
    • Regulatory updates;
    • Progress of compliance monitoring;
    • Updated position on compliance registers, and;
    • Information on periodic reviews and accounting records.
  • In some cases there was a lack of documenting of matters brought to the attention of the Board.

Compliance Resourcing:

  • Back logs in periodic review cycle.
  • Delays in compliance monitoring
  • Not undertaking action in respect of regulatory updates.
  • Out of date policies and procedures
  • Ongoing projects and remedial work not completed.
  • Concerns in respect of the investigation and determination of SAR’s.
  • Meeting the day-to-day requirements of the compliance role, where the Compliance Officer or MLRO held other roles within the business.

Compliance Monitoring:

  • Compliance Monitoring Programme’s (“CMP’s”) task orientated rather than a schedule of testing of the operational procedures.
  • CMP’s not being seen or approved by the Board.
  • Ineffective reporting of the progress or completion of the CMP and of the remediation of compliance findings.
  • Compliance testing of the areas of the business lacking in detail.
  • Ineffective mapping of the business to the regulatory framework.

Business Acceptance Systems and Controls:

  • Procedures not being specific regarding the prescribed due diligence required for higher risk customers and business relationships.
  • Undertaking transactions prior to the acceptance of the customer by the Business.
  • The delay of obtaining verification documents and undertaking risk rating prior to the undertaking of customer transactions.

Customer Risk Management Systems and Controls:

  • Customer risk assessments not capturing fully the risks associated with customers or as detailed by the regulatory framework.
  • Customer risk assessment not capturing the risks identified by the business in the BRA.
  • Customer risk assessments not taking into account adverse information identified on the customer.
  • Weighting scores for risks not being appropriate to elevate overall the risk to high where required.
  • Lack of guidance to assist staff in the completion of the customer risk profile.

Customer Profile

  • Vague customer profiles not capturing the expected pattern and frequency of expected transactions.
  • Customer information held in various places rather than centrally.
  • Where the rationale for the business relationship was recorded as tax planning or mitigation, Licensee’s did not hold the relevant tax advice.

Politically Exposed Persons:

  • PEP’s being declassified contrary to the regulatory framework.
  • Immediate family members and close associates not being designated as PEP’s

In conclusion Licensees and the Boards must ensure that they have up to date compliance procedures, their functions are staffed and resourced appropriately and ensuring that they have suitable and sufficient management information for their compliance status being provided in a timely manner to them.  The role of the MLRO is coming more into focus with Regulators especially its assessment by the Board.  The MLRO function needs to be adequately resourced with a suitable and autonomous person, it is my opinion that this role will become more of a focus of regulatory visits and evidence of its review and suitability will required to be documented.  I would always advise that a separate compliance report and MLRO report is provided to the Board to ensure that matters are easily identifiable to the Board.  Conflicts of interest must be recorded and the risks assessed appropriately.   The BRA must take into account the risks that customers pose to the business and also the AML/CTF risks detailed by the regulatory framework and where they are not applicable they should be noted as such. What I believe is the most important finding to come out is, ensuring customer risk assessments and profiles are detailed and maintained ensuring that all risks are covered in the BRA.  I would advise that you assess your business to these findings and if any matters are found a remedial programme is put in place and signed off by the Board ensuring appropriate timescales and reporting is in place.

.

Briefing Note: Jersey Financial Services Commission Onsite Examination Findings.

Compliance monkey

The Jersey Financial Services Commission (“JFSC”) conducted an onsite examination of one of its fiduciary licensee’s which has resulted in a public statement being issued. The findings provide an insight in to the areas that our sister Island regulator is focusing on and the regulatory action they are taking in respect of their findings. I believe that the key points of the onsite examination are as follows;

Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CTF”)

The key points made in respect of the examination of the area of AML/CFT noted the following areas as failure to comply with the AML/CFT regulatory requirements:

  • Out of date CDD.
  • Lack of sufficient evidencing of source of funds and source of wealth.
  • Lack of evidence to demonstrate that CDD had been sufficiently evaluated.
  • Inadequate evidence of EDD having been undertaken on High Risk customers
  • Inadequate evidence of the review of risk assessments.
  • Providing registered office only business and the issuance of Powers of Attorney with little control of the risks and oversight expected to be applied to these products.

 

An investigation was also undertaken into a customer entity that had received funds that may have been connected to a fraud. The investigation found the following matters of concern:

  • Mind and management not with the Jersey appointed Directors but with the beneficial owners.
  • Lack of questioning and properly understanding the activities of the customer entity.
  • Allowing payments to be made by the Customer entity without knowing or assessing whether adequate funds would be available to complete transactions.
  • Over reliance on the ultimate beneficial owners instructions and did not challenge the rationale for acquiring assets.
  • Receiving loans which did not have formal loan agreements and were from entities that had the same beneficial owners.
  • Failing to understand the source of funds through the customer entity.
  • Failing to consider adverse information made available to it regarding the source of funds received by the customer’s entity.
  • Receiving funds without knowledge of the remitter and paying them out the next day.
  • Failing to keep adequate books and records for the customer entity
  • Being re-active instead of pro-active in the management of the customer entity.

 

Breaches of the Code of Conduct of Trust Company Business

The key points that led to breaches of the Jersey regulatory framework and principles for the conduct of Trust Company Business were as follows:

  • Failing to act with skill, care and diligence.
  • Failing to evidence in writing decisions made.
  • Failing to identify conflicts of interests.
  • Failing to ensure adequate review procedures were implemented to monitor Trust Company Business.
  • Failing to maintain adequate internal systems and controls.
  • Failing to exercise an adequate level of Corporate Governance.

These failures led to remedial action having to be implemented as follows:

  • Directors stepping down and the appointment of new local Directors and a new Non-Executive Chairperson.
  • Review in conjunction with an external resource of the processes and procedures of the business to effect changes to strengthen its systems and controls.
  • Initiation of a review process of customer files to remedy customer due diligence deficiencies.
  • Remediation programme has been put in place to rectify issues identified by the investigation.

In conclusion I believe that a robust compliance function and a compliance monitoring programme encompassing the regulatory framework would have alerted the business to its deficiencies and assisted in the evidencing of areas of concern that required remedial action that were subsequently identified by the JFSC .  I recommend that the points raised are taken in to account in any Financial Regulated or Registered Business and assessed against its current compliance framework. If you do find that you have issues of concern or that you cannot adequately evidence compliance to the regulatory framework my advice is to form a remediation plan and inform the Commission as soon as practical. A problem shared is a problem halved, I cannot give any guarantees that you will not face regulatory sanction but being open and honest has the potential to reduce or negate the use of regulatory sanctions, as William Mason Director General, mentioned in his December 2013 address to the Industry.  If the regulator in our sister Island is looking at these areas I believe that the Guernsey Commission will also be.

Are we guilty of stopping investment in the developing world?

Compliance monkeyOne of the questions that I am asked when undertaking Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Terrorist Financing (“AML/CTF”) training is “should we just stop dealing with areas and customers that have a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing”? Why is it that people believe that Licensee’s and Guernsey must stop any business that may have a higher risk of money laundering terrorist financing? Has this led to a paranoia within our financial industry and could this be leading our industry to be potential uncompetitive and lacking the entrepreneurial spirit that directors, management and compliance officers should aspire to? Most importantly is our paranoia stopping us from providing investment into the developing world and allowing these people to remain in poverty?

The laws, regulations, codes, rules and guidance (“the Framework”) as published by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“Commission”) require that licensees have suitable and sufficient policies procedures and controls for the products and services provided to customers in order to protect the Licensee and the Bailiwick of Guernsey from being susceptible to money launderers and terrorist financiers. Licensee’s must not avoid their responsibilities or manipulate the framework, but ensure that at all times they conduct their business within the Framework. The Commission does not prohibit engagement with higher risk clients or Licensees and their customers being engaged in sensitive activities that are of a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, only that licensees mitigate the risks suitably and demonstrably.

The policies, procedures and controls of a Licensee must meet the minimum requirements of the Framework, though there is nothing stopping a licensee from exceeding these requirements. The Framework is merely requiring Licensees and their employees to be able to identify and verify their customers, understand the reason and rationale of their customer in order that they can assess whether the use of the product or service is reasonable. The Framework also ensures that the minimum required information on a customer is obtained and can be provided by the licensee expediently to Regulators or Law Enforcement if required.

The Licensee must assess its customer’s not on prejudice or paranoia but on a risk based approach at the start and during the business relationship ensuring that they have sufficient knowledge and information on their client as required by their risk based approach and the Framework. Just because a customer is a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing does not necessarily mean that they are a criminal, just that the activities or the jurisdiction amongst other things may make the customer or their activities more susceptible to money laundering and terrorist financing and that more frequent monitoring is required to be undertaken.

 There are many opportunities in the developing world that will not only allow our customers to prosper but also the people of these jurisdictions to also prosper and be able to move themselves out of poverty.Telecommunications, mining, agriculture and cash machines are some of the business propositions that I have seen being presented to licensees by their customers only to be met by the paranoia that these may expose the licensee to money laundering or terrorist financing and must be avoided or declined.

Should the question that licensees ask when they take on customers or provided products or services to a client relate to the Licensee’s knowledge and experience of the customers activity, and if the policies, procedures and controls of the licensee are suitable and sufficient for this type of activity? If the answer is no can the Licensee enhance their knowledge or policies, procedures and controls or oversight of the customers activity to become comfortable in undertaking the engagement.

By acting in paranoia it is the Licensee and their employees not the Commission or the Framework that is letting customers down and the people of these developing countries. In some ways it could be argued that we are allowing money laundering and terrorist financing to prosper by not engaging with the development of legitimate business and opportunities in these developing countries.

We can never eradicate money laundering and terrorist financing, but by ensuring that a Licensee’s policies procedures and controls meet the requirements of the Framework I believe that they can engage with customers and activities that will provide a benefit to people in developing countries and enhance the living conditions and education for all. Would it not benefit these countries and people if by applying our high standards that money laundering and terrorist financing in all guises could be reduced?

The need for effective reporting at Board level

The current financial crisis has brought many failings to the forefront, none more so than the failings of the Corporate Governance framework in businesses. The Corporate Governance framework allows for both business objectives and ethical drivers to be incorporated into a business whilst seeking to protect both the Business, its stakeholders and investors or customers. Are failings in Corporate Governance solely as documented in the newspapers and media reports down to the Board’s greed and disregard for its stakeholders, or was the compliance framework in these businesses defunct by opaque reporting by key functions?

We have been lucky in Guernsey to have been insulated from the crisis at large, but I know from experience and we all know from the Commissions industry presentations that Corporate Governance is a key regulatory theme that will be assessed on their regulatory visits to licensees, to assess the risk and reward culture of a business and assist in mitigating these risks successfully. While it has been acknowledged by the Commission that they believe that this is a healthy area, could there be licensees that have put together a good document but the statements made by them do not resemble their Business or their Business’s current prudential business plan or their current regulatory compliance status?

What must be remembered is that any Corporate Governance assessment undertaken by the regulator on a licensee will look at a multitude of documents and reports that make up the core of any Board meeting, such as compliance reports, risk mitigation, internal audit as well as the business plan. These reports must be factual, clear and concise and encompass the whole status of the business in order that the directors can evidence their oversight and rationale for their understanding of the business. Theses documents and reports must all fall into the Corporate Governance assessment by the Board of the Business.

Has the Board questioned the effectiveness of its compliance framework, from the Compliance monitoring programme to the actual board reports it receives? Has the Board allowed the compliance function and other key functions to provide an independent review or are these key functions in fear of upsetting the Board and reporting only what they deem the Board should know or focus on? The importance of independent, full and factual reporting by these key functions is of the up most importance. It is vitally important that those of us who undertake these key roles provide effective reporting on all areas of the Business so that the Board can discharge their obligations successfully. We must not be in fear of providing reports that show areas that require action or gaps as by doing so we only assist the Board in becoming ineffective.

I have been privileged to have worked for and with Boards who have proactively sought to allow their key functions to independently report to them allowing the Board to successfully document and encompass their key functions in to their Corporate Governance framework. This has assisted the Business in the formulation of strategy, goals and effective work practices. For those licensees who I have assisted in remedial work in this area, though it has been hard to start off with the end result has been commented on by these Boards as being beneficial to their Business, optimising understanding and discussion on current and future business opportunities, obligations and assisting in evidencing of why certain opportunities were not followed up.

In my experience the failings in a Business’s Corporate Governance framework are down to opaque and ineffective reporting by the Business’s key functions leading to the blind following the blind. Where ineffective compliance reporting or monitoring has been identified during a regulatory visit the Board are often criticised and this is generally reported by the Commission as a failure in Corporate Governance. While the business of the Business is vital the understanding of the Board as to its current regulatory compliance is as important and cannot be underestimated. If the Board are aware of issues that require to be enhanced or remediated it can deal with them, most of the time hand in hand with fulfilling its business objectives, but to be effective the Board must have the oversight by effective reporting.

The culture of Corporate Governance must not be seen as a tick box exercise or as a regulatory obligation that serves no practical use to a business. I would advocate that a good culture need not be expensive in time or cost but rather a tool to optimise the Business for all stakeholders. As stakeholders move from being passive the need to document and show your culture of Corporate Governance becomes more of a focal point in the overall success of your Business and its cost effectiveness, and in the next few blogs I will go more in to detail on this. An effective Corporate Governance framework adds to safeguarding a business by requiring effective reporting from the key functions allowing for the dynamism and entrepreneurial spirit that has become part of our industry to be exercised by the Board in the continual development of its products and services.

Introducing the Intermediary

There are many tools in Guernsey’s Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting Terrorist Financing framework (“AML/CTF”) that can be used to allow customers to access the financial services and products as efficiently and effectively as possible. One of the most interesting and often wrongly utilised of these tools is the intermediary route and I would like to try to de-mystify this tool for you.

An Intermediary is a Financial Service Business (“FSB”) who enters in to a business relationship with you on behalf of its client or clients. The FSB must meet the provisions as stipulated in The Handbook for Financial Services Business on Countering Financial Crime and Terrorist Financing (“the Handbook”) at chapter 6. For example the FSB must be either an Appendix C business or a wholly owned subsidiary vehicle of an Appendix C Business, a wholly owned pension trustee subsidiary vehicle of an Appendix C Business and Lawyers or Estate Agents operating in Guernsey for the purposes of purchasing Guernsey real estate, though the funds must have been received by a bank operating in an Appendix C jurisdiction or Guernsey Bank.

Not all FSB’s who are Appendix C businesses can be an Intermediary and it relates to the products and services that are sought and the type of FSB who requires these products and services, these are listed in the Handbook and chapter 6. It must be stressed for Fiduciaries that they can only be Intermediaries if they are licensed under the Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc. (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000.

Where you have deemed that the FSB meets the requirements of the Handbook and is an Intermediary you can obtain reduced Customer Due Diligence. The Intermediary must confirm to you in writing that it has appropriate risk grading processes to differentiate between high and low risk clients, that it has effective policies and procedure to identify and verify Politically Exposed Person’s and obtain enhanced due diligence. The Intermediary must provide you with sufficient rationale in order that you can understand the purpose and the nature of the proposed business relationship and most importantly that Intermediary will only operate the account. You must assess that the Intermediary can undertake these obligations and requirements throughout the course of the business relationship.

When assessing an intermediary relationship I believe the key is who is authorised to provide you with instructions. If it is the underlying customer or customers who can provide you with instructions you have an introducer relationship and not an intermediary relationship. Where this is the case you must cease to treat the intermediary as such and obtain the required due diligence on the underlying customer or customers.

The current framework in Guernsey does not allow for Prescribed Businesses such as Guernsey Advocates to utilise the intermediary route, is this right? Advocates when conducting or preparing for transactions generally do so for other Appendix C Law firms, who must comply with international standards in AML/CTF. The Guernsey Advocates are generally acting on instructions from an Appendix C Law firm in preparing for transactions that are occurring outside Guernsey but involve Guernsey legal bodies, such as the issue of shares for a Guernsey entity listed on the AIM market or the purchase of a property held in a Guernsey legal body. The Appendix C law firm’s customer may not even be aware that a Guernsey Advocate firm is or has been engaged to assist or prepare for the transaction. I would contend that there is an argument that this route be opened up for Advocates to allow for the efficient and cost-effective provision of legal services to the international community and assist with promoting Guernsey as a destination for business and also for the use of Guernsey legal bodies.

Introducer Certificates the Pro’s and Con’s

Does anyone else find it so frustrating to constantly provide client due diligence when accessing financial services products or even when accessing legal services?  Is this constant due diligence treadmill stopping us and potentially our clients from accessing products and services?  I personally feel that this is unfortunately the case and in some cases I am aware that this has caused clients to utilise other jurisdictions or miss out on investment or business opportunities.  I believe that there is a solution to this which could add to the attraction of Guernsey as a place to do business as well as allowing clients greater access to the products and services that can be offered.

The current solution is that the regulated or registered business can if the introducer meets the requirements of an Appendix C business, utilise the introducer regime as stipulated by the Guernsey Financial Services Commissions (GFSC).  This allows the registered or regulated business to rely on a certificate confirming identity while promising that the due diligence they hold and maintain meets the Guernsey requirements and will be provided when requested from the regulated or registered business.  The regulated or registered business then has to test the introducer throughout the life of the business relationship, to ensure that the introducer can meet the obligations of the introducer certificate and that the due diligence does meets the Guernsey standards. The unfortunate downfall of this system is that sometimes an introducer won’t adhere to the obligations of the introducer certificate or requirements of the rules governing due diligence in Guernsey leaving the regulated or registered business with quite a headache, and remedial work to undertake.

Where an introducer provides clients to regulated or registered business by the use of introducer certificate, for example an IFA providing 300 clients to invest in various Funds at a Guernsey Fund provider, the introducer can become disillusioned with Guernsey and the regulated or registered business when year on year they receive requests to provide the copies of due diligence for a selection of these clients introduced by them.  This is a burdensome process for the introducer, taking them away from their business, only to provide documentation for which they can not necessarily recover the cost from their client.  Unfortunately some will not want to or be willing to keep their obligations, leading to problems for the regulated or registered business.  The solution to this problem is to undertake a 100% testing programme where copies are provided to the receiving regulated or registered business with the introducer form.  There is only the need to periodically on a risk based approach go back to the introducer to confirm that the clients details have not changed during the life of the business relationship, such as the address, and if the details have changed that the copies of the updated due diligence are provided.  Undertaking this approach allows the regulated or registered business potentially less risk as the due diligence will already have been assessed and deemed suitable at the start of the business relationship and less risk of the introducer not subsequently meeting or adhering to their obligations by not providing the required due diligence. This allows for beneficial relationships to develop between the regulated or registered business and the enhancement of Guernsey as a place to do business.

Where clients have a business relationship with a regulated or registered business that is over a period of years, rather than a one off legal transaction where the business relationship is only for a matter of days or weeks.  If the introducer sells these clients during the course of the business relationship to another provider or is taken over, new introducer certificates will have to be obtained by the registered or regulated business or the clients will need to provide due diligence in order that the rules of the GFSC can be met.  Therefore I would always recommend for these longer term business relationships that due diligence is obtained rather than relying on the introducer certificate.

The rules issued by the GFSC state that clients who are introduced cannot then be introduced again by the regulated or registered business e.g. no introducer chains.  This can lead to the issues of a regulated or registered business unknowingly becoming involved in an introducer chain and having then to obtain the client due diligence, which can have an adverse effect on the business relationship with the client and the relationship with the introducer.  This also has the potential for higher cost to the client or loss of earnings by not being able to access an investment product to take advantage of price and in the worst case scenario the client may miss the investment opportunity altogether.

But what if Guernsey could offer a due diligence depository overseen by a regulating authority subject to stringent audits? Just think if clients provided their due diligence to this depository who then ensured that it met the regulatory standards, could this avoid altogether the need to obtain copies of due diligence or have a testing programme?  This depository could then provide registered or regulated businesses with an introducer certificate which would be more reliable and there would be less potential of unknowingly becoming part of an introducer chain or finding out the introducer was unable to meet its obligations. Could this reduce compliance cost to a regulated business and make Guernsey more competitive, the Jurisdiction of choice? Clients would be able to access products and services offered by other regulated or registered business with ease and certainty without suffering from the due diligence treadmill. Why stop at just offering this service to local registered and regulated businesses why not take an international approach and service other jurisdictions.  This could then lead to an enhancing of our economy while diversifying it at the same time.  We have all the right ingredients in Guernsey to undertake this opportunity we just need the political want to do this. But until my utopia happens please think carefully about the use of introducer certificates, sometimes it is actually easier and more beneficial for a registered or regulated business to get original due diligence and can save time money and cost in man hours to undertake the monitoring and any remedial work.