Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

The Proceeds of Crime (Substitution of Schedule 2) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (the “Regulations”) amend Schedule 2 so that it defines the sectors to which measures will apply in a way that is consistent with the UK’s implementation of the Third Money Laundering Directive. This is because it will be important for the Island to be able to demonstrate to the European Commission and to Member States of the EU that Jersey has applied measures that are equivalent to those set out in the Directive – in order to facilitate the continued access of Jersey businesses to EU markets.

The Regulations will apply for the first time to: certain activities of independent legal professionals; accountants, auditors, tax advisors, and providers of insolvency services; estate agents; and dealers in high value goods. The Regulations will not extend to casinos (including internet casinos) – since such activities are not permitted in Jersey and the Jersey Financial Services Commission is not aware of any Jersey companies conducting such activities outside Jersey. However, in line with the FATF Recommendations, Schedule 2 will be extended at a later date to cover such activities.

In line with the FATF Recommendations, Schedule 2 will no longer cover general insurance business, proprietary trading in instruments and securities, or the activity of providing credit references.

Schedule 2 has also been revised so as to exclude from its application a limited number of “low-risk” persons. These are persons that are conducting deposit-taking business, insurance business, or financial service business, which are covered by exemptions or exclusions under applicable regulatory legislation – where it is clear that there is little risk of money laundering activity occurring.

The measures that are to be applied to the additional sectors will be established through the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 1999. An adequate period of time will be allowed in order to allow businesses to introduce such measures as will be necessary to comply with the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 1999.

The Island’s framework to counter money laundering and terrorist financing is to be the subject of a review by the International Monetary Fund in 2008.


See document Lodged au Greffe on 24th September 2007 by the Minister for Treasury and Resources

The Minister agreed to lodge the draft Proceeds of Crime (Substitution of Schedule 2) (Jersey) Regulations 200- and instructed officers to make the necessary arrangements :

- To address the risk - identified internationally - that additional sectors are vulnerable to use in money laundering and terrorist financing.

- To implement international standards in Jersey - in preparation for the IMF assessment in 2008.

- To implement standards in a way that is consistent with the EU - in order to facilitate continued access of Jersey businesses to EU markets.

- To remove a number of business activities from the scope of Schedule 2 – on the basis that there is a low risk of money laundering.

See full report

Transparency International published their new Corruption Perceptions Index a couple of days ago.
As Richard Murphy observes, 50% of the top 10% of the cleanest countries in the world are tax havens so are over 50% of the next decile of which serious offshore players providing conduit facilities that without doubt help the flow of funds out of the developing countries of the world.

Richard Murphy observes a weakness of the index : itmeasures the corruption of politicians and public officials, but not the private sector.

Another weakness of this index is that it is based on the "perception" of coruption, which is a feeling.

The point is how individuals that have no feeling of guiltiness may be aware of what corruption is. For example when bankers is Luxembourg dare do write that "offences such as forgery, use of forgery, false balance sheets, use of false balance sheets or unauthorised use of corporate property should not be included [in the law]. These are offences with financial connotations which are confused with laundering for the sole purpose of applying exceptional powers to these vague offences” (Source: ABBL, Annual Report 2003, p. 21), how can they be aware of what corruption is if they are not clear enough with these penal offences ?

Read Richard Murphy's analysis

Download the Index