I think there are those who think I have been churlish for not congratulating Jersey for getting the equal best IMF / FATF compliance score, ever.
Well, I don’t and won’t agree.
Of course I’m pleased Jersey has better rather than worse compliance. That has to be good.
BUT and that’s in caps because it is a big but, what does all this prove?
Jersey does not require accounts on public record.
Jersey does not have a register of trusts — and has massively abusive tax law.
Jersey has very few Tax Information Exchange Agreements. Tiny amounts of information is exchanged.
No beneficial ownership data is made available.
So what does FATF compliance really mean? I’ll summarise it like this: Jersey knows who commits the crime, but that does not mean it does anything at all to stop the crime.
That’s what I mean when this system does not work. And I say that because it does not work. Period. Data is only useful if used. Nothing in this process lets those who need this data use it. So it fails.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard,
Can you tell me one jurisdiction in the world that has a register of trusts? It would be impossible, because a trust is not a legal entity and a Jersey trust only means a trust governed by Jersey law. Lots of people choose to have English law governed contracts, yet there is no register of contracts. Does that not mean that contracts are abusive and England unduly secretive?
Beneficial ownership details: again, name one jurisdiction in the world that releases this information? The plain fact is that if anybody wants to establish a company anywhere in the world, the identity of the ubo will not be a matter of public record. The authorities may be required to know it (in a few jurisdictions). The professionals who establish the companies may be required to know that info and release it on demand to the authorities (in others). In some jurisdictions (most obviously, Delaware) the whole thing is a shambles and ripe for abuse. But the plain fact is that if anybody wants to own a company anywhere in the world and wants the ownership to be confidential, they can hold through nominees.
Accounts on public record? That is a requirement for public companies. However, unlike the UK, almost all of the Jersey companies you complain of are investment companies. They are not a counterparty risk as they don’t have trade creditors. So there is no reason for the accounts to be made public.
This is all important. The reason why I visit your blog is partly self-improvement and partly because there are aspects of what you believe in (the need to reduce inequalities within societies, the green new deal, how rubbish it is that money seems to be the measure of all value these days etc) that I think everyone ought to believe in.
But I think you are wasting a massive amount of effort in an attempt to make small jurisdictions like Jersey to do things that no other jurisdiction in the world does. The OECD looked at Jersey and put it on the white list. The IMF gave it a glowing reference. There are other targets that you could much more profitably be aiming at, and which would be more in keeping with your aspiration at “justice”.
Justice, after all, should be dispensed without bias or favour: and I don’t think you could say that the IMF are anything other than unbiased. You may disagree with their methodology, but even if that is flawed, Jersey came out better than every jurisdiction they have looked at, including the US and the UK. That is surely something that any small jurisdiction should be congratulated on.
The reason it appears churlish is that many of those other factors you mention are not related to AML this list refers but other issues.
It is rather like not congratuling Bolt on getting the world record in the 100m, as he didn’t win the high jump, 1500m or the 400m freestyle.
Refusing to give credit, where credit is credit due, in my opinion adds to the weight of the evidence of your completely bias scew on everything offshore.
For example instead of beating up Jersey for coming top, you could just as well have talked about the fact that the UK came 36th, which is awful, but you gave it not a mention (not even in passing), why?
As for your other points:
Jersey does not have a register of trusts- Please show me a jurisdiction that does?
“Jersey knows who commits the crime, but that does not mean it does anything at all to stop the crime.”
Actually it assists in stopping criminals using Jersey to launder money, so assisting in the prevention of Criminals cleaning their money. If the UK and other countries did the same it would go a long way to stopping criminals from being able to effectively use the proceeds of crime and prevent more crime
It also means that any suspected money lauderers are reported and that information acting on and the relevant authorites informed.
So it does have everything to do with stopping crime.
Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes tightly and keep repeating “offshore folks are bad people, offshore folks are bad people” if might just catch on.
John
I guess you think that comment is funny
The reality is those who support offshore finance – and fail to tackle the same issue onshore – caused death, poverty and facilitate crime, corruption, undermining of the state and destruction of the rule of law
You can participate in those abuses if you so wish – I explicitly say that your comment indicates you support those who do and as such do so yourself and I consider that a crime against humanity – but some of us stand up for legality, humanity, the respect for all people and the democratic state. I’m proud to do so.
If you do not hang your head in shame you plead your own guilt
Richard
Richard, just admit it, you hate Jersey.
Its success in offshore finance was never predicted by the TJN and now its in you face and you just cannot stand it!
What a petty little man you are Richard.
In the face of massive evidence you continue to assert your prejudices against the Island Of Jersey.You must feel humiliated by the conclusions of the IMF and their placing of Jersey at the very top of their “White List” .
You need perhaps to adjust your tilting mechanisms and find a new windmill to charge.Everyone is out of step except you?