Of course all regulatory systems work in Jersey. As the Jersey Evening Post noted last week:
AN Iranian bank with links to terrorist organisations has been funnelling funds through a Jersey company, in violation of international sanctions, according to allegations made by the US Department of the Treasury.
Assa Ltd, which is registered at 6 Britannia Place, was named in a US Treasury press statement issued this week. The statement says that the Jersey company is the parent organisation of Assa Corp, a shell company created and controlled by Iranian government-owned Bank Melli.
Assa Ltd, which was set up in Jersey in 1989, is registered at the offices of St George Financial Services, a trust company acquired by Gibraltar-based STM Group earlier this year. The New York entity, Assa Corp, is co-owner of a 36-storey skyscraper in Fifth Avenue. The US Treasury says that the rental income from the office building has been 'repeatedly transferred' to Bank Melli through Assa in Jersey.
No problem with compliance there then.
But you can be sure no local Jersey law was broken: they no doubt just let 'my eyes glaze over' when it came to the regulatory abuse of another state, as is usual.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard I have no problem with you pointing out the link with an Iranian bank but shouldn’t there also be criticism of the USA for allowing a country they class as part of the axis of evil to own a building in the US in the first place?
What’s your feelings on that situation?
Andrew
1) Yes, of course, you’re right: the US is also at fault here. I’m happy to agree.
2) The US may also be wrong in saying Assa is a cause of any risk
3) Neither is my point: the point is that whatever the system and its rights or wrongs it appears to have failed here. If Jersey’s only claim is that it applies the system, right or wrong, and that appears to be what it does say, then this indicates a failure. That was my point.
Richard
Not a compliance guru, but my guess is the Guersey financial provider was relying on an intermidiary letter from a US service provider as that is where the funds were coming from.
At some point you have to rely on other providers in Schedule 3 countries like the US, of course they rejected retrospective DD, while most OFC’s accepted, so maybe it is time to relegate the US off the Schedule 3 listing, until they improve their compliance.