“Jersey at risk from IMF and Moneyval over lack of money-laundering prosecutions”

Thursday 28 April 2016

One of Jersey's top law firms says that the Island is at risk of criticism from international finance regulators over the recent lack of money-laundering cases going to court – and say that private prosecutions might be the answer.

An article by Baker and Partners says that it’s time to consider whether private prosecutions for money-laundering and fraud cases should be allowed in Jersey's courts.

Jersey's Attorney General has rejected the criticism, outlining a series of recent cases and highlighting convictions, prison terms and confiscation orders that have been handed down by the courts since 2010 in financial crime cases.

The article by Baker and Partners - which is not attributed to a particular lawyer at the firm - says that there is nothing in law to say that only the Attorney General should be able to prosecute serious crime – and that in the UK, private prosecutions are on the rise, because of cutbacks to budgets.

It say that a decade ago, the Island gained a significant reputation for taking on financial crime cases that involved many millions of pounds.

But it adds: “Yet for the past decade or so in Jersey there has been relatively little action taken in relation to complex financial crime and money laundering.

“The authoritative international bodies which monitor and evaluate country performance – IMF, Moneyval, FATF are examples – are fully aware of this and are frankly critical.

“There will inevitably be consequences to the detriment of the Island.”

In 2014 it was reported that an increasing number of private prosecutions were being brought to court, for anything from sex attacks and violent assaults to multi-million pound frauds. UK law offers anyone the right to mount a private prosecution – but no official figures are kept on the numbers.

Here in Jersey, Baker and Partners say that it’s time to consider whether the option for private prosecutions exists, and if it does not, whether any barriers should be removed.

Their article – which you can read in full here – concludes: “In Jersey it has traditionally been the province of the Attorney General to prosecute serious crime. It is yet to be demonstrated that he has a monopoly on that function, or that if he does it is justified or immune from change in times when the function is impaired by financial or other constraints.”